Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:41:58.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lay Anglicanism and the Crisis of the English Church in the Early Seventeenth Century*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Marc L. Schwarz
Get access

Extract

One striking feature of the debates in the early stages of the Long Parliament was the universality with which the policies of the Caroline bishops were condemned. There is no more vivid evidence of how widespread lay disaffection from the episcopal bench had become by 1640 than the breadth of criticism leveled against it from all sides of the Commons. The new model Anglicanism erected by archbishop Laud and his supporters was shown to be a jerry built facade, a cadre of generals without battalions, a clerical elite without a lay following.

Among those who most forcefully challenged the policies of the prelates was Lucius Cary, Viscount Falkland, scholar, author, and host of the Tew circle, that discussion group of liberal laymen and clerics, immortalized by Clarendon, which met at Falkland's country seat in Oxfordshire during the 1630s.1 His views were particularly important, first because he was widely respected for his integrity and seriousness of purpose. As C.V. Wedgwood points out, for example, “Falkland was one of those men who carry in their faces and manner the unmistakable marks of extreme conscientiousness. When Falkland spoke, it was not from impulse, but conviction. …” Second, Falkland was known to be latitudinarian in his opinions, thus not affected by dogmatism on the one hand or zealotry on the other. His ideas would consequently be all the more significant, since they represented the results of considered examination rather than the fruits of doctrinaire sentiment.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , Spring 1982 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This is a revised version of a paper delivered to the New England Conference on British Studies at Worcester State College, November 1, 1980.

References

1 For Clarendon's discussion of the Tew Circle and his extensive praise of Falkland as a man and scholar, see his portraits in SirHyde, Edward, Earl of Clarendon, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, ed. Macray, W.D., 6 vols. (Oxford, 1888), 3:178–190Google Scholar, and SirHyde, Edward, Earl of Clarendon, The Life of Edward Earl of Clarendon, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1857), 1:35-42, 174–176.Google Scholar

2 Wedgwood, C.V., The King's Peace 1637-1641 (New York, 1956), p. 417.Google Scholar

3 Cary, Lucius, Falkland, Viscount, A Speech Made to the House of Commons Concerning Episcopacy (London, 1641).Google Scholar

4 Ibid., pp. 1-5. For Falkland's defense of historic episcopacy see pp. 8-14. I have discussed Falkland's speech at length because of the intensity and thoroughness of his assault on Lau-dianism can only be discovered by examining it in some depth.

5 Marriott, J., Falkland and His Times (New York, 1907), p. 181.Google Scholar

6 Digby, Lord George, The Third Speech of the Lord George Digby To the House of Commons, Concerning Bishops and the Citie Petition (London, 1640[1])Google Scholar. For Digby's attack on the bishops see pp. 6, 12-14, and for his defense of episcopacy see pp. 15-19.

7 See, for example, Maclear, James, “The Making of the Lay Tradition,” Journal of Religion 33 (April, 1953): 113–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cross, Claire, Church and People 1450-1660, The Triumph of the Laity in the English Church (London, 1976)Google Scholar; Walzer, Michael, The Revolution of the Saints (Cambridge, Mass., 1965)Google Scholar; and Christiansen, Paul, Reformers and Babylon (Toronto, 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This viewpoint also prevails in works of Hill, Christopher such as Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England (New York, 1964)Google Scholar, although he provides a number of insights about a broader lay outlook in his Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution (Oxford, 1965)Google Scholar. Moreover, it should also be noted that Stephen Foster in his recent Notes from the Caroline Underground (Hamden, Connecticut, 1978)Google Scholar, while attempting to minimize the impact of radical lay Puritanism under Charles I, has nothing at all to say about its relationship to other sources of lay dissatisfaction.

8 See, for instance, the criticism of Falkland's position in Gardiner, S.R., A History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 10 vols, (new ed.; London, 1887–1891), 10:33–34Google Scholar. William Lamont makes the incisive point that “The Anglican case, whatever its incidental virtues, had one basic flaw; it was dull” (see Godly Rule [London, 1969], p. 79)Google Scholar. Lamont also provides a most interesting discussion of the making of the moderate Sir Edward Dering and his attempt to justify his moderation (ibid., pp. 83-93).

9 I have attempted to indicate the emergence of a set of preconceptions shared by Protestant laymen of all parties in my article, “Some Thoughts on the Development of the Lay Religious Consciousness in Pre-Civil-War England,” in Cuming, G.J. and Baker, D., eds., Studies in Church History, 8 (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 171–178Google Scholar. At the same time, however, it should be pointed out that Laudianism was not without some lay support. See, for instance, Laud's correspondence with Sir John (later Viscount) Scudamore which may be found in Trevor-Roper, H.R., Archbishop Laud (2nd ed; London, 1965), pp. 437–456Google Scholar. One might also consider the circle at Little Gidding under Nicholas Ferrar as an example of Laudian lay spirituality.

10 Wormald, Brian, Clarendon: Politics, History and Religion, 1640-1660 (rev. ed; Cambridge, 1964), pp. 240–325Google Scholar. Also useful, although it deals primarily with the period before 1640, is Weber, Kurt, Lucius Cary, Second Viscount Falkland (New York, 1940).Google Scholar

11 SirSandys, Edwin, Evropae Specvlvm or a View or Svrvey of the State of Religion in the Westerne Parts of the World (The Hague, 1629)Google Scholar. Written in 1599, this work was first published in 1605, but after three editions in four months was burned by order of the High Commission. The burning of the book was probably due to the fact that James I was incensed at Sandys' role in the opposition during the Parliament of 1604 and may also be connected to the proximity of the Gunpowder Plot. The choice of the 1629 edition published at The Hague, in which the phrase “Evropae Specvlvm” first appears in the title, rests on the fact that it is the first edition to be paginated and includes corrections made by Sandys not found in earlier editions. For an informative account of the complicated history of this tract, see Rabb, Theodore, “The Editions of Sir Edwin Sandys's Relation of the State of Religion,” Huntington Library Quarterly 26 (August, 1963): 323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Sandys, , Evropae Specvlvm, p. 27.Google Scholar

13 Ibid., pp. 28-33.

14 Ibid., pp. 33-34.

15 For the influence of Sandys as well as George Cranmer on Hooker see Sisson, C.J., The Judicious Marriage of Mr. Hooker and the Birth of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 12, 45, 47, 98–106Google Scholar. There is also a fascinating discussion of the differences between Sandys and Lancelot Andrewes over the posthumous publication of Book VI of Hooker's masterpiece.

16 Edward, , Lord Herbert of Cherbury, De Veritate, trans. Carre, Meyrick H. (Bristol, 1937), p. 289.Google Scholar

17 See especially Lyttle, Charles, “Lord Herbert of Cherbury, Apostle of Ethical Theism,” Church History 4 (December, 1935): 247–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Willey, Basil, The Seventeenth Century Background (London, 1934), pp. 119–132Google Scholar, and Wiley, Margaret L., The Subtle Knot (Cambridge, Mass., 1952), pp. 96–98.Google Scholar

18 Wormald, , Clarendon, p. 257.Google Scholar

19 Cary, Lucius, Falkland, Viscount, Sir Lucius Cary, Late Viscount Falkland, His Discourse of Infallibility, with an Answer to It: And his Lordships Reply. Never before published. Together with Mr. Walter Montague's Letter Concerning the Changing his Religion. Answered by My Lord of Falkland (London, 1651), pp. *a3v–*b2vGoogle Scholar (Hereafter cited as Discourse and Reply). See also Wormald, , Clarendon, pp. 251-252 and 257–258.Google Scholar

20 See Letters Between the Ld George Digby and Sir Kenelm Digby Kt Concerning Religion (London, 1651), pp. 2-5 and 24–29Google Scholar. The letters were exchanged between November 2,1638 and March 30, 1639. Lord George's ideas bear a striking similarity to those of Falkland. Although there is no direct connection between Digby and the Tew Circle, his cousin Kenelm was a part of it. In addition, Lord George does refer to Chillingworth's, WilliamReligion of Protestants, a Safe Way to Salvation (Oxford, 1638), on p. 83Google Scholar, and a further reference on p. 85 indicates that the two were acquainted. It is true that during the Long Parliament Lord George gained a reputation for recklessness and duplicity (see, for example, Gardiner, , History of England, 9:276Google Scholar). It is also true that he converted to Catholicism in the 1650s when, as the earl of Bristol, he was in exile in France. These facts must, of course, make his motives suspect, but they do not necessarily negate the sincerity of his opinions in the late 1630s or at the outset of the Long Parliament before political intrigue, civil war, and foreign exile had taken their toll upon him. In any event, his early writings and speeches are informative because they reflect many of the themes of lay Anglican thinking. For a useful study of Digby, see Townsend, Dorothea, George Digby, second Earl of Bristol (London, 1924).Google Scholar

21 For example, see the role of Sandys in suppressing Hooker's discussion in Book VI of the Polity concerning “lay-elders in a historical treatment of the priesthood.” Both he and George Cramner had criticized Hooker's ideas on this point, urged him to be more compromising with the Calvinists and even to discuss the matter with them. In the final analysis, Sandys deleted and destroyed this section of Book VI when arranging its final publication in the early seventeenth century (see Sisson, , Judicious Marriage, pp. 100–106Google Scholar). Lord George Digby denounced Scottish Presbyterianism in 1639, but acknowledged that it was the earliest form of government for the Church. (Letters, 119 [118]-118 [119]). For Lord Herbert of Cherbury's strong views on the Royal Supremacy see his “On the King's Supremacy in the Church” written in 1635 and reprinted in Edward, , Lord Herbert of Cherbury, Lord Herbert of Cherbury's De Religione Laid, ed. Hutcheson, Harold (New Haven, 1944), pp. 183–186.Google Scholar

22 Cragg, Gerald, Freedom and Authority (Philadelphia, 1975), p. 272.Google Scholar

23 See Schwarz, “Thoughts on the Development of a Lay Religious Consciousness.”

24 See SirBrowne, Thomas, Religio Medici, ed. Denonain, Jean-Jacques (2nd ed; Cambridge, 1955)Google Scholar. Browne completed a first draft in 1635 and made further revisions after moving to Norwich in 1636. In 1642 two unauthorized editions appeared and in 1643 “the so-called ‘authorized’ version” was published (for the complex details of the history of Religio Medici, see pp. ix-xi).

25 Sandys, , Evropae Specvlvm, p. 34.Google Scholar

26 Browne, , Religio Medici, pp. 5,8.Google Scholar

27 Falkland, , Discourse and Reply, p. *a3vGoogle Scholar. In the 1651 edition the words “and search for tradition” were deleted from the edition of 1643 (see Weber, , Lucius Cary, pp. 225–226, note. 31Google Scholar).

28 Digby, , Letters, p. 114.Google Scholar

29 Edward, Lord Herbert of Cherbury, The Life and Reign of King Henry the Eighth (London, 1683), p. 321Google Scholar. See also Herbert of Cherbury, De Religione Laid, pp. 53-54, 179–182.Google Scholar

30 Laud, William, The Works of the Most Reverend Father in God, William Laud, D.D. sometime Archbishop of Canterbury, eds. Scott, W. and Bliss, J., 9 vols. (Oxford, 1847–1860), 2:xv.Google Scholar

31 Addison, James T., “Early Anglican Thought 1559-1667,” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 22 (September, 1953): 250-367, 260.Google Scholar

32 Sanderson, Robert, Sermons, 2 vols. (London, 1841), 2:226Google Scholar as quoted in McGee, J. Sears, The Godly Man in Stuart England (New Haven, 1976), pp. 105–106.Google Scholar

33 Sandys, , Evropae Specvlvm, pp. 189–190.Google Scholar

34 Ibid., pp. 195-199.

35 Ibid., pp. 199-215. See also Jordan, W.K., The Development of Religious Toleration in England, 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1932–1940) 1:367–371Google Scholar and Rabb's, Theodore illuminating essay, “A Contribution to the Toleration Controversy of the Sixteenth Century: Sandys's ‘A Relation of the State of Religion,’” in Malho, A. and Tedeschi, J.A., eds., Renaissance Studies in Honor of Hans Baron (DeKalb, III., 1971). pp. 831–847.Google Scholar

36 Browne, , Religio Medici, pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

37 Digby, , Letters, p. 112.Google Scholar

38 Falkland, , Discourse and Reply, p. 235.Google Scholar

39 Ibid., *b4r.

40 Sandys, , Evropae Specvlvm, p. 198.Google Scholar

41 Browne, , Religio Medici, pp. 70-71 and 73–75Google Scholar. Joan Bennett says that Browne's position on predestination was also tempered by the fact that Sir Thomas refused to “go as far as the logic of Calvin or of Jansen might drive him” (Sir Thomas Browne [Cambridge, 1962], p. 96Google ScholarPubMed). Dr.Lamont, (Godly Rule, pp. 130–131)Google Scholar, argues that while Sir Thomas “accepted wholeheartedly the dogma of Predestination … he took the terror from it.” Regarding God as omnipotent, “Browne artfully” sidestepped the problem for man by concluding that “God can be all-powerful; Man can be free.”

42 Herbert of Cherbury, De Veritate, pp. 299–300.Google Scholar

43 Falkland, , Discourse and Reply, p. 126Google Scholar. See also his verse criticism reprinted in Weber, , Lucius Cary, pp. 286–290.Google Scholar

44 Tyacke, Nicholas, “Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-Revolution,” in Russell, Conrad, ed., The Origins of the English Civil War (London, 1973), pp. 119–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Tulloch, John, Rational Theology and Christian Philosophy in England in the Seventeenth Century, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1872), I, 73Google Scholar. See also Jordan, , Religious Toleration in England, 2:349–351.Google Scholar

46 Brandt, Kaspar, The Life of James Arminius, translated from the Latin by Guthrie, John (Nashville, 1857), p. 175.Google Scholar

47 The influence of Grotius and the high regard these laymen had for him can be seen in SirBrowne, Thomas, The Works of Sir Thomas Browne ed. Keynes, Geoffrey, 6 vols. (London, 1928–1931), II, 53Google Scholar; Cary, Lucius, Falkland, Viscount, The Poems of Lucius Cary Viscount Falkland, ed. Grosart, Alexander (privately printed, 1871), p. 72Google Scholar, and Edward, , Lord Herbert of Cherbury, The Autobiography of Edward, Lord Herbert of Cherbury, ed. Lee, Sidney (London, 1886), p. 247 and note.Google Scholar

48 The influence of Erasmus can be illustrated in the case of Falkland. He depended considerably upon Erasmus for his latitudinarian ideas. Not only did his editor call Erasmus “a person much esteemed” by Falkland (Discourse and Reply, dedicatory epistle) but there are also a good number of references to the Dutch humanist in Falkland's writing (See Weber, , Lucius Cary, p. 250Google Scholar.) Socinianism's importance has been stressed by McLachlan, H.J., Socinianism in Seventeenth Century England (Oxford, 1951)Google Scholar. He finds particular evidence of its influence upon Browne and Falkland (ibid., pp. 67-69, 110, 122-124. The work of the tolerant thinker, the Italian, Jacob Acontius is treated in Jordan, , Religious Toleration in England, 1:303–367Google Scholar. For the possible influence of Acontius on Falkland see Weber, , Lucius Cary, pp. 249–250.Google Scholar

49 See Tulloch, , Rational Theology, 1:82Google Scholar, who argues that Falkland imbibed a lifelong dedication to Calvinism and a commitment to moderate episcopacy under Ussher's influence at Trinity College, Dublin. Weber, on the other hand, while contending that Falkland discarded Calvinism by the 1630s, agrees that the impact of Ussher's moderate churchmanship remained strong and was instrumental in shaping his opposition to Laudianism. See Lucius Cary, pp. 34-35.

50 Falkland, , Discourse and Reply, pp. 126, 265Google Scholar. Wormald speaks of the “latent” anti-Laudianism of Falkland's pre-1640 position (Clarendon, p. 260), and I think this is a good illustration of that mood.

51 Digby, , Third Speech, pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

52 Herbert of Cherbury, De Veritate, pp. 294–295.Google Scholar

53 Browne's attitude in this regard should remind us that many of those who were influenced by Arminianism did not reject predestination per se, but like Browne were concerned to mitigate or modify its impact. On this point, see New, John F.H., Anglican and Puritan, The Basis of Their Opposition 1558-1640 (Stanford, 1964), pp. 12–14.Google Scholar

54 In the Parliament of 1625, during a debate over whether the House of Commons could hold the Arminian thinker, Richard Montagu, in contempt for following up his first offensive book A New Gag for an Old Goose (London, 1624)Google Scholar, with a second, Appelle Caesarem (London, 1625)Google Scholar, Sandys was one of those who argued against this step (see Gardiner, , History of England, 5:352Google Scholar and Russell, Conrad, Parliaments and English Politics 1621-1629 (Oxford, 1979), p. 232CrossRefGoogle Scholar). It may be that Sir Edwin's attitude at this stage was based solely upon a procedural or jurisdictional point. On the other hand, Sandys in 1625 was friendly to the court and had himself criticized the Calvinist theological position. Moreover, like Montagu, Sandys had earlier denied that Calvinist orthodoxy reflected the doctrine of the Church of England (see, for example, the striking similarity in sentiment between Evropae Specvlvm, p. 214 and Appelle Caesarem, p. 45). Yet, as I have tried to stress, agreement over doctrine did not mean agreement over church policy as a whole. Significantly, just before the House had taken up the question of Montagu, Sir Edwin had joined with Pym in drawing up a petition which “covered both ways of repressing recusancy, and ways of revitalizing the Church of England,” including steps to improve preaching (Russell, , Parliaments and English Politics, p. 230Google Scholar). Thus, Sandys may be a good example of the phenomenon of “Low Church Arminianism” described by Lamont, (Godly Rule, p. 64).Google Scholar

55 See Falkland's second speech on episcopacy of May, 1641 reprinted in Marriott, , Falkland, pp. 198-204, esp. pp. 203–204Google Scholar. For Digby's concerns about the clericalism of presbyterianism, see Third Speech, pp. 16-18.

56 See Tanner, J.R., English Constitutional Conflicts of the Seventeenth Century 1603-1689 (Cambridge, 1928), pp. 102–103Google Scholar. The Bill may be found in Gardiner, S.R., ed., The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, 1625-1660 (Oxford, 3rd ed., 1906), pp. 167–179Google Scholar. It should not be forgotten that the episcopacy envisioned in this Bill represented a great departure from any established in England since the Reformation.