No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
According to Nicholas Tyacke, the doctrine of predestination worked as a “common and ameliorating bond” between conformists and nonconformists in the late Elizabethan and Jacobean Church of England. Anglicans and Puritans both accepted Calvin's teachings on predestination as a “crucial common assumption.” Puritans were stigmatized either because of their refusal to conform to the church's rites and ceremonies or because of their rejection of the church's episcopal government, but their agreement with the episcopacy on predestinarian Calvinism imposed “important limits” on the extent of persecution. The Synod of Dort, a Dutch conference held in 1619 which included several English representatives, repudiated Arminianism and affirmed the Calvinist view of salvation, Tyacke calls “an event which has never received the emphasis it deserves from students of English religious history,” because the Synod “served to emphasize afresh the theology binding conformist and nonconformist together, and the limits which that common bond imposed on persecution.” The rise of Arminianism broke this common bond and contributed to the causes of the Civil War. To the Arminians, Puritans were those who opposed the new religious policies of King Charles I and archbishop William Laud. The Arminians' elimination of Calvinist influence in the church and at court, along with intensified persecution of Puritans, “generated a Puritan militancy” that erupted in 1640. By that date, Tyacke concludes, predestinarian Calvinism had been “transformed with relative ease into a call for ‘root and branch’ remedies”; at the same time, presbyterianism emerged as “the cure of Arminian disease.”
1 Tyacke, Nicholas R. N., “Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-Revolution,” in Russell, Conrad, ed., Origins of the English Civil War, (New York, 1973), pp. 119–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Though the actual presence of an “Arminian party” in England has recently been questioned by historians, the term Arminianism will be used throughout this essay according to Tyacke's definition: The “rejection of the arbitrary grace of predestination with a new found source of grace freely available in the sacraments” (p. 130). Calvinism will refer to the belief in irresistible predestination of the elect to salvation. On the basic tenets of the soteriology of Arminianism and Calvinism, see Arminius, James, The Writings of James Arminius, 3 vols., trans. Nichols, James and Bagnall, W. R. (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1959), 1:193–275Google Scholar; and Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., ed. McNeill, John T., trans. Battles, Ford Lewis (Philadelphia, 1970), 2:920–86Google Scholar. Puritanism will be used according to Anthony Fletcher's definition as “the godly tradition which emphasized preaching, market day lectures and Sabbatarianism,” without “irreconcilable oppositionism, presbyterianism or sectarianism”; Fletcher, Anthony, “National and Local Awareness in the County Communities,” in Tomlinson, Howard, ed., Before the English Civil Wir: Essays in Early Stuart Politics and Government (New York, 1984), p. 164Google Scholar.
2 The strongest challenge to this contention comes from Peter White, who argues that it was the Thirty-nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer, rather than predestinarian Calvinism, that worked as “the ‘common ameliorating bond’ which united older bishops like Buckeridge and Andrewes with new ones like Davenant and Carleton.” White, Peter, “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” Past and Present 101 (November 1983):45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Collinson, Patrick, The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society, 1559-1625 (Oxford, 1982), pp. 1–38Google Scholar.
4 Biographical information on these bishops, including notes on their basic theological principles, can be found in the DNB.
5 Tyacke, , “Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-Revolution,” p. 137Google Scholar.
6 Collinson, , Religion of Protestants, p. 19Google Scholar.
7 Ibid., p. 21.
8 Haller, William, The Rise of Puritanism (New York, 1938), p. 83Google Scholar.
9 Tyacke, , “Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-Revolution,” p. 120Google Scholar.
10 Perkins, William, A Golden Chain (London, 1591)Google Scholar; Haller, , Rise of Puritanism, p. 83Google Scholar.
11 Carleton, George, An Examination of Those Things Wherein the Author of the late Appeal holdeth the Doctrines of the Pelagians and Arminians, to be the Doctrine of the Church of England (London, 1626), p. 78Google Scholar; spelling and punctuation have been modernized; Collinson, Patrick, “The Jacobean Religious Settlement: The Hampton Court Conference,” in Tomlinson, , Before the English Civil War, p. 29Google Scholar.
12 White, , “Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” pp. 37–38Google Scholar; see also Curtis, Mark H., “The Hampton Court Conference and its Aftermath,” History 46 (February 1961): 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Collinson, , “Jacobean Religious Settlement,” pp. 27–51Google Scholar. The distinction between Calvinist and Arminian positions on predestination lay in its interpretation, not in its position as church doctrine. Predestination in itself was considered Christian doctrine (see, for example, Rom. 8:29-30). The Calvinist interpretation included irresistible and unconditional election, which implied (in the Lambeth Articles, stated) the reprobation of the non-elect to condemnation. Arminians refused to accept this interpretation. Christ's death, they held, was for all men, but man could refuse God's grace. The elect, to the Arminians, were those who had accepted the gift of Salvation. As John, F. H. New explains, “The difference between the Lambeth Articles and [Lancelot\ Andrewes' judgment upon them was that the former asserted that the elect would become believers, and the latter that all those who believed were the true elect.” (Anglican and Puritan: The Basis of Their Opposition, 1558-1640 [Stanford, 1964\, p. 12–14)Google Scholar.
13 White, , “Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” p. 38Google Scholar.
14 Ibid., p. 35. Several historians have noted the Jacobean church's consensual nature and desire for unity. Conrad Russell credits James for the feet that “he came to the last year of his reign being served with equal loyalty by an Archbishop of Canterbury (Abbot) who was as nearly a Puritan as most of the House of Commons, and by a Secretary of State (Sir George Calvert) who was a crypto-Catholic. King James did not allow himself to preside over an ideologically polarized country” (Parliaments and English Politics, 1620-1629 [Oxford, 1979\, p. 9Google Scholar). Collinson remarks that Jacobean churchman “chose to emphasize what all protestants held in common and deplored divisive debates about the matter of predestination” (Religion of Protestants, p. 19).
15 See Lake, Arthur, Sermons with some meditations (London, 1629)Google Scholar; and Abbot, George, A Treatise of the Perpetual Visibility and Succession of the True Church in all ages (London, 1624)Google Scholar.
16 Abbot, George, The Copy of a letter, showing reasons Which Induced the King's Majesty to Prescribe Directions for Preachers (Oxford, 1622), p. 2Google Scholar.
17 Ibid., pp. 1, 5. Abbot's support for the King's Directions seems consistent with his treatment of William Ames. While Bishop of London, Abbot refused to grant Ames a license to preach, and concurrent with the issuance of the Directions Abbot was trying to silence Ames' activities in Holland. Ames, Abbot thought, was “a fit Person to breed up the Captains and Soldiers there in Mutiny and Faction”; Sprunger, Keith L., The Learned Doctor William Ames: Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism (Urbana, Ill., 1972), pp. 25, 32–33Google Scholar.
18 “Quia ex nulla speculativa cognitione tantu finis noster statuitur, et operationes diriguntur.” My thanks to Laura Kobett for her aid in translating.
19 Carleton, , Examination…, pp. 2–3Google Scholar.
20 Peter Lake finds the Elizabethan bishop Matthew Hutton with this same vision and desire for “the need for a united protestant front against Popery” (“Matthew Hutton—A Puritan Bishop?” History 64 [June 1979\: 182–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar).
21 Carleton, George, Directions to Know the True Church (London, 1615), p. 2Google Scholar; Abbot, George, Treatise of the Perpetual Visibility…, pp. 1–2Google Scholar; Morton, Thomas, The Grand Imposture of the (now) Church of Rome (2nd ed., London, 1628), p. 342Google Scholar. See also Haller, William, The Elect Nation (New York, 1963), pp. 140–86Google Scholar.
22 Abbot, Treatise of the Perpetual Visibility …, passim; Morton, , Grand Imposture…, p. 417Google Scholar; Carleton, , Directions to Know the True Church, pp. 32-33, 72–73Google Scholar.
23 Morton, Thomas, A Catholic Appeal for Protestants (London, 1609), pp. 444–45Google Scholar.
24 Carleton, , Directions to Know the True Church, pp. 14–16Google Scholar.
25 Ibid., preface; Morton, , Grand Imposture…, pp. 330, 371–72Google Scholar; see also Collinson, , Religion of Protestants, p. xGoogle Scholar.
26 Abbot, , Treatise of the Perpetual Visibility…, pp. 47–49Google Scholar.
27 Hall, Joseph, Pharisaism and Christianity (London, 1608), p. 9Google Scholar.
28 Suffragium collegiate de quinque controversis Remonstratum (London, 1619)Google Scholar; Parr, Richard, The Life of the Most Reverend Father in God, James Usher, Late Archbishop of Armagh, Primate and Metropolitan of all Ireland (London, 1686), pp. 50–51Google Scholar; see also Wallace, Dewey, Puritans and Predestination: Grace in English Protestant Theology, 1525-1695 (Chapel Hill, 1982), pp. 95–111Google Scholar.
29 Cosin, John, “The Sum and Substance of the Conferences lately had at York-House concerning Mr. Mountague's Books,” in The Works of the Right Reverend Father in God John Cosin, Lord Bishop of Durham (Oxford, 1845), pp. 17–82Google Scholar; Tyacke, , “Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-Revolution,” pp. 132–33Google Scholar. White suggests that Morton's opposition was not based on predestination, but rather on “wild charges—including treason,” and that Morton accused Montagu of “opening a great gap for popery to be let in” (“Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” p. 49).
30 Tyacke, , “Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-Revolution,” p. 133Google Scholar.
31 DNB, 5:1300-1301.
32 Wallace, , Puritans and Predestination, p. 103Google Scholar; DNB, 5:551.
33 Clifton, Robin, “Fear of Popery,” in Russell, , Origins of the English Civil War, pp. 144–67Google Scholar; Collinson, , Religion of Protestants, p. ixGoogle Scholar; Russell, , Parliaments and English Politics, pp. 120-21, 228–34Google Scholar; Tomlinson, , Before the English Civil War, pp. 2–3Google Scholar.
34 Morton, , Grand Imposture…, pp. 370-71, 389Google Scholar.
35 Lamont, William M., Godly Rule: Politics and Religion, 1603-1660 (London, 1969), p. 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; White, , “Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” p. 53Google Scholar; for Laud's correspondence, see Bliss, John, ed., The Works of the Most Reverend Father in God, William Laud, D.D., Sometime Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, vols. 6 and 7 (Oxford, 1847–1860)Google Scholar. An exception to the relatively cordial relationship between Calvinist bishops and Laud would be John Williams, whom Charles accused or revealing royal secrets.
36 White, , “Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” pp. 44–45Google Scholar.
37 Carleton, George, Jurisdiction, Regall, Episcopal, Papall (London, 1610)Google Scholar; Lamont, , Godly Rule, p. 36Google Scholar.
38 On the acceptance of the principle of divine right episcopacy by both Calvinist and Arminian bishops, see Collinson, , Religion of Protestants, pp. 79–91Google Scholar; and Lamont, , Godly Rule, pp. 36-41, 56–73Google Scholar.
39 Schwartz, Hillel, “Arminianism and the English Parliament, 1624-1629,” Journal of British Studies 12 (May 1973):47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
40 Montagu, Richard, Appello Caesarem: A Just Appeal from Two Unjust Informers (London, 1625), pp. 9-12, 107-108, 117-18, 160-61, 179Google Scholar.
41 Lamont, , Godly Rule, p. 66Google Scholar.
42 Schwartz, , “Arminianism and the English Parliament,” p. 47Google Scholar.
43 See William Bedell to Samuel Ward, January 29, 1628; February 8, 1628; March 24, 1628; and May 6, 1628. Bodleian Library, MS Tanner.
44 See, for example, Ussher, James, Gotteschaldi, et praedestinatianae controversiae ab eo motae historia (Dublin, 1628)Google Scholar; and Williams, John, Perseverantia Sanctorum (London, 1628)Google Scholar; Wallace, , Puritans and Predestination, pp. 96–97Google Scholar.
45 Collinson, , Religion of Protestants, pp. 44-45, 51, 61–70Google Scholar.
46 Laud, , Works, 6:313–16Google Scholar.
47 Kalu, Ogbu U., “Bishops and Puritans in Early Jacobean England: A Perspective on Methodology,” Church History 45 (December 1976):480CrossRefGoogle Scholar; although the example cited probably refers to disciplinary actions, it sustains the point that a bishop could tolerate violations of church policy to permit the continuance of activities, including the teaching of predestinarian Calvinism, that he personally approved. See also Tyacke, , “Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-Revolution,” p. 139Google Scholar; Collinson, , Religion of Protestants, pp. 79–91Google Scholar; Marchant, Ronald A., The Puritans and the Church Courts in the Diocese of York, 1560-1642 (London, 1960), pp. 52–106Google Scholar; and Seaver, Paul, The Puritan Lectureships: The Politics of Religious Dissent, 1560-1662 (Stanford, 1970), p. 235Google Scholar.
48 DNB, 5:551; Wallace, , Puritans and Predestination, p. 103Google Scholar.
49 White, , “Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” p. 50Google Scholar.
50 Hall, Joseph, The Old Religion: A Treatise Wherein is laid down the true state of the difference betwixt the Reformed and Roman Church; and the blame of this schism is cast upon the true Authors (London, 1629)Google Scholar, “The Epistle Dedicatory.”
51 Tyacke, , “Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-Revolution,” pp. 134–35Google Scholar; Russell, , Parliaments and English Politics, esp. pp. 26–32Google Scholar.
52 Schwartz, , “Arminianism and the English Parliament,” p. 67Google Scholar.
53 Ibid.; White, , “Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” p. 52Google Scholar.
54 Quoted in Collinson, , Religion of Protestants, p. 283Google Scholar.
55 Lake, Peter, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Perkins, William, A Reformed Catholic (Cambridge, 1598), p. 332Google Scholar.
56 Collinson, , Religion of Protestants, pp. 249–56Google Scholar.
57 Hill, Christopher, Puritanism and Revolution (London, 1958), p. 216Google Scholar; Tyacke, , “Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-Revolution,” p. 123Google Scholar; Lake, , Moderate Puritans, pp. 97–99Google Scholar; Haller, , Rise of Puritanism, pp. 87-88, 92Google Scholar; Morgan, Irvonwy, Prince Charles' Puritan Chaplain (London, 1957), pp. 34–40Google Scholar; Downame, John, The Christian Warfare (4th ed., London, 1634), pp. 97–139Google Scholar; Prynne, William, The Church of England's Old Antithesis to New Arminianism (London, 1629)Google Scholar; Lamont, William M., Marginal Prynne, 1600-1669 (London, 1963), pp. 4, 164Google Scholar. See also Rogers, John, The Doctrine of Faith (London, 1626)Google Scholar.
58 Lake, , Moderate Puritans, p. 106Google Scholar.
59 Prynne, Old Antithesis, “To the Christian Reader.” When discussing “Orthodox” Christian writings, Prynne listed, along with Calvin, Beza, and Zanchius, “the unparalleled Writings of our own Martyr, Bucer, Tyndall, Jewell, Fox, Whitaker, Fulke, Babington, Reinolds, Perkins, Willot, Abbot, Field, Bilson, Morton, Carleton, Usher, Prideaux, Benefield, Ames, and the like.” See also McGee, J. Sears, The Godly Man in Stuart England (New Haven, 1976), pp. 173–208Google Scholar.
60 Perkins, , Reformed Catholic, pp. 118-19, 331–32Google Scholar.
61 Ibid.
62 Marchant, , Puritans and the Church Courts, p. 130Google Scholar.
63 Prynne, Old Antithesis, “To the Christian Reader.” See also Collinson, , Religion of Protestants, p. 283Google Scholar.