TheBeautificationofHoliness:EnglishArminianism,1584­1636

JesseMcCarthyJ.SearsMcGee

EarlyModernBritainProseminarJune10th,2013

2

AbbreviationsAllplacesofpublicationLondonunlessotherwisestated.

AnglicansandPuritans? Lake,Peter.AnglicansandPuritans?

PresbyterianismandEnglishconformistthoughtfromWhitgifttoHooker.Boston:UnwinHyman,1998.

Anti­Calvinists NicholasTyacke.Anti­Calvinists:TheRiseof

EnglishArminianism.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1987.

“Avant‐GardeConformity” Laker,Peter.“LancelotAndrewes,John

Buckeridge,andavant‐gardeconformityatthecourtofJamesI.”TheEarlyStuartChurch,1603­1642.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1993.

ChurchHistory Fuller,Thomas.ThechurchhistoryofBritainfrom

thebirthofJesusChristuntiltheyearMDCXLVIII.T.Tegg,1842.

Cosin,Correspodence ThecorrespondenceofJohnCosin,LordBishopof

Durham:togetherwithotherpapersillustrativeofhislifeandtimesI‐II.Durham:Andrewes,1872.

Ferrel Ferrell,LoriAnne.GovernmentbyPolemic:James

I,theking’spreachers,andtherhetoricsofconformity,1603­1625.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1998.

FinchamandLake1985 Lake,PeterandFincham,Kenneth.“The

EcclesiasticalPolicyofKingJamesI,”JournalofBritishStudies24no.2,1985.

FinchamandLake1993 Lake,PeterandFincham,Kenneth.“The

EcclesiasticalPoliciesofJamesIandCharlesI.”TheEarlyStuartChurch,1603­1642.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1993

Hooker,Works TheFolgerLibraryEditionoftheWorksof

RichardHookered.W.SpeedHillCambridge:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,1977.

3

“LaudianStyle” Lake,Peter.“TheLaudianStyle:Order,

UniformityandthePursuitoftheBeautyofHolinessinthe1630s.”TheEarlyStuartChurch,1603­1642.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1993.

McGee McGee,J.Sears.“SirSimondD’Ewes:A

‘respectableconservative’ora‘fieryspirit’?,”England’sWarsofReligionRevisited.Burlington:Ashgate,2011.

Montagu1625 RichardMontagu.AppelloCaesarem:ajust

appealfromtwounjustinformers.1625.ODNB OxfordDictionaryofNationalBiographyTrevor‐Roper Trevor‐Roper.H.R.ArchbishopLaud,1573­1635.

Macmillan,1962.VisitationArticles Visitationarticlesandinjunctionsoftheearly

StuartChurcheditedbyKennethFincham.Rochester:BoydellPress,1994.

WorshipandTheology Horton,Davie.WorshipandTheologyinEngland

I‐V.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1961‐1975.

Worthies Fuller,Thomas.TheHistoryoftheWorthiesof

England.T.Tegg,1840.

4

IntroductionThereligioussettlementcreatedduringElisabethI’sreignestablisheda

churchsetfirmlyintheReformedorCalvinisttradition.Thissettlemententailedacceptanceofdoubleandabsolutepredestinationandaliturgythatconcentratedongodlypreaching.Itdeemphasizedceremoniesandostentatiouschurches,espousedavisionoftheChurchofEnglandasthetruecatholicchurchopposedtothecorruptandillegitimateRomanCatholicChurch.Mattersconsideredindifferenttosalvation–“adiaphora”–werethepurviewofthemonarchassupremegovernorofthechurch,andEnglishChristianswereboundtofollowthedirectionsofthemonarchinsuchdisputes.ThePuritans,Protestantswhodidnotacceptthisreligioussettlementasfinalnorperfect,weredefinedintermsofnonconformitytotheestablishedliturgyandtheirattitudestowardstheauthorityofboththeecclesiasticalhierarchyandtheauthorityofthemonarch.TothemtheElizabethansettlementwasa“leadenmean,”animpurecompromiseinwhichthetaskofpurgingvestigialremnantsofRomanCatholicismwasonlyhalffinished.1However,Calvinismservedasanamelioratingbondbetweenreform‐mindedPuritansandmembersoftheecclesiasticalhierarchychargedwithensuringobediencetothestatusquo.2 Bythe1630sthissettlementhadbeenradicallyinverted.InplaceofaCalvinistconsensusarobustanti‐CalvinismorArminianismenforceditsownvisionoftruedoctrineandliturgyintheChurchofEngland.ArminianismwastheideologicalunderpinningbehindtheaggressiveHigh‐Churchpoliciesofthe1630sdubbedLaudianismafterArchbishopofCanterburyWilliamLaud.AgainstthedeterminismofCalvinistabsoluteanddoublepredestinationtheypositedamuchgreaterroleforman’sfreewillinachievingsalvationandclaimedthattherewasnoguaranteethatthesaintswouldpersevereafterfallingfromgrace.Thisalsoincreasedtherolethatsacramentsplayedintheliturgyandachievingsalvation.TheirvisionofthetrueChristianchurchwas

abroadlybasedvisionoftheChristiancommunity,propoundedinconsciouscontrasttothedivisionbetweenthegodlyandtheprofanewhichwastakentobecentraltopuritanpietyandPresbyterianecclesiology;aviewofthevisiblechurchcenteredfarmoreonthesacramentandonpublicworshipthanonpreaching;ajustificationoftheceremonialarrangementsoftheEnglishchurchthattranscendedtherealmofadiaphoraandinsteadattributedapositivelyreligiousroleandsignificancetotheritualsandobservancesofthechurch.

Thisstyleofworshipandsoteriologywas

1WorshipandTheologyI,xvi.2“Avant‐GardeConformity,”113‐114;VideAppendixI“FromCalvinisttoArminian:thedoctrinaltenorofthePaul’sCrosssermons,1570‐1638”inAnti­Calvinists:TheRiseofEnglishArminianismc.1590­1640(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1987)forTyacke’sreadingofCalvinistideologicalhegemonyinthereignofElizabethI.

5

developedindeliberateandovertoppositiontoanimageofpuritanismthatwasnotlimitedtotherealmsofceremonyandexternalgovernmentbutincludedawholestyleofpiety–wordcentered,predestinarian,concernedwithseparatingthegodlyofffromtheungodlyratherthancelebratingthemysticalunionwhichboundallbaptizedmembersofthenationalchurchtogetherasmembersofChrist’sbody.3

Thatis,ArminiansredefinedCalvinistsoteriologyandliturgyasPuritan.ThisredefinitionlumpedconformistCalvinists,evenmoderateCalvinistswhowerepartoftheEnglishepiscopacy,withnonconformistPuritansandevenPresbyterians.ToaccomplishtheirgoalsArminianswerewillingtopreachuproyalpowerandinvesttheEnglishepiscopacywiththeauthorityoftheapostolicsuccession.TothisendtheyeagerlywedthemselvestoCharlesI’selevenyearsofextra‐parliamentaryruleandpreachedinsupportofunpopularfinancialpoliciesliketheForcedLoaninthefaceofdeterminedCalvinistopposition. IntheinterimbetweentheestablishmentoftheElizabethanreligioussettlementandtheArminianascendancyinthe1630s,adisparategroupofdivinescobbledanEnglishanti‐Calvinismbydrawingonawidevarietyofsourcesandideas.EvendivineslikeRichardHooker,RichardBancroft,andLancelotAndreweswhodiedbeforethetermArminiansomuchasgainedcurrencyinEnglandservedasinspirationtolaterEnglishanti‐Calvinists.Indeed,historianPeterLakearguedthatalltheconstituentpartsofEnglishanti‐Calvinismwerepresentbytheturnoftheseventeenthcentury;itonlyremainedtobeassembledintoacohesivepackagebydivinesambitiousandmotivatedenoughtochallengetheCalvinisthegemony.4TheCarolinedivinesofthe1630sweretheinheritorsofwhatHistorianHortonDaviesdescribedasthe“Hooker‐Andrewes‐Laud”traditionwith“Hooker...thetheologian,Andrewestheliturgiolist‐preacher‐bishop,andLaudtheferventdiscipleandchiefexecutant,”thoughsuchatermmakestherelationshiptoolinearandneatconsideringtheconsiderabledivergencesanddiscontinuitiesbetweenHooker,theJacobeanavant‐gardedivines,andtheCarolinedivinesofthePersonalRule.5 However,ArminianismandLaudianismarethesubjectofmuchhistoriographicalcontroversy.RevisionisthistorianslikeNicholasTyackehavepresentedArminianismasa“radicaldeparturefromapreviouslydominantreformed[Calvinist]tradition”whileotherHistorianssuchasKevinSharpeandPeterWhitehavedeniedthat“theexistenceofArminianismasacoherentideologicalposition,”insteaddefiningitasan“unconventionallyzealouspursuitofthelargelyconventionalconformistaimsofuniformity,unity,orderandobedience.”6AccordingtoWhite,aggressiveCalvinistpolemicistslikeWilliamPrynnehavemisleadRevisionisthistoriansintobelievingthattherewasindeedanElizabethan“Calvinist”consensusdestroyedbyArminianism.OnlythencanLaudiandivines–“establishedchurchmen,conservativetothecore”–be“metamorphosed

3“Avant‐GardeConformity,”114.4AnglicansandPuritans?,245.5WorshipandTheology,337.6“LaudianStyle,”161.

6

intorevolutionaries.”7BothpositionsagreethatLaudianismwasadeparturefrompreviousecclesiasticalpolicy,thecruxofthedisagreementisinexactlywhatmanneritdiffered.So,ifoneacceptsthattherewasindeedariseofanti‐CalvinismintheEarlyStuartChurch,howdoesonereconcileArminianinnovationwiththeessentiallyconservativeaimsofLaudianism? TheanswerliesinthefactthatLaudianliturgydifferedfromattemptsatconformityinthatitpositivelyaffirmedaleadingroleforceremoniesascentraltoEnglishpiety.Similarly,themaintenanceofchurches,thesacraments,andahostofotherreligiousdutiesmovedtotheheartofEnglishpietyduringthe1630s.TheyhadalwaysbeenpresentandindeedanimportantpartofpietybutCalvinistshademphasizedtheneedforconformityratherthananyintrinsicreligiousorspiritualbenefitsofceremonies,richlyadornedchurches,andsacraments.Laudiansturnedthesethingsfromthingsindifferentimposedbythewillofthemonarchintovitalelementsofpiety,moreimportantthaneventhepreachingattheheartofCalvinistliturgy.TheconflictbetweenthetwosidesboileddowntotheCalvinistviewthatceremonies,sacraments,andtheupkeepofchurcheswereimportantbecausetheyweresocommanded,andobedienceandconformityweregoodthingsinandofthemselves,versustheLaudianideathatalltheaforementionedthingswerenotmereadiaphora,tobedispensedwithorincludedatthewillofthemonarch,buttheveryheartandsoulofEnglishpietybecauseoftheirnecessitytosalvationandspirituallyedifyingeffects.

HookerandTravers

RichardHookerwastheearliestdivineinwhomhistorianshavedetectedproto‐Arminianpositionsconcerningthesacraments,thenatureoftheRomanCatholicChurch,andasubtleredefinitionofPuritanism.ForthisreasonhistorianPeterLakelabeledhiman“avant‐gardeconformist,”meaningadivinecouchedintheconservativeconformisttraditionbutwhoespousednovelpositionsindefenseoftheChurchofEngland.HismagnumopusTheLawsoftheEcclesiasticalPolity(Publicationdate)wasanambitiousworkthattreatedtopicsasdiverseastheproperconceptionoftheChurchofEnglandandthenatureoftheEnglishmonarchy.TheworkwasbornoutofaconflictbetweenHookerandPresbyterianWalterTraverswhenbothpreachedattheTempleChurchinLondon.TravershadleftCambridgeforGenevain1570wherehebefriendedTheodoreBeza,successortoJohnCalvin.TheitinerantEnglishmenlatertraveledtoAntwerpwherehewasordainedasministerofthepresbyterythere.HiseventualresettlementinEnglandwasmadepossiblebysecuringofthepositionsofdomesticchaplainWilliamCecil,LordBurghley,andtutortohissonRobert.Cecil’spowerandinfluencewerecrucialinacquiringthepostofdeputytomasterRichardAlveyofTempleChurchfortheavowedlyPresbyterianTraversandprotectinghimfrompersecution.8Thus

7PeterWhite,“TheviamediaintheearlyStuartChurch,”TheEarlyStuartChurch,1603­1642(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1993),212.8ChurchHistory,III125‐128;ODNBWalterTravers.

7

TraverswasanunabasheddiscipleofthecontinentalReformedtraditionschooledunderthetutelageofeminentBeza. Hooker,ontheotherhand,hadneverimbibedtheGenevandraught.GraduatingfromCorpusChristiCollegeOxfordin1596,HookerwasbornandbredintotheEnglishepiscopacy.AlthoughheenjoyedclosefriendshipswithJohnJewelwhowaslaterforcedtofleetothecontinentduringMaryI’sreignandwithmoderatePuritanJohnRainolds,HookerremainedfirmlycommittedtotheChurchofEnglandandwasanardentproponentofconformity.WhenhewasappointedasmasteroftheTemplein1585atthesametimeasTraverswasappointedlecturer,conflictwasinevitable.TheTemplenowhadtwolecturerswithdiametricallyopposedtheologicalbeliefs,thepulpitspeaking“pureCanterburyinthemorning,andGenevaintheafternoon.”9 ConflictbetweenTraversandHookerstartedimmediatelywithTraversinsistingintruePresbyterianfashionthatthecongregationattheTempleconfirmHookerbeforehegavefirstsermonthere.Hooker’spredictableresponsewasthathisappointmentwasatthepleasureofQueenElizabeth,notthecongregation.Evenaconferencebetweenthetwofailedtohaveanyeffect,onlyrevealingfundamentaldisagreementovertheuseofceremonialformssuchaskneelinginprayer.Althoughthetwomenhadimmensepersonalrespectforeachother,theirrespectiveconvictionswere[atcrossends.]10ThetwomenalsoheldradicallydifferingbeliefsconcerningthenatureoftheRomanCatholicChurchandsalvation.Hookermaintainedthat“thechurchofRome,thoughnotapureandperfect[church]yetisatruechurch;sothatallwholiveanddietherein(beingweak,ignorantandseduced),upontheirrepentanceofalltheirsinsofignorance,maybesaved”whileTraversinistedthat“thechurchofRomeisnotruechurchatall;sothatsuchasliveanddietherein,holdingjustificationinpartbyworks,cannotbesaidbythescripturestobesaved.”11

Hookereventuallywonthecontest.HookerhadtheadvantageofbeingthemasteroftheTempleChurch,andTravers’sidentificationwithPresbyterianismdidnotworkinhisfavor.ArchbishopWhitgiftintervenedanddeprivedTraversofhispost.ThefieryPresbyterianwasnotcompletelydefanged.HeattemptedtousehisinfluencewiththepowerfulLordBurghleytoreversethedecisionandwroteasupplicationtothePrivyCouncilthatattackedHooker’sbeliefs.12HookerrespondedinkindwithananswertothePrivyCouncil,andtookupwritingadetailedexplicationofhisbeliefsanddefenseofconformitythatwouldbecomeTheLawsoftheEcclesiasticalPolity.

HookerandAvant­GardeConformity

9Worthies,I407‐8,423;ODNBRichardHooker10SamuelKnox,WalterTravers:ParagonofElizabethanPuritanism(London:Methuen,1962),70‐73.11ChurchHistory,3:129.12Hooker,Works,5:189‐210.

8

ThusHooker’sthoughtwasrootedinthetraditionofconformistapologists,thatmostconservativepositionofdefenseoftheestablishmentagainstinnovation.However,ifthecornerstoneofHooker’sworkswasmakingthecaseforconformityandbattlingtheperpetualPresbyterianbugbearthatloomedsolargeinthemindsofconformistapologists,thenthequestionarisesastowhyHookerwarrantsthelabelof“avant‐gardeconformist?”TheanswerlayinthewayHookerresolvedtheinherentcontradictionsoftheconformistcaseinnovelways.WhatbeganasarefutationofPuritanismmorphedintoHooker’sdistinctiveconceptionofwhatEnglishProtestantismwasorshouldbe.13Whatwasanegative“condemnationofnonconformity”transformedinto“apositiveendorsementofceremonyandliturgy,”demonstratingthatemphasisonthe“scenicapparatus”ofworshipintheChurchofEnglandwasnotthesolereserveofhighchurchLaudians.14

HookerdivergedconsiderablyfromearlierconformistwritersinhistreatmentoftheroleofceremoniesandsacramentsintheEnglishChurch.Earlierconformistapologistsclaimedthatalthoughceremonieswereadiaphora,thingsindifferent,theirusewascommandedbythemonarchandtheprayerbook.ThereforeEnglishmenwereobligedtousethemoutofdeferencetopublicauthority.Ceremonialforms“weretherebecausetheywerethereandbecauseorderanduniformityandobediencewereallgoodthingsinthemselvestheordinaryChristianshouldsimplydowhatheorshewastold.”15BycontrastHookerarguedthatceremonialformshadaninherentvalueandwerethereforeacrucialpartofworship.HeusedthewordsofDavidtoexhortthereaderto“worshiptheLordeinthebewtieofholines,”theinfamousphraseWilliamLaudusedtodescribehisHigh‐Churchpolicies.16CeremonieswereanequallyeffectivemeansasgodlypreachingtoturnparishionersmindstowardsGodandtocontributetotheirspiritualedification.17Furthermore,ceremoniescouldandshouldrepresentthegrandeurofGod:“Dutiesofreligionperformedbywholesocietiesofmen,oughttohaveinthemaccordingtoourpowerasensibleexcellencie,correspondenttothemajestieofhimwhomeweworship.”18Similarly,thechurchitselfwasalocusofworshipandthesiteofthathighestofreligiousdevotionsofprivateprayer;thechurchwas“thehouseofprayer”and“aCourtbeautifiedwiththepresenceofthecelestialpowers;thattherewestand,wepray,wesoundforthhymnstoGod,havingtheAnglesintermixedasoutassociates.”19Thusceremonieswerevitallyimportanttothemaintenanceofmen’ssoulsandshouldalsobeperformedinamannerfittingtheholinessthattheyrepresented.

Hookermadeanevenmoredramaticdeparturefrompreviouswritersinhisviewsonthesacraments.Contrarytoacommontropethatheldthatsacramentsweremerelysymbolicorstampsofgraceuponmenalreadysaved,hearguedthatsacramentswerespiritualnourishmentthroughwhichindividualbelieverswere13AnglicansandPuritans,145‐14614Ferrell,85.15AnglicansandPuritans,164.16Hooker,Works,2:61.17Ibid151‐152.18Ibid34.19RichardHooker,TheLawsofEcclesiasticalPolity(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1793),2:104‐107

9

boundtoChristandgracewasdispensed.Indeed,sacramentswerecrucialtosalvation.Thegracebestowedinbaptismmighthavebeenenoughtosecure“eternalllife”butitwasinevitablethatfaithwouldbe“hinderedandimpairedafterbaptisme”becauseofthesinfulnatureofmanandthedailytravailsofexistence.20TheEucharistservedthepurposeofrenewinggraceandcovenantwithGod;italsoprovidedspiritualmedicinetohealwoundsoffaith.21HerejectedthenotionofZwingliandothercontinentalReformedProtestantsthattheEucharistwasameresymbolthatwas“destituteemptieandvoideofChriste.”22However,Hookerwenttogreatlengthstoemphasizethatthesacramentsdidnotconveygraceexoperaoperato.SacramentswerepowerfultoolsthroughwhichGodeffectedsalvation:baptismmightplanttheseedoffaithandtheEucharistmightnourishitbutGodremainedthefinalarbiterofsalvation.23 Hisviewsonthesacramentsandceremoniesweredirectlytiedtohisviewsonthenatureofthechurch.ManyCalvinistsconceivedoftwochurches:onevisibleandcontainingallProtestants,theotherinvisibleandcontainingonlythosepredestinedtosalvation.TheRomanCatholicChurchandallthosefaithfultoitweredamnedtohell.Hooker’sviewsweremoreinclusive.Theinvisiblechurchwasexactlywhatitsnameimplied:invisibleandunknowable.Thismeantthatthephysicalchurchwouldbeassortmentofboththe“profaneandthegodly,thesavedandthedamned.”24Therefore“impiousidolators,wickedheretiques,[and]personsexcommunable”wouldrubshoulderswithsaintlyandgodlymen.25SincewhowastrulysavedcouldonlybeknowntoGod,theonlyyardstickbywhichmortalmencouldjudgemembershipinthechurchwas“OneLord,onefaith,onebaptisme.”26ThisstoodinstarkcontrasttoPuritans’definitionofthechurchastight‐knitfellowshipsofthesaints,the“coetuselectorum.”27ThefactthatonlyGodultimatelyknewwhowaselectedfromsalvationdidnotmean Hooker’scriterionformembershipinthevisiblechurch,“baptismandaprofessionofChristianbelief,”was“sominimalastoexcludenooneinaformallyChristiancountry.”28ThismeantthataccordingtohisschemaRomanCatholicswerenecessarilyincludedinthevisiblechurch,anathematomanycontemporarieswhoconsideredRometheseatoftheAntichrist.29IndeedhewasmuchmorecharitabletoRomethanthemajorityofhisEnglishcontemporaries.WhileheconcurredthatRomewasguiltyof“sundrie...grosseandgreevousabominations”ithadnoterredinfundamentalsoffaith,those“mainepartesofChristiantruthwhereinthey

20Hooker,Works,5:330.21Ibid330‐331.22Ibid331.23AnglicansandPuritans,175;ComparetoRichardMontagu’spositiononbaptismandtheEucharistpp.22‐24above.24AnglicansandPuritans,161.25Hooker,Works,1:198.26Ibid.27WorshipandTheology,2:6.28AnglicansandPuritans,161.29Hooker,Works,1:198‐199.

10

constantantliestillpersist.”30TocleaveoffRomanCatholics,whodespitetheirmanifolderrorswerebaptizedandprofessedfaithinJesusChrist,fromthevisiblechurchsmackedofattemptsbyPuritanstounchurchtheChurchofEnglandbecauseofitssupposederrorsandmistakes.31 Thus,havingclearedtheRomanCatholicChurchofanygrievouserrorsinfundamentals,hehadnoproblemwiththeretentionof“popishceremonies,”acknowledgingtheunbrokenapostolicsuccessionbishops,andseeingtheChurchofEngland’spopishpastasastrength,notaweakness.Concerningceremoniesinheritedfromthechurch’sRomanpast,“wearetoreteineasmuch,intheotheraslittleofformerthingesaswemay.”32Itwasanabsurdexercisetomake“nonconformitywiththechurchofRome”thestandardbywhichtheChurchofEnglandwasgoverned.33Similarly,herejectedthatconformitywithReformedliturgyandchurchgovernancewasinherentlydesirable.34Bishopswereinvestedwithauthoritybyboththeapostolicsuccessionandbythetraditionsofthechurch.35

However,despiteallthesimilaritiesbetweenHooker’sthoughandlaterArminiandivines,thereremainedimportantmajordifferences.Hooker’spopulistconceptionoftheoriginsofroyalpowerdidnotsitwellwithlaterArminiansupportofCharlesI’spoliticalexperiments.AlthoughheskirtedaroundtheedgesofchallengingCalvinistconceptionsofpredestination,andwasindeedcriticizedforhisviewsonbaptismandthenatureofsalvation,heneverespousedelectionbasedonfaithforeseen.Thusheleftasomewhatambiguouslegacy.RichardMontaguereveredHookerasthatgreat“Puritanomastix[personwhoarguesagainstbeliefsordoctrinesofPuritans]”andFrancisWhitecouldciteHooker,the“scourgeofPuritansandadivineofmostexactjudgement,”indefenseofhisdecisiontolicenseMontagu’sbookstothepress.36However,fieryPuritanWilliamPrynnefeltequallycomfortablecitingHookerinhisanti‐Arminianpolemics.37Thoughhissoteriologicalviewswaveredandperhapsneverachievedstablecoherence,RichardHookerwasthefirstElizabethandivinetoassertastyleofworshipandpietythatcanbeidentifiedasproto‐Arminian.Hisvisionofachurchinwhichoft‐criticizedceremonialformswereessentialrepresentedamarkeddeparturefrompreviousconformistthinkers.Rightlyorwrongly,heservedasaninspirationtolaterArminians,bothavantandaprèslalettre.

TheReligiousClimateoftheJacobeanChurch

PriortotheLaudianascendancy,theCalvinistepiscopacyhadworkeda

modusvivendiwithPuritansfollowingtheHamptonCourtConference(1604):

30Ibid202,comparetoMontagu’spositionontheRomanCatholicChurchandthefundamentalsoffaithpp.28‐29above.31Ibid;AnglicansandPuritans,157.32Hooker,Works,2:63.33AnglicansandPuritans,158.34Hooker,Works,1:327‐336.35IbidVIIpassim.36Montagu1625,271,291;AnglicansandPuritans,229.37VideAnti­Arminianismepp.88,97,203‐204.

11

acceptanceofthelegalityofthePrayerBookandthelegitimacyoftheepiscopacyinadditionto“occasionalconformity.”38JamesIhadpursuedapolicythatcombined“deiureinsistenceonsubscription”with“defactotolerationofacertainvarietyofliturgicalpractice,”reinforcedbyhiswillingnesstodealwithmoderatesregardlessofwhatsideofthetheologicalfencetheywereon.39ThisdefactotolerationwasextendedtoArminiansandevenEnglishCatholicswhowerewillingtoacceptthekingassupremegovernorofthechurchandpracticetheirfaithprivately.

ItwasexpectedthatEnglishChristianswoulddifferonothersecondaryissuesand,forJames,itappearedthatthatthe“theologyofgrace”wasoneofthoseissueswheredifferenceofopinionwastolerated.40Personally,JamesIappearedtohaveespousedamoderateCalvinism.41ButhiswillingnesstotoleratediverseviewsinhischurchmeanthewasperfectlywillingtopatronizedivineswhoheldArminianopinions,providedthattheyrefrainedfromopendisputationthatwoulddisturbthepeaceofthechurch.

Foreignpolicypressurescausehimtoflitfromonesidetotheother:DutchArminianism’sthreattothepoliticalstabilityoftheUnitedProvincesandDutchCalvinistsfavorablestancetowardEnglandledhimtosupporttheCalvinistfactionbuthisincreasingemphasisontheSpanishMatchafter1622ledhimtodeemphasizemaintenanceofgoodrelationswithDutchCalvinistsandfavorthedomesticArminianfaction.42PriortotherampingupofnegotiationsfortheSpanishMatch,publicairingofArminianviewscouldlandoneinhotwater.EvenpriortotheSynodofDort,JamesIhadwarnedtheheadsofCambridgetolet“noseed”ofArminianism“growintheuniversity.”43HehadearlierviolentlyopposedtheappointmentofConradVorstiustoLeidenprofessorshipvacatedbyArminiusandintheprocessdisparagedArminiusasan“enemieofGod”andthe“firstinouragethatinfectedLeidenwithheresie.”44Thusdespitetheking’stolerationofawidediversityofviews,Armniandivines,especiallyoneslikeAndreweswhowereincontactwithDutchRemonstrants,hadtotreadcarefully.

Thatbeingsaid,JamesIconcurredwithArminiansonseveralpointsofdoctrine.HeespousedthetraditionalArminianviewthattheRomanCatholicChurchhadnoterredinfundamentals,althoughitwascorruptinsomerespectsandhadmadesundryerrorsinotherlesscrucialareas.HeconceivedofthePopeand

38Anti­Calvinists,185‐186.39“LaudianStyle,”167‐168.40FinchamandLake1993,31.41JamesI,AMeditationupontheLord’sPrayer(1619),118;Anti­Calvinism,24‐25,41‐45,91;FinchamandLake,32‐33.42SirRalphWinwood,”SirRalphWinwood’ssecondRemonstranceintheAssemblyoftheStatesGenerallconcerningVorstius,25thNovembre1611,”MemorialsofAffairsofStateintheReignsofQ.ElizabethandK.JamesIIIIed.E.Sawyer(NewYork:AMSPress,1972),305;JamesI,“FromKingJamestheFristtoSirRalphWinwood,18èmeFevrier1611,“MemorialsofAffairsofStateintheReignsofQ.ElizabethandK.JamesIIIIed.E.Sawyer(NewYork:AMSPress,1972),339;JamesI,“KingJamesItotheStatesGeneral,20/30March1617,”6‐8andJamesI,“KingJamesItoSirDudleyCarleton,12/22July1617,”10,TheBritishDelegationtotheSynodofDorted.AnthonyMilton(Woodbridge:BoydellPress,2005).43FinchamandLake1985,190.44JamesI,HisMajestie’sDeclaration...inthecauseofD.ConradusVorstius(1612),5,15.

12

EnglishCatholicsaspoliticalthreatstohisauthority,labelingthepopetheAntichristbecauseofhisclaimtohavetheauthoritytodeposesecularrulers.EnglishCatholicscouldbeapoliticalthreatiftheyacceptedthepope’sauthoritytodeposekingsandthatrebellingagainstenemiesoftheRomanCatholicChurchwas“meritorioustosalvation.”45

Insummary,theJacobeanchurchwasunitedaroundtheassertionanddefenceofJames’sGod‐givenpowersasaChristiankingagainstthethreatsposedtothembythePresbyteriansontheonehandandthepapistsontheother.Howeverwithintheideologicallimitsthussetbythekingaconsiderablelatituderemainedfortheexpressionofdifferentandindeedmutuallyexclusivestylesofdivinity.Asthereignwentondifferentgroupsandfactionssoughttoexploitoneaspectorotheroftheking’sreligiousandpoliticalsusceptibilitiesinordertopushroyalpolicyinwhattheytooktobetherightdirection.46

LancelotAndrewesManydivineslikeLancelotAndrewesheldprominentpositionsandwere

highlyinfluentialatcourt.JamesIwaswellawareofAndrewes’sArminianism,butthepriceofhisinclusionintheJacobeanChurchwassilence.47HelimitedhimselftocorrespondencewithDutchArminiandivinesand“bitingasides”toCalvinistsinhissermons.ThusAndrewesenjoyedappointmenttothreebishoprics,numerouscourtofficesandaplaceonthePrivyCouncil.Heowedthisasmuchtohiswillingnesstokeeprelativelyquietastohis“eloquenceanderudition,”muchappreciatedbythescholarking.48AndrewesalsoprovidedalinkbetweenHooker,“avant‐gardeconformity”intheJacobeanChurch,andmanyofthedivineswhowouldlaterdominatethe1620sand1630s.

Andreweswasthesoleavant‐gardedivineofthe1590swholivedtoseethetriumphofArminianisminthe1620s.49NotonlywasheapersonalfriendofHookerbuthealsoenjoyedunparalleledinfluenceattheJacobeancourt,appointedtothePrivyCouncilin1616andfrom1605untilhisdeathwasoneofthemostprominentcourtpreachers.Furthermore,hewasveneratedbythelatergenerationofArminiandivineswholaudedhimastheirpremierideologicalantecessorandtheyfoughtvigorouslytocontrolhislegacytopreventuseofhisprintedworksbyCalviniststosupporttheirideology.50ToArminiancontroversialistRichardMontagu,hewas“ourGamaliel,”asentimentsharedbytherestoftheDurhamHouseGroup.51HewasaclosefriendandpatronofJohnBuckeridge,whowouldlaterbecomedirectlyinvolvedinthecontroversyoverRichardMontagu.WilliamLaudlamentedhis45FinchamandLake1993,28‐29.46“Avant‐GardeConformity,”115.47Memorials,3:459.48FinchamandLake1985,190.49Anti­Calvinism,20.50“Avant‐GardeConformity,”114;ODNBLancelotAndrewes(6/1/13)51Montagu1625,215,265.

13

death,opiningthat“thegreatestlightoftheChristianworldhasbeenextinguished.”52HewascrucialinhelpingfurthertheearlycareersofMatthewWrenandJeromeBeal,bothofwhomattendedhiscasketduringAndrewes’sfuneralandWrenfurnishedthememorialinscriptionforAndrewes’stomb.53

Andrewes’sviewsborethefamiliarhallmarksofbothHookerandLaud.HedespisedPresbyterianismandPuritanism,whichwereinseparableinhismind.InhismindPuritanismwas“organisedaroundaPresbyterianthreattoorderandhierarchyinthechurchandtothepoweroftheprinceandstate;”thusPuritannon‐conformitywas“partofthedevil’splottounderminethechurch,asthefirststeponaslipperyslopethatledfromseeminglytrivialceremoniestoschismandevenheresy.”54InasermonpreachedbeforeJamesin1607,hewarnedthekingthatradicalProtestantsposedagreatthreattohisauthority. TheAnabaptistsofourage,bywhomallsecularjurisdictionisdenied.

Nolawmakersthey,buttheEvangelists;nocourts,butPresbyteries;nopunishments,butChurch‐censures.TheseriseagainsttheveryestateofKings;andthatshouldtheyfindandfeel,iftheywereoncegrownenoughtomakeaparty.55

Suchstatementswerecommonanduncontroversial.However,hewentontomaketheassertionthatanyformofPuritanism,nomatterhowmoderateorconformist,inevitablyledtoreligiousandpoliticalradicalism.Reformofthechurch,“thehouse”ofthenation,inevitablyledtocallsforreformofthe“Commonwealthbutthehangings.”56Thesermon,givenontheanniversaryoftheGowrieconspiracy,clearlydisplayedAndrewes’sviewsthatPuritanismconstitutedbothathreattoboththeauthorityofthekingandthechurchandfurthermorethatevenmoderatePuritanismwasinextricablefromPresbyterianismandradicalProtestantssectslikeAnabaptism. Andrewes’sdistasteforPuritansdidnotstopathisbeliefthattheywereathreattotheEnglishbodypolitic.Hewasvehementlyopposedtotheirsermon‐centeredstyleofpiety;complaintsthatEnglishpietyhadbecometoofocusedonsermonswerea“familiarrefraininthemouthofLancelotAndrewes.”57The“sermon‐hypocrites”wouldfocusonsermonstothedetrimentofallotheraspectsofEnglishpiety;anEnglishmanhears“sermonsuponsermons”butno“fruittherecomes.”58“Forwhat,”Andrewesqueried,wastheaimofthislopsidedemphasisonpreaching;“isthepouringoftheSpirittoendinpreaching?andpreachingtoendinitself,asitdothwithus?acircleofpreaching,andineffectnothingelse,–butpour

52Trevor‐Roper,34.53ODNBLancelotAndrewes(6/1/13)54“Avant‐GardeConformity,”115.55LancelotAndrewes,“Asermonpreachedbeforetheking’smajestyatRumsey,onthefifthofAugust,A.D.MDCVII,”Works,11.56Ibid.,1257Anti­Calvinists,186.58LancelotAndrewes,“AsermonpreachedbeforeKingJames,atWhitehall,onthesixthofMarch,A.D.MDCXXII,beingAsh‐Wednesday,”Works,407;LancelotAndrewes,“ASermonpreachedbeforeKingJames,atWhitehall,onthetwenty‐sixthofFebruary,A.D.MDCXXIIIbeingAsh‐Wednesday,”Works,421.

14

inprophesyingenough,andthenallissafe?”59ForAndrewes,aChristianwasbetterservedbythe“pietyofhisprayers”than“bythefluencyofhisspeech.”60However,Andreweshimselfwasalecturerandpreacherofgreatrenown.HedislikedthelopsidedemphasisonpreachingbecauseceremoniesandpublicprayerwereanequallyimportantpartofEnglishpiety. Thisdenigrationofceremoniesmanifestedindisrespectfortheceremonialapparatusofthechurchandthechurchitself.Thechurch,the“holymansion”and“house”ofGodwherein“thefairbeautyoftheLord”andhis“honourdwelleth,”wasdueproperrespectasanapparatusofworship.61However,contemporaryEnglishmentreateditwithdisrespect;eventhecommuniontable,wheretheholymysteryoftransubstantiationoccurred,wastoooftentreatedlike“anoysterboard,oratabletoeatoysterson,thanthetablefitforGod’ssanctuary.”62HisconceptionofproperworshipcanbedivinedfromhisPrayerforConsecrationforJesusChapel,Peartree,Southamptonin1620.Thischurchshouldbe,andbyextensionallchurches,a

habitacionforthee,andaplaceforustoassembleandmeetetogetherin,fortheobservacionofthydivineworship,invocationoftheygreatname,reading,preachingandhearingofThyHeavenlyWord,administeringthymostholySacraments,aboveall,inthisplace,theverygateofheavenuponearth...tosettforthThymostworthiepraise,tolaudandmagnifiethymostgloriousMaiesteforallThygoodnesstoallmen.63Heespousedanotherkeytenet,anexaltedviewofthesacraments.

SacramentswereanessentialforaChristiantoobtainsalvation;“itwasonlythroughthemedicineofthesacramentsthatwecouldbepurgedofsinandreceivetheenablinggraceessentialifwewereindeedtolivethelifeofaChristian.”64Insteadofbeingpassiverecipientsofasermon,Christianswouldbetterservedreceivingthespiritualmedicineofsacramentsbecausetherein

wetaste,andtherewesee;‘tasteandseehowgraciousthelordis.’Therewearemadeto‘drinkthespirit,’thereour‘heartsarestrengthenedandstablishedwithgrace.’Thereisthebloodwhichshall‘purgeourconsciencesfromdeadworks,’wherebywemaydietosin...forhethat‘eatethhisfleshanddrinkethhisblood,dwellethinChristandChristinhim;’noinneth,orsojournethforatime,butdwellethcontinually...nevercanwemoretruly,orproperlysay,inChristoJesudominonostro,aswhenwecomenewfromthatholyaction,forthenheisinusandweinhim,indeed.65

59LancelotAndrewes,“ASermonpreachedbeforetheking’smajesty,atGreenwich,onthetwenty‐fourthofMay,A.D.MDCXVIIIbeingWhit‐Sunday,”Works,318.60LancelotAndrewes,TheprivatedevotionsofLancelotAndrewes,ed.F.E.Brightmanandtrans.T.S.Eliot(Gloucester:PeterSmith,1978),257.61Ibid.,256‐257.62LancelotAndrewes,PatterneofCatechisticallDoctrine(1630),298‐299.63J.W.Legg,EnglishOrdersforConsecratingChurchesintheSeventeenthCentury(HenryBradshawSociety,1911),41:57.64Avant­GardeConformity,124.65LancelotAndrewes,“AsermonpreachedbeforeKingJamesatWhitehall,onthefourteenthofFebrurary,A.D.MDCXXIbeingAsh‐Wednesday,”Works,39.

15

Thussacramentswerenotonlyduereverence,butwerealsooneofthemosteffectivemeansofcommunicatinggrace;farmoredirectandeffectivethanpreaching.Suchanexaltedviewofthesacramentexplainstheirinsistenceonkneelingandotherceremonialvenerationofthesacrament;itwasnotsomethingdonemerelybecauseitwasrequiredbutbecauseitwasanessentialelementofsalvationcentraltoEnglishpiety.66 Andrewes’sviewsonpredestinationwerelessclearandstable.Inthe1570sand1580sheadheredtomainstreamElizabethanCalvinistviewsonpredestination,afactthatoftenembarrassedArmniansseekingtousehislegacytosupportheirowncause,butbythe1590shisheldrecognizablyArminianviewsonpredestination.67Bythe1620shewasattackingCalvinistsinhissermonsbeforetheking,albeitobliquely.Godwasnot,astheCalvinistswouldhavemenbelieve,the“authorofEvil,”“sentencingmentodeathonlyforhispleasure,beforetheyhaveoffendedhimatall.”68ThiswasthefamiliarrefraininthemouthsofArminiansthatequatedabsoluteanddoublepredestinationwithAntinomianperversionandotherunacceptablyradicalelementsoftheProtestantism.

HisdislikeofCalvinismeventuallycametoencompasstheinternationalCalvinistcommunity.RoyalsupportfortherulingsoftheSynodofDorthadachillingeffectonnascentEnglishArminianism,albeitverytemporarilyasmaintenanceofrelationswithDutchCalvinistsbecameincreasinglysecondarytocurryingfavorwithSpainasnegotiationsfortheSpanishMatchdominatedforeignpolicy.69Followinghechangeofreligiousclimate,AndreweslambastedtheSynodofDortin1621:

IprayGodhebewell‐pleasedwithhislicentioustouching,naytossingofhisdecreesoflate,thissoundingofthedepthsofhisjudgmentwithourlineandlead,toomuchpresumeduponbysomeinthesedaysofours...God’ssecretdecreestheyhavethemattheirfingers’ends,andcantellyouthenumberandtheorderofthemjustwith1,2,3,4,5.70

Thereforewehave“inthepietyofAndrewes”andotherdivineslikeBuckeridge“thechainofavant‐gardeconformistthoughtwhichrunsbetweenHookerandLaud.”71AlloftheelementspresentinMontaguandLaud’sthoughtcanbefoundinAndrewes.But,howevertemptingitwouldbetodrawadirectconnectionbetweenAndrewesandthedevelopmentsofthe1630s,thereanumberofdiscontinuities.AsPeterLakehaspointedout,itiseasytoassembleacomprehensiveanti‐CalvinistsoteriologicalandliturgicalpicturefromAndrewes’swritingsbutheneverproducedonehimself.72Alloftheconstituentpartsremained

66“Avant‐GardeConformity,”127‐129.67ODNBLancelotAndrewes68LancelotAndrewes,“Asermonpreachedbeforetheking’smajesty,atGreenwich,onthetwentiethofMay,A.D.MDCXXI,beingWhit‐Sunday,”Works,363;LancelotAndrewes,Ninety­SixSermonsbytheHonourableandReverendFatherinGod,LancelotAndrewes,sometimeLordBishopofWinchester(JamesParkerandCo.,1868),231.69Anti­Calvinism,45‐46;70LancelotAndrewes,Works,3:32871“Avant‐GardeConformity,”131.72Ibid.,131‐132

16

scatteredacrossthestaggeringamountofliteratureandsermonsheproduced,manyofwhichwerenotpublishedinhislifetime.HedidnotwriteanycomprehensivepolemicalworkslikeRichardMontaguthereforehisideaswerefragmentedandthetotalityofhisideaswasonlyfullyclearinretrospect.NodidAndreweseverattempttoenforceanythingresemblingtheLaudianaltarpolicyinhisdioceses.73

HistorianH.R.TrevorRoperjudgedAndrewestobeamanof“serenedetachment…andaclearconscience,displayedhislearning”who“advancedhistheorieswithoutdisturbingtheworldbyanydangerousattempttoapplythem.”Hewascontent“inecclesiasticalpoliticstoletwhatwouldbebe.”74PeterLakejudgedhimtobeaman“chronicallydevoidbothofpoliticalsenseandgumption,unwillingtotakethenecessaryriskstofightwhathebelievedin.”75Montagu,althoughendorsinghimas“ourGamaliel,”alsowishedthat“ourGamalielwillnowopenhismouthandspeakout,haplyhewilldothatgoodforwhichGodwillrewardhim,andallposteritythankhim.”76Perhaps,buthewasconstrainedbythereligiousclimateoftheJacobeanChurch.Theking’sconcernforkeepingabalanceofpowerwithinhischurchbetweenopposingfactions,despitetheperiodicshiftsinthatbalancecausedbyforeignpolicypressures,meantthatAndrewesandotherArminiandivineswerepreventedfrommountingsustainedassaultsagainstCalvinistsandenforcingtheirideasinthechurch.Andrewesultimateachievementwaskeepingthecausealiveandwellinthatchurch.Howeverhisideologicalsuccessorsdisplayednoneofhistemperanceormoderationandwerenotconstrainedbyakingconcernedwithmaintainingpeaceinhischurch.

TheLaudianAscendancy

Laudianism,initssimplestdefinition,wasshorthand“forthepoliciesandreligioustemperofthePersonalRule...[represented]byvisitationssermonsandworksofpolemicandjustification.”77CharlesI’sdecisiontonotcallParliamentafterthedebacleofthe1629Parliamentfrom1629to1640freedArminianclergyfromtheattackfromtheCalvinistparliamentaryoppositionthathaddominatedthefirstfouryearsofCharlesI’sreign.78AfterthedeathofCalvinistArchbishopofYorkTobiasMatthewin1628,threeArminiansheldthepostuntil1640:GeorgeMontaigne(1628),SamuelHarsnett(1628‐1631),andRichardNeile(1632‐1640).WilliamLaudbecameArchbishopofCanterburyfollowingCalvinistGeorgeAbbott’sdeathin1633,thoughAbbothadbeeneffectivelysidelinedsince1628whentheauthorityofthearchbishopwasinvestedinagroupofArminianbishopsincludingLaud.7973ODNBLancelotAndrewes.(6/1/13)74Trevor‐Roper,31.75Avant­GardeConformity,132.76Cosin,Correspondence,1:70.77“LaudianStyle,”162.78Seepp.35‐61below.79Anti­Calvinism,181;“TheCommissiontoSequesterArchbishopAbbotfromallhisEcclesiasticalOffices.”HistoricalCollectionsI,431‐433.

17

Contrarytohisfather,CharlesIhadnotasteformoderation.Thekinghadissued“AProclamationfortheestablishingofthepeaceandquietoftheChurchofEngland”in1626thatsoughttocontainthegrowingcontroversyoverRichardMontaguandArminianismbutwasenforcedselectivelyinordertosuppressCalvinistpublication.80CalvinistpolemicistWilliamPrynnecomplainedthattheedictswereenforcedinamannerthat

wearenotalittlediscouragedanddeterredfrompreachingthosesavingdoctrinesofGod’sfreegraceinelectionandpredestination...[wearein]dangerofbeingcensuredforviolatorsofyourMajestie’ssaidacts,ifwepreachtheseconstantdoctrinesofourChurchandconfutetheoppositePelagianandArminianheresiesbothpreachedandprintedboldlywithoutfeareofcensure.81

Anotherproclamationwasissuedin1628andaffixedwiththeBookofCommonPrayerwhichassertedthattheclergyinConvocation,backedupbytheauthorityofthemonarch,werethefinalarbitersofthe“externalpolicy[ofthechurch]...injunctions,canons,andotherinstitutions.”Anyonewhopreachedorpublishedideasthatdivertedfromthecurrentorthodoxy“shallbeliableforourdispleasure”and“wewillseethereshallbedueexecutionuponthem.”82Wordswerebackedupwithdeeds.ArchbishopAbbotremarkedasearlyas1632that“thereisnotintheChurchofEnglandleftanyinconformable[nonconformist]minister.”83 Thusbythebeginningofthe1630s,Arminianclergyhadrelativelyfreereintoenforcetheirreligiouspolicies.However,thisdidnotmeanthattheoppositionslunkquietlyintothebackgroundandofferednoresistancetotheimpositionofHigh‐ChurchceremonialismontotheChurchofEngland.ButtheprosecutionofCalvinismitselfbytheArminianepiscopacyremovedanyincentiveforPuritanstoconformtooracceptepiscopacyandPrayerBook.AninformativeexampleisthePuritanJohnDavenportwhoearlyinhiscareerconformedtotheChurchofEngland’sliturgicalpracticesbecausehewas“convincedthatdifferencesoversuchmattersmustbesubordinatedtotheneedforaunitedCalvinistfrontagainstCatholicismandArminianism.”84However,asitbecameclearthatArminianismhad“stolneinandtakenpossessionofthehouse,”suchalineofreasoninglostitsforceandDavenportfledtoAmsterdamin1633.85Similarly,HenryBurton,whohadwrittenavigorousdefenseofCalvinistconformistsinresponsetoRichardMontagu’sAppelloCaesarem,recountedthattheriseofArminiandivineshadcausehim“tofallofffromtheceremonies”bothinconvictionandpractice.86

LaudianisminTheory

80Seepp.53‐54below.81WilliamPrynne,CanterburiesDoome(1646),165.82“TheKing’sDeclarationprefixedtotheArticlesofReligion,”ConstitutionalDocuments,75‐76.83Laud,Works,5:310.84ODNBJohnDavenport(5/9/13)85Anti­Calvinists,187.86HenryBurton,ANarrationoftheLifeofMr.HenryBurton(1643),4;Seepp.30‐32below.

18

TheLaudianstyleofworshipsoughttorectifywhatLaudiansconsideredtobethe“unbalancedsermon‐centerednatureofEnglishpiety.”87IftraditionalCalvinistpietyhadcenteredonpreachingfromthepulpit,thenLaudianpietycenteredonthesacramentsdispensedfromthealtar.CombinedwiththissacramentalpietywasanovelceremonialismthatinsistedthatceremonialformswerenotthingsindifferentbutintegraltoEnglishpiety.Thesumofalltheseconstituentpartswasthe“beautyofholiness:”aradicalreorientationofEnglishpietyawayfromgodlypreachingandtowardsthealtar,thesacraments,andthechurchitself.Thusthe1630ssawaclashbetweentwodeeplyopposedviewsoftheChristianity:ononehand,theLaudianviewthatemphasizedthealtar,ceremonies,andsacraments;ontheother,theCalvinistviewthatemphasizedpreachingasameanstoexhorttheelect,“thoseforeknownofGodfromalleternity”and“predestinatedtolifeofGod’spurefavour,”tofulfilltheirgodlymission.88

Churchesweremuchmorethansimplyplaceswhereservicetookplace;theywereanintegralpartoftheworshipandtheliturgy.AsroyalchaplainandArminianpartisanRobertSkinnerpreachedinasermonbeforeCharlesIin1634inwhichheexpoundeduponPsalms96:9“OworshiptheLordinthebeautieofholiness,”thechurchwasthe“propermansion,oranddwellinghouse”ofGodwhereinhe“dothinhabite.”Adignifiedchurchingoodrepairwasjustaseffectiveameansofturningparishioner’smindtowardsGodandholinessaspreaching.ForalthoughsomeEnglishmendespisedthebeautificationofchurchesas“matter[s]ofdistraction”and“palpableinducementstosuperstition,”itcouldnotdeniedthat“agoodly,reverend,beautifullChurch”wasbettersuitedto“begetinourheartsareligiousregardandvenerablethoughts”than“anaked,deformed,ruinoustemple,adornedwithnothingbutdustandcobwebs.”89

ThemaintenanceandbeautificationofchurcheswasanintegralpartofLaudianworship,andaproperlyadornedchurchcouldbejustaseffectiveinturningaparishionermindtowardsGod.ThustheLaudianchurchshould“glowwiththebeautyofholiness,”“beautified...withallkindofornaments,thatmightaddegloryandgraceuntothem,ascuriouspaintings,hangings,guildings,sumptuousvestments”andbequeathedwith“richgiftsinmony,chalices,plate,farmes,lordships,besidesgreatprivilegesandimmunities.”90SuchmagnificencebefittedthehouseofGodandwasthepracticeoftheancientchurch.91Awell‐adornedchurchplayedacriticalroleintheliturgyandworshipthereforetheirmaintenancewasasgreatapriorityasgreatassupportinglectureshipsfortheprovisionofsermons.

WithinthishouseofGod,thealtarbecamethelocusofpiety.InLaud’sfamousspeechbeforetheStarChamberin1637duringthetrialforseditionof87AnglicansandPuritans?,140.88SebastianBenfield,ASermonpreachedatWottonunderEdgeappendedtoACommentarieorExpositionuponAmos(Oxford,1613),269.89RobertSkinner,ASermonPreachedbeforetheKingatWhitehallthethirdofDecember(1634),21‐22,29‐30.90“LaudianStyle,”165;R.T.,Detemplis,atreatiseoftempleswhereinisdiscoveredtheancientmannerofbuilding,consecrating,adorningofchurches(1638),177.91Ibid.,177‐180.

19

lawyerWilliamPrynne,divineHenryBurton,anddoctorJohnBastwick,heexplicatedthatthealtarwas“thegreatestplaceofGod’sresidenceuponearth”becausethepulpitwaswherethewordofGodwaspreached,butthealtarwaswherethe“body”ofGodresided.Thereforethealtarwasamoreproperlocusfortheliturgythanpreachingbecause“agreaterreverence”was“duetothebodythantothewordofourLord.”92

PublicprayeranditsaccompanyingceremoniesinthehouseofGodwasthehighestexpressionofLaudianpiety.InsteadofpreachingandhearingofsermonsthatwascommonlythefocusofCalvinistliturgy,“thelaity’soutward,physicalactsofreverenceandpiety,choreographedbytheliturgyandperformedatthepromptingsofthepriest”werethedefiningcharacteristicsofLaudianpiety.93Followingtheexampleofearlieravant‐gardedivineslikeBuckeridgewhohadarguedthat“ritualbodyworship”andceremonialformswerea“duetie”andcouldnotbe“omittedasanindifferentthing,”Laudiandivinesassertedthatpublicritualandceremonywastheapogeeofdivinity;when

webehaveourselvesinthisplace[thechurch]asinthepresenceofGod;wheneverymanbeginswithdueobeisancetoGod...andthenfalldownuponourknees.Whentheministerlikeanangeloflightappearsinhiswhitevestmentbehavinghimselfwiththegravityandreverenceanddecencywhichwellbefitshiscallingandthereligiousdutyhehathinhand.WhenthwholecongregationshallappearinthepresenceofGodasoneman,decentlykneeling,rising,standing,bowing,praising,prayingaltogether...likemenofonemindandreligioninthehouseofGod.94

ThusintheLaudianprogramweseetherealizationofthelong‐heldArminianideathatceremonyandaccompanyingpublicprayerwerenotthingsindifferentbutattheheartofpiety.Thisnecessarilydiminishedtheroleofpreachingintheliturgy,thoughnoteliminatingitaltogether.Preaching’srolewasfurtherdiminishedandthe“beautyofholiness”furtherreinforcedbytheLaudianviewofthesacraments. Sacramentswerethespiritualmedicine,directconduitsbetweenparishionersandGod’sgrace.“God’spresenceinthechurchwasthereforemostintenseintheareasgivenovertotheadministrationofthesacraments;”“thefontandthealtarandthelifeoftheChristiancouldbeconstruedasajourneyfromonetotheother.”95AChristian’sfaithwas“dedicatedandconsecratedinbaptism,itisre‐edifiedbyconfirmationandtheholyEucharist;”theEucharistespeciallywasthoughttobethe“highestadvancementofaChristian”and“thegreatestperfectionandconsummationoftheChristianreligion.”96Thussacraments,likepublicprayerandceremonies,wereattheverycenterofLaudianpiety.

92Laud,Works,6:57.93“TheLaudianStyle,”166.94ODNBJohnBuckeridge(6/2/13);JohnBuckeridge,AsermonpreachedbeforeHisMaiestieatWhitehall,March22.1617beingPassion­Sunday,touchingprostration,andkneelingintheworshipofGodtowhichisaddedadiscourseconcerningkneelingattheCommunion(1618),18;EdwardBoughen,ASermonconcerningdecencyandorderinthechurch(1638),10‐11. 95“TheLaudianStyle,”170.96RobertShelford,FivePiousandLearnedDiscourses,15;“TheLaudianStyle,”171.

20

TheLaudianreverenceforthealtar,ceremonialforms,andsacramentswasevidentWilliamLaud’sconsecrationofStCatherine,CreeonJanuary161630/1.97TheonlysurvivingaccountoftheconsecrationwasfromthepenoffieryPuritanWilliamPrynne,bitterlyopposedtoArminianismandLaudianism,whichalsoallowsinsightintohowLaudianworshiplookedtosomeonedeeplyopposedtoit.Herecollectedthat

theBishopapproachednearetheCommuniontable,hebowedwithhisnoseverynearethegroundsomesixorseventimes;ThenhecametooneofthecornersoftheTable,andtherebowedhimselfthreetimes;thentothesecond,thirdandfourthcorners,bowingateachcornerthreetimes;but,whenhecametothesideoftheTablewherethebreadandwinewas,hebowedhimselfseventimes,andthen,afterthereadingofmanypraiersbyhimselfeandhistwofatchaplins(whichwerewithhim,andallthiswhilewereupontheirkneesbyhim,intheirSirplisses,Hoods,andTippits)hehimselfcamenearetheBread,whichwascutandlaidinafinenapkin,andthenhegentlylifteduponeofthecornersofthesaidnapkin,andpeepedintoittillheesawthebread(likeaboythatpeepedafterabird‐nestinabush)andpresentlyclappeditdowneagaine,andflewbackeasteportwo,andbowedverylowthreetimestowardsitandtheTaple:whenhebeheldthebread,thenhecameneareandopenedthenapkinagaine,andbowedasbefore;thenhelaidhishanduponthegiltCupwhichwasfullofwine,withacoveruponit;sosooneashepul’dtheCuppalitlenearertohim,helettheCuppgoe,flewbacke,andbowedagainethreetimestowardsit:thenheecameneereagaine,andliftingupthecoveroftheCupppeepedintoit,andseigthewine,heletfallthecoveronitagaine,andflewnimblybackeandbowedasbefore:AftertheseandmanyotherApishAntickeGesturshehimselfereceived,andthengavetheSacramenttosomeprincipallmenonelytheydevoutlykneelingneeretheTable,afterwhichmoreprayersbeingsaid,thisSceaneandEnterludeended.98

LaudianisminPractice

TheLaudianprogramdidnotgounopposed.HowevermuchtheLaudian

divinesinsistedonconformity,exactingitfromparishionersinthelocalitieswasanothermatterentirely.SuchattemptsnecessarilyinvolvedconfrontationbetweenLaudianfunctionariesandCalvinists,Puritanorno,inthelocalities.TheconfrontationsbetweenthesetwocampsshedlightonthebeliefsthatanimatedoppositiontoLaudianismandtheattitudestowardsLaudianisminthelocalities.OnesuchexampleinvolvedcommissionersunderthecommandofBishopMatthewWrenandSirSimondsD’Ewes,whosatatthetownofBurySt.Edmundsfromtwenty‐ninthtothethirty‐firstofMarch,1636.99ThecommissionersandD’Ewesappearedtohavenevermetpersonallybut,D’Ewes,ameretenmilesaway,kept

97WorshipandTheology,2:18.98WilliamPrynne,CanterburiesDoome(1646),114.99HarleyMS646,fol.171v.

21

himselfinformedoftheiractionsandlatervisitedWren,amanof“mostdamnedlife”accordingtoD’Ewes,atIpswichtodiscussthechangesmadeinthediocese.100

SirSimondD’EwesprovidedanexcellentexampleofamoderatePuritanora“conservativerespectablePuritan‐parliamentarianism.”101BeginninghiseducationatCambridge,helaterenteredtheMiddleTemplewherehestudiedlawfrom1620to1626buthismarriagetoawealthywidowfreedhimfromtheburdenofpracticingit.Hisintereststurnedtowardshistory,especiallyconcerningEnglishpoliticalhistory.FiercelyCalvinistanddeeplyopposedtoCharlesI’sfinancialpolicies,hewasmotivatedbya“theologicallystoked‘fireinthebelly’”todefendabeleagueredCalvinismandattackArminianism.102

D’EweswasnotaradicalPresbyterian.103Hewaswillingtoacceptachurchgovernedbybishopsif“’true’doctrineandworship”–meaningCalvinistsoteriologyandReformedliturgy–couldbefoundtherein.104HeadmiredgreatlyArchbishopAbbottandmournedhisloss,especiallysincehewasreplacedbythat“littlelowreddfacedman,ofmeaneparentage”WilliamLaud.105SuchbeliefsinnowaysoftenedhisoppositiontoLaudianpoliciesandArminiandivines.

Wren’scommissionerswerearmedwithanextensivesetofvisitationarticlesorquestionstoinvestigatewithinthediocese.OffirstimportwasthetraditionalgoalofferretingoutanysuspectedPuritansorRomanCatholics.106HoweverthearticlesalsorevealedanewgoalofinvestigatingoppositiontoLaudianisminthelocalities.WrenincludedtwoarticlesinquiringwhetheranyparishionerhadspokenagainstordisparagedtheliturgyortheBookofCommonPrayer.Furthermore,thearticlesaskedwhetheranybodyhadthetemeritytointerruptorhindertheadministrationofthesacramentsortheservice.107Traditionalconcernsaboutthewearingofsurplicebyministers,theadministrationofthesacraments,andtheuseofchurchpropertyforsecularpurposesdominatedmanyofarticles.Suchquestions,whileirksometoparishesinclinedtowardsnonconformity,werecertainlynothingnew.WhatstruckD’Ewesas“newandstrange”werethequestionsconcerningthealtarsandcommuniontables,“neverbeforeusedinthevisitationsofformerbishopssincethereformationofthereligion.”108Indeed,Wren’scommissionerswerechargedwithensuringthatthealtarwasmovedintoprideofplacewherethecommuniontableformerlystoodand,ifremovalofthecommuniontableprovedanimpossibility,itcouldbesidelinedtotheeasternsectionofthechurchreservedfortheministers,and“thattherailebemadebeforeit(accordingtothearchbishops[WilliamLaud]lateinjunctions)reachingecrossefromthenorthwalltothesouth

100McGee,163;HarleyMS377fol.19r‐v.101JohnMorrill,TheNatureoftheEnglishRevolution(London:Loughman,1993),65.102McGee,148‐149.103Ibid.,160,n.44.104Ibid.,160.105HarleyMS646,fol.159r.106VisitationArticles,2:129.107VisitationArticles,2:129‐130.108HarleyMS646,fol.171v.

22

wall,neereoneyardinhight,andsothickewithpillars,thatdoggsmaynotgetin.”109

AccordingtoD’Ewes,thiswasanunconscionabledeparturefromthepracticeofthechurchsincethereformation,inwhichinordertoavoid“idolatrie,superstition,andoffence...thealtarswereremovedandtakenawayinmostchurchesofEnglandandcommuniontablesplacedinsteadofthem”andthecommuniontables,thoughnotremovedfromthechurches,weremovedtothewallandrailedofffromtheparishioners.110D’Ewes’srepeatedemphasisthatthecommissionerswerereversinganarrangementinplacesincethereformationindicatedthathesawthechangeasanattempttoturnbacktheclockofthereformation,meaningamovetowardsRomanCatholicismandidolatry.

IdeologicalOppositiontoLaudianism

WhatviewsinformedhisoppositiontoLaudianpolicies?HehadbeendeeplyopposedtoArminianismandceremonialismlongbeforeWrenattemptedtomeddleinhishomediocese.Byhisaccount,Arminianswereso“manywicked,anabaptisticalorpopishlyaffecteddivinesandscholars”who“maintained...justificationbyworks,free‐will,Christ’sbodilypresenceinthesacramentoftheLord’sSupper”andsoughtto“increasethemultitudeandburdenoftheceremoniesandintermixturesintheChurch.”111FurthermoretheyunjustlypersecutedmanyconformingandvirtuousChristianswhomthey“nick‐namedPuritans.”112Thesedivineswereafifth‐columnwithinEnglishProtestantismtobedespisedmorethanRomanCatholics,whoatleasthonestlyespousedtheirbeliefsandagainstwhomanytrueProtestantwasalreadyinoculated.113

D’Ewes,incontrasttoArminianswhoinsistedontheveryrealpresenceofChristintheEucharistandthenecessityofreceivingit,disparagedtheideaoftransubstantiation.Forhimitwasanalogoustoidolatry,venerationofthe“imaginariebreadenGod”being“abominableidolatrie.”114HescornedeventheLutheranpositionofconsubstantiationthatassertedthatalthoughthebreadandwinedidnotmagicallytransformintothebodyandbloodofChrist,theywerepresentalongsidethebreadandwine.TheLutheranshad“indeedmostvnhappiliefallenvpononeparteofthePopisherrorinholdingacarnallreallpresenceoraconsubstantiation”buteventheyhadnotcommittedthegrievouserrorofRomanCatholicsandLaudiansby“bowingvnto&adoringofthesacramentasabominableidolatrie.”115Hedidnotbelieveintransubstantiationorthatcommunioncommunicatedanygracethereforeanyvenerationofthesacramentwasidolatry,bowingandkneelingtomerepieceofbread.

109ODNBMatthewWren(5/25/13)110HarleyMS646,fol.171v.111Ibid.,fol.162r‐v.112Ibid.,fol.162v.113Ibid.,fol.162v‐r.114HarleyMS593,fol.159r.115Ibid.

23

Laudianpiety,withitsceremonialismandvenerationofthesacraments,wasnotingmorethanaTrojanhorseforRomanCatholicism;afifthcolumnbentoncorruptingEnglishCalvinistpietywithimportationofRomanCatholicidolatry.Theseceremonieswerenotnecessarypartsofpiety,“theywereinoffensiueceremonie[s],alterableatanytimebyauthoritie.”116TheseceremonieswereoffensivetotheProtestantreligion;D’Ewesanxiouslyqueried

whatshallbecomeofGodssaintsinanyprotestantchurchwheereadoracionisgiventoanaltarorcommuniontable&thatmadetheobjectofidolatrie,&vndercoulerofadoringorbowingto&towardsthat[sic]Imagesinthewindowesorwalls;&theelementsoftheblessedsacramentonthetableitselfebowedtoandadored,&soethehorribleIdolloftheMasseerected&settvppinaChurchprofessingitselfeabsolutelieProtestant?Canntheywithaquietspiritorsafeconsciencebeepresentatsuchabominationswithintheveryrules,&leddbythoseidenticallcautionsofthesamelearnedBishopp?117

NoProtestantofthetruereligioncouldidlystandbywhiletheirchurchwascorruptedbytheLaudianinnovations;therecouldbenocompromise,onlyreckoning.For,D’Ewesasserted,“ifanAngelfromheauenwouldprouokeustoadoreorbowvntoeithersacramentoraltaroranyothercreaturelethimbeeaccursed.”118

Conclusion

Laudianpietyandtheextremeadversereactiontoitcanappearparadoxicalbecause,ashistorianslikePeterWhitehavepointedout,oneofitsprimarygoalswastheverytraditionalgoalofconformity.ItisapossibilitythattheLaudianexperimentmighthavehadmoresuccessifithadnotbeenpursuedsoheavy‐handedlyandweddedtoCharlesI’sunpopularpolicies.Nevertheless,ArminianismandLaudianismrepresentsadefinitivebreakfromCalvinistthoughtinnotonlytheareasofsoteriologybutalsointhesacramentsandespeciallytheceremonies.ControversialceremoniespresentintheEnglishliturgywerejustified,ofteninanalmostpleadinganddesperatetone,asthingsindifferentbutcommandedbythemonarch.WiththeLaudianascendancy,ceremoniesandsacramentsbecamethecruxofEnglishpiety,commandedbytheauthorityofGodandnotofthemonarch. ThussomeoftheaimsofLaudianismappearedtobeverytraditionalatfirstglancebutthereasoningbehindthemwasrevolutionary.Itwasdifficulttoextendtoleranceoratleastasblindeyetononconformitywhentheveryceremoniesatdisputewerenolongerperformedatthewishesofthemonarchbutwereinsteadattheheartofpiety.ThisreorientationofEnglishpietyawayfrompreachingandtowardsceremoniesinthe1630sgratedonEnglishmenalreadyonedgefromtheacrimoniouspolemicalwarsandpoliticalconflictofthe1620s.Similartohowroyalpatronageandprotectioninthe1620sstrengthenedArminianswhile

116Ibid.,160v.117Ibid.,161v.118Ibid.,159r.

24

simultaneouslymakingthemmoreprominenttargets,theLaudianascendancyallowedthemtoimposetheirideasontheEnglishpeoplebutincreasedoppositiontoafeverpitch.

BibliographicalEssay NicholasTyacke’sAnti­Calvinism:TheRiseofEnglishArminianismc.1590­1640isbyfarthemostcomprehensivesecondarysourceonthesubjectofEnglishArminianismandthebeststartingpointforanystudyofthesubject.Thestrongestpartofthebookisitsnarrative,whichintegratesthechangingdomesticandinternationalpoliticalmilieuwithanemphasisonleadingArminiandivines.ThusTyackeclearlyexplicatessignificanceofthemajoreventsinEnglishecclesiasticalandpoliticalhistory–theHamptonCourtConference,thecontroversyoverArminianismintheuniversitiesthe1590s,theSynodofDort,thecontroversyoverRichardMontagu,theYorkHouseConference,andthereignofCharlesI–inrelationtoArminianism.ItislesshelpfulinrespecttothePeriodofthePersonalRuleandLaudianism,coveredbyonechapterandtwoshortappendixes.ItfocusesmoreontheprocessbywhichArminianssurvivedandthenseizedpower. PeterLakeandKennethFincham’sworkisequallyinvaluable.Theirarticle“TheEcclesiasticalPoliciesofJamesIandCharlesI”isthemostsuccinctandwellwrittentreatmentonthesubjects,providinganexcellentinsightintothetwomonarch’spersonalitiesandpolitics.Withthepoliticalbackgroundthisarticleprovides,itiseasytodiveintoPeterLake’s“TheLaudianStyle”and“Avant‐gardeConformityattheCourtofJamesI,”whichareanalysesoftheideasandsomeofthepersonalitiesofArminianismintwoimportanteras.Thesetwoarticles,combinedwithAnti­Calvinism,allowonetocometogripswiththecomplicatedsubjectofArminianismandLaudianism.DavieHorton’sfive‐volumeWorshipandTheologyinEnglandisalsoanexcellentreferencework,coveringavastperiodoftime.Publishedfrom1961‐1975,muchoftheanalysisisveryWhiggishbutiswellresearchedwithanextensivebibliography. Fincham’sVisitationArticleshastwoadvantages:itbringswhatwouldotherwisebealargecollectionofdisparatedocumentsandtranscribesthemintomoderntypeface,valuablebecausesomeoftheEEBOscansofvariousvisitationarticlesareessentiallyunreadable.TheothermosthelpfulprimarysourceisTheFolgerLibraryEditionofRichardHooker’sworks.ItissignificantlymoremodernthancomparablecompilationofworksforAndrewesorLaud,andcontainsanexhaustivecollectionofessaysandprefacesbyhistorianswhichmaketacklinganintimidatingworklikeLawsoftheEcclesiasticalPolityfarmoremanageable.

25