the emergence of english arminianism: richard montagu …...the life of the renowned doctor preston....
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
TheEmergenceofEnglish
Arminianism:RichardMontagu16241629
JesseMcCarthyJune14,2013
Director:ProfessorLeeMentor:ProfessorJ.SearsMcGee
History194H
![Page 2: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
TableofContentsChapterIIntroduction 1 ThePreamble:ReligiousControversyintheReignofJamesI(r.1603‐1625) 4TheProblemofDefinition 8ANewGagg(1624) 11AppelloCaesarem(1625) 16ChapterIIHenryBurton:Puritanism,Popery,andtheSynodofDort 22JohnYates:Puritanism,Ceremonialism,andtheHouseofCommons 24MontaguandtheParliamentof1624:TheTroublesomeCleric 26MontaguandtheParliamentof1625:TheDevelopmentofOpposition 28TheYorkHouseConference(1626) 32 ChapterIIIMontaguandtheParliamentof1626:MontaguandtheDuke 40“IsanArminiannowmadeaBishop?” 45Montaguandthe1628Parliament:TheArminianConspiracy 46Montaguandthe1629Session:EnemyofChurchandState 49Conclusion 53
![Page 3: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
AbbreviationsAllplacesofpublicationLondonunlessotherwisespecified.AntiCalvinists NicholasTyacke.AntiCalvinists:TheRiseofEnglish
Arminianism.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1987.Aspects NicholasTyacke.AspectsofEnglishProtestantismc.1530
1700.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,2001.Ball ThomasBall,TheLifeoftheRenownedDoctorPreston.
Parker&Co.,1885.Burton HenryBurton.APleatoanAppeale.1626.Cardwell EdwardCardwell.AHistoryofconferencesandother
proceedingsconnectedwiththerevisionoftheBookofCommonprayerfromtheyear1558totheyear1690.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1840.
CommonsDebates1629 CommonsDebatesfor1629ed.WallaceNotesteinand
FrancesHelenRelf.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1921.
Cosin,Correspondence ThecorrespondenceofJohnCosin,LordBishopofDurham:
togetherwithotherpapersillustrativeofhislifeandtimesI‐II.Durham:Andrewes,1872.
Cosin,Works JohnCosin.WorksI‐V.Oxford:J.H.Parker,1843.FinchamandLake KennethFinchamandPeterLake,“TheEcclesiastical
PoliciesofJamesIandCharlesI,”TheEarlyStuartChurch16031642ed.KennethFincham.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1993.
Gardiner SamuelRawsonGardiner.DebatesintheHouseof
Commonsin1625.J.B.NicholsandSons,1872.Heylyn PeterHeylyn.CyprianusAnglicus.1671.HistoricalCollectionsI HistoricalCollectionsofPrivatePassagesofState,Weighty
MattersinLaw,RemarkableProceedingsinFiveParliamentsbeginningthesixteenthyearofKingJames,anno1618andendingthefifthyearofKingCharles,anno1629ed.JohnRushworthFarnborough:GreggInternationalPublishers,1969.
![Page 4: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
HistoricalCollectionsII‐I HistoricalcollectionsthesecondpartcontainingtheprincipalmatterswhichhappenedfromthedissolutionoftheParliamentonthe10thofMarch,4.Car.I.1628untilthesummoningofanotherParliamentwhichmetatWestminster,April131640ed.JohnRushworth.Farnborough:GreggInternationalPublishers,1969.
Macauley JohnS.Macauley.“RichardMontagu:CarolineBishop,
1575‐1641.”CambridgePhDThesis,1965.Milton AnthonyMilton.CatholicandReformed:TheRomanand
ProtestantChurchesinEnglishProtestantThought,16001640.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1995.
Montagu1624 RichardMontagu.Agaggforthenewgospell?No,anew
gaggforanoldgoose.1624.Montagu1625 RichardMontagu.AppelloCaesarem:ajustappealfrom
twounjustinformers.1625.ODNB OxfordDictionaryofNationalBiographyPorter H.C.Porter.ReformationandReactioninTudorCambridge.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1958.Proceedings1626 ProceedingsinParliament,1626I‐IVed.ByWilliamB.
BidwellandMaijaJansson.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1991‐1996.
Proceedings1628 ProceedingsinParliament,1628I‐VIed.MaryFrearKeeler,
MaijaJanssonCole,andWilliamB.Bidwell.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1977‐1983.
Russell,Parliaments ConradRussell.ParliamentsandEnglishPolitics1621
1629.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1979.Schwartz HillelSchwartz.“ArminianismandtheEnglishParliament
1624‐9,”JournalofBritishStudies,12/21973.Wallace Dewey,WallaceJr.PurtiansandPredestination:Gracein
EnglishProtestantTheology.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1982.
Yates JohnYates.IbisadCaesaremI‐III.1626.
![Page 5: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
ListofImages1. CommemorativewindowtoRichardMontagu.
(Dr.J.SearsMcGee),Frontispiece.2. ChartcomparingRichardMontagu’ssublapsarianismtoWilliamPerkin’s
supralapsarianism.(ReproducedfromMacauley,JohnS.“RichardMontagu:CarolineBishop,1575‐1641.”CambridgePhDThesis,1965)
![Page 6: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Figure1:PortraitofRichardMontaguinstainedglassatChichesterCathedral,WestSussex.Thescrollinhishandbearsthetitleofhis1625workAppelloCaesarem.Theplaquereads“RichardMontagueBishop1628‐1638.ChampionoftheEnglishChurch.”
![Page 7: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
1
‐1‐
CharlesI,KingofEngland,Scotland,andIreland,wasexecutedonJanuary301649inthenameofhisownpeople.Hissubjectsdidnotsetouttoabolishmonarchyasaninstitutionbutridthemselvesofakingwhohadsoalienatedmanymembersofthepoliticalandreligiouseliteofhiskingdomthattheymadewaragainsthim.ChiefamongthereligiousgrievanceswastheeclipseofEnglishCalvinismcausedbyroyalsupportofEnglishArminianism.TheseArminiandivinesespousedtheimportanceofhumanity’sfreewillworkinginconcertwithGod’stoachievesalvationandintroducedanewceremonialismintotheliturgyoftheChurchofEngland.Thefirstpublicstirringsofthereligiousconflictoccurredinthemid‐1620swhenArminiancontroversialistRichardMontagu’stwobooks,ANewGagg(1624)andAppelloCaesarem(1625),provokedenormouscontroversy.ThetwoworksattackedCalvinists,claimingthattheChurchofEnglandwasnotCalvinistindoctrineandfurthermorethatallCalvinistswerePuritansoutsidetheboundsoftheacceptedchurch.ThetwobookscreatedacontroversyoutofwhicharecognizableEnglishArminianismoranti‐CalvinismwhichrepresentedaformidablechallengetotheideologicalhegemonyofCalvinism.CombinedwithasharppolemicalstyleandroyalpatronagetheysparkedaconflictthatinvolvedtheEnglishepiscopacyandlaymenintheHouseofCommonslikeneverbefore.
Broadlyspeakingandriskingoversimplificationoftwocomplexideologies,therespectivedefinitionsofEnglishCalvinismandEnglishArminianismcouldboileddowntodisagreementoversoteriologyandliturgy.EnglishCalvinistsespouseddoubleandabsolutepredestination,believingthatGodhaddividedhumanityintotheelectandthereprobate,theformerdestinedforheavenandthelatterdestinedforhell.SincethefoundationofsalvationwasGod’simmutabledecree,Calvinistsdeniedtheefficacyofgoodworksandthefreewillofpeopletoacceptorresistsavinggrace.Calvinistliturgydeemphasizedtheroleofthesacraments,largelyrejectedthewearingofthetraditionalvestmentsbyministers,andrelegatedthealtartoasubservientroleinrelationtopreaching.EnglishArminians,bycontrast,assertedthatChristianscouldfreelychoosetoeitheracceptorrejectsavinggrace.Furthermore,amanwhohadacceptedgracecouldstillfallfromgracetotallyandfinally.Intermsofliturgy,ArminianswantedtorestoreaceremonialdignitytotheservicethattheyfeltwaslostduringtheReformation.Arminianliturgyreturnedthealtartoitsmuchmoreprominentpre‐Reformationposition,emphasizedtheroleofthesacramentsindispensingsavinggrace,andinsistedonthewearingofthesurpliceandothervestmentsbypriests.ThedisagreementsbetweenthetwoweremanifoldandamountedtotwovastlydifferentconceptionsofEnglishProtestantismandChristianity;thedebateencompassedfarmorethanadisagreementoverpredestination.
Inthe1620sMontagubecame,perhapsunfairly,theposterboyforthegrowingArminianheresyinEngland.WiththepublicationofANewGaggandAppelloCaesarem,hetransformedfromaheretoforeobscureclericintotheobjectofnationalcontroversy.PredestinariandebatewasnotnewtoEngland.ControversyhadembroiledCambridgefollowingWilliamBarret’sattackonCalvinismin1595,
![Page 8: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
2
becomingsoacrimoniousthatitnecessitatedtheinterventionofArchbishopofCanterburyJohnWhitgift.Doctrinaldisagreementamongst“moderatePuritans”andbishopsoccurredattheHamptonCourtConference(1604).Mostsignificantly,EnglishdelegatesparticipatedinthecondemnationofDutchArminianismattheSynodofDort(1618)andputtheterm“Arminian”inthemouthsofcontemporaryEnglishmen.IndeedthecontestedissuestouchuponaneternaldebateinChristianityovertherelationshipbetweenpredestination,God’sforeknowledge,andhumanity’sfreewill.ThedebateharkensbacktoantiquityandthebattlebetweenPelagiusandAugustine.HoweverMontagu’ssignificancewasthatbothhissharppolemicalstyleandroyalpatronagebroughtthesimmeringcontroversyintothepublicspherelikeneverbefore. However,MontaguandhissupportersneverlabeledthemselvesArminiansandhisopponentsneverlabeledthemselvesCalvinists.BothpartiessimplythoughtofthemselvesasChristians.TheirrespectiveviewswereintheirmindsthetruedoctrineofChristianity,heldinperpetuitysincethedaysoftheChurchFathers.HiscontemporariesasaruledidnotargueexplicitlyforArminiusorCalvinbutinsteadappealedtoScriptureandtheearlyChurchtoprovethefundamentalrightnessoftheirconvictions.“Arminian,”“Calvinist,”“Puritan,”and“Papist,”amongotherlabels,weretermsofabusethatpolemicalopponentshurledateachother.Montaguhimselfwaslabeledwithadizzyingarrayofterms:“Arminian,semi‐Pelagian,Papist,Pelagian,pseudo‐Lutheran,”“PontificianArminian,”1andheevenlenthissurnametothetermofabuse“Montagutian.”ThenomenclaturehasbeenequallycontroversialamonghistorianswithvaryingdescriptionsofthereligiousdivisionsintheearlyStuartChurch:aconservative“Anglican”episcopacyweddedtotheancienrégimepittedagainstaprogressivePuritanismalliedwiththebourgeoisie,aninsurgentEnglishArminianismespousingHighChurchceremonialismandamoreliberaltheologyofgracethatshatteredanexistingCalvinistconsensus,andrecentlyanemphasistheuniquecharacteroftheChurchofEngland’sviamediaandtheaggressiveenforcementofconformityintheCarolineChurch.2
However,theobjectiveofalloftheselabelswasclear:theassociationofopponentswithunacceptableandhereticalideas.MontaguredefineddoctrinalCalvinismasPuritanismoraccusedCalvinistsofholdingperverseAntinomiandoctrinesthatdisparagedtheChurchanditsministry.HecharacterizedhiscriticsasPuritans,radicalseparatistsandfactiousadherentsoftheforeign“Genevadiscipline”thatwascontrarytotheChurchFathersandthedoctrineoftheChurchofEngland.Opponentssmearedhimascrypto‐Catholic,adevoteeoftheDutchtheologianJacobArminius,anadherentoftheancienthereticPelagius,andsimplyasamalevolentmanbentondisturbingthepeaceoftheEnglishchurch.Furthermore,bothpartiesclaimedthattheydefendedtheorthodoxdoctrineofthe1Macauley,218;Burton,Image11.2VideAnthonyMilton,“Prologue,”CatholicandReformed:TheRomanandProtestantChurchesinEnglishProtestantThought16001640;KennethFincham,“Introduction,”TheEarlyStuartChurch16031642,ed.KennethFincham(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1993);PeterLake,“Introduction:Puritanism,ArminianismandNicholasTyacke,”ReligiousPoliticsinPostReformationEngland,edKennethFinchamandPeterLake(Woodbridge:BoydellPress,2006);NicholasTyacke,“Introduction,”Aspects.
![Page 9: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
3
ChurchofEnglandrepresentedintheThirty‐NineArticlesandtheBookofCommonPrayer.
Neverthelessitwastheterm“Arminian”whichclungmosttenaciouslytoMontaguandhiscompatriots.“Arminian”wasimportedtoEnglandintheaftermathoftheSynodofDort.ThepresenceofEnglishdivinesattheconferenceandJamesI’sapprovalofthesynodlentapoliticalpotencytothetermArminian.ButMontaguneverreadArminiuspriortothewritingofANewGaggandananti‐CalviniststraininEnglishthoughtwasdevelopingpriortothepublicationofJacobArminius’sworksintheearlyseventeenthcentury.ThusEnglishArminianismwasmorecomplexthanamereimportationofDutchanti‐Calvinism.
Theprocessofemergencewasacrimoniousandconstantlyinflux.Whilemanyearlierdivinescouldretroactivelybelabeled“Arminiansavantlalettre,”EnglishArminianismasacoherentandorganizedideologyonlyemergedinthelatterhalfofthe1620s.Montagu’sworkswerewhatdefinedEnglishArminianism’spoliticalandreligiousideologybythrustingtheissueintothepublicsphereforthefirsttime.ThenascentEnglishArminianismwouldacquireacoherentandrecognizable“partyplatform.”ItwasimpossibletoseparatethedebateoverArminianismfromthedebateoverPuritanism.IndeedthefirstandmostcontroversialplankwasthecharacterizationofCalvinism:firstthattheChurchofEnglandwasnotCalvinistindoctrineandsecondthatevenconformistCalvinistswerePuritans.ThusanydiscussionaboutArminianismnecessarilyinvolvedconsiderationofthedefinitionofPuritanism.Inoppositiontheanti‐Calvinistdivinesformulatedasoteriologythatreservedalargeroleforhumanfreewill:electiontosalvationwasonthebasisoffaithforeseenandthereforeeventheelectcouldfalltotallyandfinallyfromgrace.Theydevelopedanalternativeliturgicalprogramintimatelyrelatedtotheirdoctrinalprogram.Sacramentsplayedanintegralrole,elevatedtoanequalorsuperiorroletothatofpreaching,indispensingsavinggraceandreaffirmingthecovenantwithGodtoensureperseverancetoelection.TheupkeepandbeautificationofchurcheswasaprimaryconcernaswellasintolerancefornonconformitytotheBookofCommonPrayer.Theincreasedroleofthesacraments,concernfortheupkeepofchurches,andintolerancefornonconformitywerereinforcedbyanemphasisonclericalandepiscopalauthority.
InparalleltotheideologicalbattletherewasaninterconnectedstruggleforcontroloftheEnglishbodypolitic.Arminiansbecameincreasinglyalliedtomonarchandincreasinglyemphasizedhisauthority.Whatevertheirpoliticalinclinations,theyweredrivenintothearmsofthekingbyanincreasinglyhostileParliament.UnderconstantattackfromtheoverwhelminglyCalvinistHouseofCommons,theArminiansdevelopedavestedinterestinsupportingextra‐parliamentaryrule.Timeandagain,MontaguandtheArminianpartyweresavedbydissolutionorprorogationofParliament,atimelyroyalproclamation,thefavorofasympatheticroyalcourtier,ortheadvancementoflike‐mindeddivinestopositionsofpowerwithintheChurchofEngland.Theking’scontroversialextra‐parliamentaryfinancemeasuresdovetailedwiththeArminiansdesiretoincreasethepowerofthekinganddecreasehisrelianceonParliament.WiththeHouseofCommonsrabidlyattemptingtoestablishajustificationfortheprosecutionofthe“Montagutians,”royalprefermentsimultaneouslyinflamedtheconflictwhilealsorepresentingan
![Page 10: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
4
affronttoparliamentaryauthorityinthegovernanceoftheChurchofEngland.ThusEnglishArminianismattaineditsmostdistinctiveanddestructiveelement:arelianceonextra‐parliamentarymonarchicalauthoritytosupportandenforceitsideas
ThePreamble:ReligiousControversyintheReignofJamesI(r.16031625)
ReligiouscontroversyinthereignofJamesIleftaformidablelegacyandhighlightedtheriseofEnglishanti‐CalvinismseparatedfromDutchArminianismandhowEnglishmendealtwithpredestinariancontroversypriortothepublicationofANewGagg.Furthermore,JamesIdisplayedapoliticalacumenthathissonCharlesIwouldlack.JamesIwaswillingtodealwiththemoderatewingsofbothPuritanismandRomanCatholicisminordertodivorcethemfromtheradicalwingsoftheirrespectivemovements.ConformitywasthebywordoftheJacobeanchurch:subscriptiontotheEnglishepiscopacyandtheauthorityoftheEnglishmonarchwasthestandardforinclusion.3Subscriptionwasahigherpriorityforthekingthanceremonialconformity.IntheBasiliconDoronrepublishedpriortoaccessiontotheEnglishthronein1603,hecastigatedseparatistPuritanswhomhedescribedas“brainsickeandheadiepreachers”willingtolet“King,people,Lawandallbetrodeunderfoote”ratherthanallowanyof“theirgroundsbeimpugned.”4HoweverhequalifiedhisdenunciationofPuritansbyspecifyingthathedidnotrefertothosewho
likebetterofthesingleformeofpolicieinourChurch[ofScotland],thanofthemanyCeremoniesintheChurchofEngland;thatareperswadedthattheirBishopssmellofPapallsupremacie;thattheSurplise,thecornerdcap,andsuchlike,aretheoutwardbadgesofPopisherrours.No,Iamsofarrefrombeingcontentiousinthesethings(whichformyownepartIeueresteemedasindifferent)asIdoeequallyloueandhonourthelearnedandgrauemenofeitheroftheseopinions.5ThefirststirringsofpredestinariancontroversyoccurredatCambridgein
the1590swhileMontaguwasstudyingatKing’sCollege,Cambridge.TheadministrationofCambridgewasheavilyCalvinistandCalvinistorthodoxyprevailedinuniversity’sreligiousinstruction.6ItwasallthemoreshockingthenwhenWilliamBarrettattackedCalvinandCalvinisminasermonintheuniversitychurchonApril29,1595.Barrettassertedthatnomanmayhavethecertaintyoffaithtobeassuredofhissalvation,thattheelectcouldfalltotallyandfinallyfromgrace,thatreprobationwasaconsequenceofGod’sforeknowledgeofsin,andthereforeelectionwasaresultoftheforeknowledgeoffaith.7InanattempttoquellthecontroversysurroundingBarrett’ssermon,ArchbishopWhitgiftissuedthethoroughlyCalvinistLambethArticleswhichstatedthatfaith“isnotlostnordoesit
3FinchamandLake,25‐27.4JamesVIandI,BasiliconDoron(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006),6.5Ibid.,7.6Macauley,33‐34.7Porter,344.
![Page 11: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
5
passawayeitherfinallyortotallyintheelect”andthatthe“causeofpredestinationtolifeisnottheforeseeingoffaith,orofperseverance,orofgoodworks,orofanythinginnateinthepersonofthepredestined,butonlythewillofGod.”8WhitgiftandhisfellowCalvinistshopedtoobviatefuturepredestinariancontroversybymakingtheLambethArticlespartofthedoctrineoftheChurchofEngland.However,WhitgiftwaspreventedfrommakingtheLambethArticlesofficialdoctrineoftheChurchofEnglandbecausehewas“threatenedwithaPraemunire[assertionofforeignjurisdictionagainstthesupremacyoftheEnglishmonarch]byQueenElizabethforpresumingtotenderanythingcontrarytothedoctrineoftheChurch,”accordingtoMontague’spartisanaccount.9 TheHamptonCourtConference(1604)foreshadowedthereligiouscontroversyofthereignofCharlesIanddealtwithmanyoftheissueswithwhichMontagulatergrappled.FurthermoretheconferencewasthelasttimeEnglishmendealtwithpredestinariancontroversypriortotheSynodofDortandthepublicationofANewGagge.10TheimpetusfortheconferencewastheMillenaryPetition,presentedbymoderatePuritanstoJamesIwhilehejourneyedsouthtowardsLondon.HopefulthattheScottishkingwouldbeamenabletorequestsforfurtherreformationoftheChurchofEnglandthanElizabethI,thePuritanspresentedalistofrequeststothenewsovereign.Thepetitionmostlyfocusedonceremonialandadministrativeconcerns.Manyofthemwereclassicpuritangrievancessuchastheuseofthesignofthecrossinbaptism,thewearingofthesurplicebyministers,sportsanddiversiononSunday,improvementintheeducationofministersandpreachers,andoppositiontopluralismandnon‐residency.11 JamesIshrewdlydealtwiththepresentationofgrievancesbycallingtheHamptonCourtConference.ModeratePuritans,ledbytheologianJohnReynolds,andrepresentativesoftheepiscopacydebatedPuritanrequestsforreform.Althoughthepetitionfocusedonceremonialandadministrativematters,asubstantialportionoftheconferencefocusedondebateoverdoctrineandtheefficacyofthesacraments.Reynolds’sfirstlistedrequestwasthatthe“doctrineoftheChurchmightbepreservedinpurityaccordingtoGod’sword.”12WhathemeantbypurityofdoctrinewasevidentfromhisrequesttoaddtheLambethArticlestotheEnglishconfessionoffaith,probablyinanattempttoheadofffurtherreligiouscontroversyafterthedebacleatCambridge.13IftheLambethArticlesweremadetheofficialdoctrineoftheChurchofEnglandtherewouldnolongeranyambiguityconcerningtheChurchofEngland’ssoteriology.Asitstoodthesixteentharticle“Ofsinafterbaptism”containedthetroublinglanguage“wemaydepartfrom[thesavinggrace]given,andfallintosin,andbythegraceofGodwemayriseagain,and
8Ibid.,371.9Cosin,CorrespondenceI,22.10AntiCalvinists,9.11“TheMillenaryPetition,28April1603,”TheAnglicanCanons15291947,ed.GeraldBray(Woodbridge:BoydellPress,1998),817‐819.12Cardwell,178.13Ibid.
![Page 12: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
6
amendourlives.”14IndicativeoftheambiguouslanguageoftheThirty‐NineArticles,manyofthearticlescouldbereadtoaffirmbothCalvinistandArminiandoctrinedependinguponthereader’sinterpretationandemphasis.Nevertheless,JamesIfollowedthesamecourseasElizabethIbyrefusingtomaketheLambethArticlespartoftheEnglishconfessionoffaithprobablyfearingthatsuchamovewouldonlyincreasereligioustensions.15Instead,heofferedmoderatePuritansadeal:familiarPuritangrievancessuchaspluralism,amorevigorouspreachingministry,smallreformoftheBookofCommonPrayer,andanewEnglishtranslationoftheBibleinreturnforconformitytotheepiscopacy,anacceptanceofexistingceremonialforms,andabsolutelynotolerationforPresbyterianism.16
ReynoldsandthemoderatePuritanpartydidnotgounchallengedatHamptonCourt.RichardBancroft,vehementanti‐PuritanandsuspiciousoftheinfluenceofPresbyterianismonmainstreamPuritanism,representedtheEnglishepiscopacy.17InresponsetoReynolds’srequestthattheLambethArticlesbeaddedtotheEnglishconfessionoffaith,BancroftrespondedbyattackingCalvinistpredestinationandassertingthenecessityofbaptismforsalvation.ChallengingtheabsoluteanddoublepredestinationembodiedintheLambethArticles,heattackedthedoctrineoftheperseveranceofthesaintsbyopiningthat“verymanyinthesedays,neglectingholinessoflife,persistingofgrace,layingalltheirreligionuponpredestination,[believingthat]ifIshallbesaved,Ishallbesaved.”18HehadcriticizedextremeabsolutepredestinationinresponsetoradicalEnglishmillenarianswhoattemptedtoproclaimagovernmentofsaintsbyarguingthatthroughabuseofthedoctrineofpredestination“theymeanttohavehadtheblameofthewickedandintendedmischiefs,bothofthemselvesandoftheirpartakers,removedfromthemselves,andlaidupontheLord’sshoulders.”19Suchanargumentimplicitlyassociatedabsolutepredestinationwith“antinomianperversion,”meaningthatmoralityandobediencetothechurchwereunnecessarybecauseaChristianwassavedsolelybyGod’spleasure.20AdmittedlyagrosscaricatureoftheCalvinistposition,itwasneverthelessapowerfulargumentbecauseitimpliedthatCalvinistsdenigratedtheepiscopacyandthesacramentsoftheChurchofEngland.Bancroftalsostressedthenecessityofbaptismforsalvationbydefendingboththeadministrationofbaptismbylaypersonsincasesofdirenecessityandstressingthatchildrendiedbaptizedcouldbeassuredofsalvation.21AlsopresentwereLancelotAndrewesofWestminster,WilliamBarlowofChester,andJohnOverallofSt.PaulswhohadallopposedtheextremeCalvinismoftheLambethArticles.OverallandBarlowhadespousedmoreliberaltheologiesofgraceduringthe1590s.22There
14TheThirtyNineArticles,1563,"ReligionandSocietyinEarlyModernEngland,ed.DavidCressyandLoriAnneFerrell(NewYork:Routledge,1996),73.15Porter,373‐4,405.16FinchamandLake,26.17ODNBRichardBancroft.18Cardwell,180.19AntiCalvinists,16.20Ibid.,16.21Cardwell,175‐176.22AntiCalvinists,20.
![Page 13: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
7
wereimportantdifferencesbetweenthedoctrinalpositionsofthesemen,especiallyBancroft,andthepositionsthatArminianswouldlateradoptinthe1620s,butthelevelofcontinuityintheargumentspointedtotheindependentdevelopmentofEnglishanti‐Calvinism.23 TheSynodofDortwouldholdthegreatestsignificanceforMontagu’spolemicalcareer.TheinternalpoliticalsituationintheUnitedProvinceshaddeterioratedfollowingtheconclusionoftheTwelveYears’TrucewithSpain.ThereligiousdisputeswithintheDutchChurchoverArminianismhadbecomeincreasinglytiedtothepowerstrugglebetweenthemilitaryleaderoftheUnitedProvinces,CountMauriceofNassau,andthepoliticalleaderoftherepublic,AdvocateofHolland,JohanvanOldenbarnevelt.Thetwomenwereidentifiedwithrivalreligiousfactions,MauricewithDutchCalvinistsandOldenbarneveltwiththeArminians.
KingJamesIwasakeenobserverofthestrugglesbetweenArminianismandCalvinismunfoldingintheUnitedProvinces,goingsofarastopersonallywritetotheStatesGeneralattheHaguetoopposetheappointmentofArminianConradusVorstiustothechairoftheologyatLeidenUniversity,andwhenVorstiuswasappointeddespitetheking’sopposition,wroteadeclarationthatspecificallycondemnedhim.24FollowingthecontroversyoverVorstius,JamesIaddressedtheStatesGeneraloftheUnitedProvincesurgingthesuppressionoftheArminianheresybecauseitposedadangertotheinternalstabilityoftheUnitedProvinces.25FearfulthattheArminianheresywould“creepintothebowelsofourownkingdom,”JamesIwatchedthepowerstrugglewithunease.26 JamesIeventuallysidedwithMauriceandtheDutchCalvinists,partiallybecauseMauricefavoredclosertiestoEnglandevenatthepriceofrecognizingEnglishrightsintheEastIndies;bycontrast,OldenbarneveltfavoredtheKingofFranceandwas“completelyalienated”fromJamesI.27*ThepriceofanalliancewithMauricewasanationalsynodtosettlethereligiousdisputes.By1617,JamesIhaddefinitivelycomeoutinfavorofthemeetingbecausehewasalarmedatthecontinuedspreadofArminianismandencouragedbyhisson‐in‐law,ElectorFrederickofthePalatinate.28ThesynodinvitedEnglandtosendadelegationandJamesIselectedOxfordacademicandbishopGeorgeCarleton,futurebishopsJosephHall(whowouldbecomeillandbereplacedbyThomasGoad,achaplainofArchbishopAbbot)andJohnDavenant,SamuelWardofCambridge,andthesole23Ibid.,17.24“ADeclarationconcerningtheProceedingswiththeStatesGeneraloftheUnitedProvincesoftheLowCountreysinthecauseofD.ConradusVorstius”and“DeclarationagainstVorstius,”TheWorksoftheMostHighandMightiePrinceJames(1616),356,365.25SirRalphWinwood,”SirRalphWinwood’ssecondRemonstranceintheAssemblyoftheStatesGenerallconcerningVorstius,25thNovembre1611,”MemorialsofAffairsofStateintheReignsofQ.ElizabethandK.JamesI,IIIed.E.Sawyer(NewYork:AMSPress,1972),305.26Wallace,80.27JamesI,“FromKingJamestheFristtoSirRalphWinwood,18èmeFevrier1611,“MemorialsofAffairsofStateintheReignsofQ.ElizabethandK.JamesIIIIed.E.Sawyer(NewYork:AMSPress,1972),339.28JamesI,“KingJamesItotheStatesGeneral,20/30March1617,”6‐8andJamesI,“KingJamesItoSirDudleyCarleton,12/22July1617,”10,TheBritishDelegationtotheSynodofDort,ed.AnthonyMilton(Woodbridge:BoydellPress,2005).
![Page 14: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
8
ScotsmanWalterBalcanqual.Thedelegatessharedtheassumptionsthat“predestinationwasunconditional,thatatonementwaslimitedtotheelect,andthatgracewasirresistibleandperseverancefinal.”29 WhileostensiblyadebatebetweenDutchArminiansandDutchCalvinists,thesynodwaslittlemorethana“showtrial.”30FromthebeginningtheArminianswereonthedefensivefromCalvinistprosecutionandtheoutcomewashardlyindoubt.IntheendDutchCalvinistsdismissedtheArminiansfromthesynodandcondemnedtheminabsentia.ThefinalproductwastheCanonsofDort,whichreaffirmedCalvinistorthodoxyagainsttheArminianinnovators.Electionistheresultsolelyof“thegoodpleasureofGod”andnot“anyothergoodqualityordispositioninman.”31AnEnglishtranslationoftheCanonswasdulyprintedin1619withroyalapprovalthoughthecanonswerenotaddedtotheEnglishconfessionoffaith.32 HowevertheSynodofDortonlyincreasedreligiousconflictintheChurchofEngland.TheinvolvementofleadingacademicsfromCambridge,wherepredestinariancontroversyhadragedlessthantwodecadesearlier,sharpenedexitingreligiousdividesandfocusedattentionontheissuesdiscussedatthesynod.ByattemptingtosuppressDutchArminianism,theEnglishdelegationtotheSynodofDortmadeneutralityinconflictoverthetheologyofgraceincreasinguntenable.ThereforewhenMontagupublishedhisworksfiveyearslatertheChurchofEnglandhadalreadyexperiencedconsiderablereligiousturmoil.HisargumentshadEnglishprecedentsindependentofDutchArminianismandcontemporariesperceptionsoftheargumentativeclericwerecoloredbythedecadeslonghistoryofreligiouscontroversy.Englishanti‐CalvinismwasnotmerelyaDutchimportbuthadahistoryandinheritanceofitsown.TheLambethArticlesandtheHamptonCourtillustratedtheincreasinglytenseatmosphereintowhichANewGaggentered.EnglishparticipationinthecondemnationofDutchArminianismattheSynodofDortmadetheArminianchargeapotentpoliticalweaponandgaveEnglishCalvinistsaterm–“Arminianism”–withwhichtheycouldeasilyidentifyEnglishanti‐Calvinists.
TheProblemofDefinition
The terms Puritan and Arminian raise multiple problems. Historians havedebatedthenatureandusefulnessofthesetermsindescribingreligiousgroupsandideologies. At the root of the problem is the fact that the labels were never self‐applied.HillelSchwartzpointedoutthat“noEnglishdivineintheearlyseventeenthcentury called himself an Arminian,” while Conrad Russell demonstrated that“’Puritan’ was a term of abuse andwas therefore normally reserved for those in
29Wallace,81.30J.SearsMcGee,“WilliamLaudandtheOutwardFaceofReligion,”LeadersoftheReformationed.RichardLDeMolen(Cranbury:AssociatedUniversityPress,1984),320.31Canons,ratifiedintheNationalSynodoftheReformedChurch,heldatDordrechtintheyears1618and1619(NewYork:WhitingandWatson,1812),3.32AntiCalvinists,102.
![Page 15: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
9
disfavor.”33Both terms are either applied retroactively by historians or flung atEnglishmen by their opponents. However the difficulties inherent in thenomenclature of the early Stuart church illustrates how the meanings andconnotationwasinflux,andthereforesubjecttoredefinition.AshistorianAnthonyMiltonhaspointedout,“itmaywellbethatdivisionsovertheapplicationofthesepolarizing labels, rather thanthedoctrineofgrace, lieat theheartof thereligiousdisputesthatdisturbedtheearlyStuartChurch.”34Inotherwords,debateoverhowvariousstreamsofEnglishreligiousthoughrelatedtothechurchandinternationalChristianitywereasimportantaspredestinarianandliturgicaldifferences.
ThemostrevolutionaryandcontroversialaspectofMontagu’sworkswastheredefinitionofCalvinismas“doctrinalPuritanism.”35AlthoughallPuritanswereCalvinists,notallCalvinistswerePuritans.Evencommittedanti‐CalvinistswereforcedtoadmitthattheCalvinistswerethedominantforceintheChurchofEnglandeveniftheofficialdoctrinedidnotreflectthefact.36HowevertheThirtyNineArticlesretainedtheirdoctrinalambiguityandEnglishCalvinistswereneverabletomakeCalvinismthedejuredoctrineoftheChurchofEnglandevenifitwasundeniablythedefactostandard.InfactEnglishCalvinistswerenevertowinaclearanddecisivevictoryliketheirDutchcounterparts.
Broadlyspeaking,Puritanismhadtraditionallybeendefinedasnon‐conformity.Puritansheldtosolascripturaintermsofchurchgovernance.Theybelievedthatwhen“humanauthorityfailedtoconformwitheventhegeneralimplicationofscripture,asexpoundedandappliedbythepreacher,itmustberesisted.”37Bycontrast,conformistsdistinguishedbetweentheessentialsoftheChristianreligionandthenon‐essentialsoradiaphoraoftheChristianreligion.Inmattersofadiaphora“humanreasonandhumanauthorityhadthepowertodeviseandenforcepolicy.”38ThereforeChristianscoulddifferfromoneanotherandstillbepartofthesamechurch.FollowingthedefinitionofPuritanismasnon‐conformity,aCalvinistcouldeitherbeaconformistoranon‐conformistdependingonhisdefinitionofadiaphora.ModeratePuritanwasanaptnameforthegroupofreformmindedEnglishProtestantswhoneverthelessconformedtotheChurchofEngland.ByequatingdoctrinalCalvinismwithPuritanism,MontagupushedallCalvinistsoutoftheChurchofEngland.
ThusPuritanismtraditionallylaidmorestressonliturgicalandecclesiasticalreformthandoctrinalreform.ArevealingexamplewasagatheringofmoreradicalPuritansparalleltothegatheringofmoderatePuritansatHamptonCourt.ThesePuritansthoughtthattheretentionofvestigial“popish”ceremonieswasnotamatterofindifferencebutoffensivetobothGodandtheChurchofEngland:
Theuseofthesurplice,cope,crossinbaptism,kneelingatcommunion...impositionofhandsinconfirmation,ringinmarriage,andsundryother
33Russell,Parliaments,27.34Milton,4.35Aspects,165.36Heylyn,121;Macauley190‐192.37PatrickCollinson,TheElizabethanPuritanMovement(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1967),27.38Ibid.
![Page 16: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
10
offensiveceremoniesinourChurch,isnotindifferentbutsimplyunlawfulinthepublicworshipanddivineserviceofGod.39
FurthermoretheydesiredreformofthePrayerBooktobringitinlinewiththeBibleandpurgeitofidolatry.40ChurchgovernmentprovidedanotherstickingpointbetweenradicalandmoderatePuritans.WhilemoderateandconformistPuritanscouldsympathizewithwidespreadfrustrationattherampantabuse,pluralism,andungodlylifestylesprevalentintheepiscopacy,moderatePuritanssteeredclearofPresbyterianism. Bycontrast,numerouspetitionscirculatedamongthePuritancommunityexpressingadesirefor“discipline,asitwasdeliveredbyoursaviorChristandhisholyapostle”and“agreeabletotheexampleofotherreformedchurches.”41Althoughthesepetitionsusuallywarnedthatoneshould“notexpresslydesiretheremovalofbishops,”suchstatementsusuallyimpliedamovetowardsPresbyterian‐stylechurchgovernance,increasingthepoweroflocalparishesandintroducinglay‐elders.42ThusbothmoderateandradicalPuritanssharedadesiretoreformtheChurchofEngland,butmoderatePuritansdisdainedseparatismandPresbyterianism.WhethersuchmoderatePuritansmadea“politiquesubscription”ortrulybelievedinthelegitimacyoftheepiscopacywasanothermatter.43
ArminianismproperoriginatedwithDutchtheologianJacobArminius(1560‐1609)whosebodyofworkformedthebasisfortheDutchArminianmovement.ThetermwasimportedtoEnglandtodescribeMontaguforbothpoliticalreasonsandbecauseofeaseofuse.JamesI’soppositiontotheDutchArminians,hissupportfortheSynodofDort,andthepresenceofanEnglishdelegationatthesynodmeantthat“Arminian”wasapoliticallypotentweaponevenifitobscureddifferencesbetweenEnglishandDutchArminians.44However,predestinariancontroversystretchedbacktothe1590sandtheEnglishdivineswhochallengedCalvinisthegemonypriortotheSynodofDortwereproperlylabeled“Arminiansavantlalettre.”45
ThusMontagu’sclaimthathehadnotreadArminiuspriortowritingANewGaggandAppelloCaesaremcouldhavebeengenuinebecausesimilarthoughtwasdevelopinginEnglandparalleltothedevelopmentofDutchArminianism.ContemporarieslabeledMontaguanArminianbecauseof“communityinhisfaith(nothiswritings)thatprocuresthat[Arminian]title.”46HistorianNicholasTyackeexplainedthat“theterminanEnglishcontextdenotesasimilarityofdoctrine[withDutchArminians],asregardsatheologyofgrace,ratherthanacommonsource.”47EnglishclergymanandArminianapologistPeterHeylyn,activelyinvolvedinthereligiouscontroversyofthe1620sunderthetutelageofWilliamLaud,rejectedthe
39Aspects,112.40Ibid.41Ibid42Ibid43Ibid113.44Macauley,219‐220.45Aspects,3.46AnthonyWotton,ADangerousPlotDiscovered.(London:1626),sigs.a1v‐a2.47Aspects,165.
![Page 17: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
11
useofthetermArminiantodescribetheanti‐Calvinistmovementofthe1620sand1630s.HecomparedittoAmerigoVespuccilendinghisnametothecontinentofAmericaandpreferredinsteadtheterm“OldEnglishProtestant.”48 ThelabelArminianwasevenmoreproblematic.TherelationshipbetweenhumanwillandGod’sforeknowledgehadperplexedtheologianssinceantiquity.ManyArminianteachingshadprecedentinantiquityamongPelagiusandChrysostomaswellasmoremodernprecedentsinLutheranism.ThemoderatePuritanSirSimondD’Ewes,surveyingthehistoryofheresyinChristendom,sawArminianismasmerelythenewestiterationofPelagianism.HegroupedArminanism,RomanCatholicism,Anabaptism,andSocianismasvariationsonthe“Pelagiantheme,”theimportanceofhumanity’sfreewill.49HoweverthepresenceofCalvinistdelegatesattheSynodofDortputtheterm“Arminianism”inthemouthsCalvinistdivines.Furthermore,EnglandwastheonlycountryinwhichCalvinismwaseclipsedbyArminianismfollowingtheSynodofDort.50ThereforealthoughMontaguwrotehisworkslargelyindependentofDutchArminianism,similaritiesincoreareaslikepredestinationmeantthelabel“Arminian”wasthemostintelligibleandavailableevenifitobscuredsubtledifferencesbetweenEnglishArminianismandDutchArminianism.AsTyackehaspointedout,“anti‐Calvinismis,strictlyspeaking,amoreaccuratedescriptionthanArminianism,yettoinsistuponitseemsundulypedantic.”51
ANewGagg(1624)
EvenbeforethepublicationofANewGagg,Montaguemergedasacontentiousandformidablepolemicist.52Infact,priortothepublicationoftheANewGagg,hepublishedDiatribaeupontheFirstPartofthe‘LateHistoryofTithes’(1621)whichtackledthequestionofthelegitimacyandhistoryoftithes,aswellasAnalectaecclesiasticarumexertationum(1622)whichattemptedtorefuteRomanCatholicchurchhistoryandvindicatetheChurchofEngland.Hisworksshowedaremarkableknowledgeofpatristics,Greek,andLatin.HiseruditionwassupplementedbyacausticandvituperativepolemicalstylethatwassuretofurtherrankleEnglishmenalreadyopposedtohisideas.Evenso,Montagu,hithertoarelativelyunremarkableecclesiasticalfunctionary,couldnothaveforeseenthenotorietythatANewGaggwouldbring.
Publishedin1624asJamesI’sreignneareditsend,ANewGaggforanOldGoosesignaledadramaticshiftinthereligiousclimate.However,thegenesisofANewGaggwasratherobscure.Montagu,thenrectorofStamfordRiversinEssex,assertedintheintroductiontotheworkthatsometimein1622Catholicswere48Ibid2;ODNBPeterHeylyn.49J.SearsMcGee,“SirSimondD’Ewes:A‘respectableconservative’ora‘fieryspirit?,”England’sWarsofReligionRevisited,ed.CharlesW.A.PriorandGlennBurgess(Farnham:AshgatePublishingLimited),155‐157.50Aspects,157.51Ibid.,159.52Cosin,Correspondence,1:17;Macauley187andfootnote2;ODNBRichardMontaguandMatthewKellison.
![Page 18: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
12
activeinhisparishwiththeintenttoproselytizeandconverthisparishioners.Obviouslyconcernedaboutthisturnofevents,hedecidedtotakeaconfrontationalapproach,challengingtheCatholicmissionariestoprovethetruenessandrighteousnessoftheRomanCatholicChurchanditsdoctrines.Hethendrewupthreepropositionstodebate:first,thatthepresent“RomanChurch”wasnotthetruecatholicChurch,thatisthelegitimateanduniversalchurchofWesternChristendom;second,theChurchofEnglandwasinfactthetruecatholicChurch;andthird,noneofthedoctrineswhichtheRomanCatholicChurchheldcontrarytotheChurchofEnglandwereinfactthedoctrineofthetruecatholicChurch.53Montaguassertedthatifanyoneofthemweredisprovedtohissatisfaction,hewouldconverttoRomanCatholicism.
TheresponsecamefromintheformofthetreatiseTheGaggefortheReformedGospell(1623),theauthorshipofwhichwasunclear.MontaguinitiallysuspectedEnglishapostateMatthewKellisonbutitwasJohnHeighamoftheJesuitCollegeStOmerandanEnglishCatholicrecusantwhohadpublishedanumberofCatholicbooksaswellassmugglingCounter‐Reformationworksintothecountrywhowasmostprobablytheauthor.HisGaggeoftheReformedGospellleveledvariouscriticismsatProtestantsoteriology,especiallythedoctrineofabsolutepredestination.MontaguappearedtobeunawareoftheidentityoftheauthorbecausehedidnotnamehimanywhereinANewGagg.Apparently,the“gagger”hadnotmadeacasetohissatisfactionbecauseherepliedwithANewGaggforanOldGoose.OstensiblyadefenseofhischurchagainstRomanCatholicism,moreulteriormotiveswereevidentinhisinstructionstohiscloseallyJohnCosintoletno“Puritan”seeit.54Todefendhischurch,Montagumadealistofforty‐sevenpointsofcontentionraisedbyhisopponentandproceededtoconsiderwhethertheyindeedconstitutedthetrueProtestantdoctrineoftheChurchofEngland.Intheend,hefoundthatonlyeightorninewerethetrulythedoctrineoftheChurchofEngland.Thepointsinquestionincludedadiverserangeoftopics,fromtheefficacyofprayerstosaintstobaptism,butmanyrevolvedaroundtheissueoffreewill,justifyingfaith,andtherelationofthesacramentstoboth.
Montagu’snovelresponsewasnottodefendthedoctrinesinquestionbuttodistanceanddisassociatetheChurchofEnglandfromthem.Withhisusualbrashandtactlessmanner,heasserted“againstProtestantsyourGagisdirected,notPuritansandyetallyouraddresses,well‐neer,areagainstPuritanpositions,maliciouslyimputedtoProtestants.”55ManyoftheallegederrorsoftheChurchofEnglandwere“mereopinions,privatefancies,peculiarpropositions”ofwhichsomewere“rakedtogetheroutofthelay‐stalls[dungheaps]ofdeepestPuritanism,asmuchopposingtheChurchofEngland,astheChurchofRome.”56Inotherwords,theCatholicgaggerfalselyassumedthattheChurchofEnglandwasCalvinistindoctrine.CalvinismwasnotthedoctrineoftheChurchofEnglandbutmerelytheprivateopinionsanddoctrinesofPuritans.
53Montagu1624,sig.[].3v.54Cosin,Correspondence,1:32.55Montagu1624,323‐324.56Ibid�2V.
![Page 19: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
13
MontaguattackedpredestinarianideasbyopposingtheCalvinistdoctrineoftheabsoluteperseveranceofthesaints.Forexample,inexaminingthesixthpointofcontention,thatthefallofAdamrobbedmenoftheirabilitytochoosebetweengoodandevil,hecametothreeconclusions:firstly,thatalthoughmanisinastateofcorruptionhe“hathfreedomeofwillinActionsNaturalandCivil;”secondly,man“hathfree‐willinmattersmoral;”andthirdly,man“hathfreewillinActionsofPiety,andsuchasbelonguntohissalvation.”57ThesummaryofhisconclusionsisthatnomancoulddrawneartoGodsolelythroughdivineprovidencebutratheramancoulddosothroughhisownactions.Heconsignedthequestionoftherelationbetweenfreewillandpredestinationtointricatedisputationandacademicdebate,labelingsuchquestions“pointsofinextricableobscurity.”58
Montagu’sviewsontheperseveranceofsaintsaremuchclearer.HeemphaticallyrejectedtheviewthattheChurchofEnglandheldthattheelectcouldnotfalltotallyandfinallyfromgrace.Insteadheexplicitlystatedthatthere“isnosuchConclusionorArticletendereduntotheChurchofEnglandorresolvedof,untousasoffaith.”59Again,heacknowledgedtheexistenceofawiderangeofopinionsonthesubjectbutinthiscasearguedthatthebothscriptureandtheChurchFatherswereagainsttheideathattheelectwereforeverassuredofsalvation.QuotingEzekiel,heassertedthatarighteousmanmaydoeviland“allhisrighteousnessthathehathdoneshallnotberememberedbutinhistransgressionsthathehathcommitted,andinhissinthathehathsinned,inthemshallhedie.”60Man,beingmortal,fallible,andcorrupt,canresistgraceorloseit.
MontagufoundabsolutepredestinationtobeaperversionofScriptureandhesupportedhispositionbyapplyinghisunderstandingofabsolutepredestinationtoPeterandJudas.
PeterwassavedbecausethatGodwouldhavehimsavedabsolutely;andresolvedtosavehimnecessarily,becausehewouldso,andnofurther;thatJudaswasdamnedasnecessarily,becausethatGod,asabsolutetodecree,asomnipotenttoeffect,didprimarilytoresolveconcerninghim,andsodeterminetouchinghim,withoutrespectofanythingbuthisownwill.InsomuchthatPetercouldnotperish,thoughhewould,norJudasbesaved,dowhathecould.61
ThisisMontagu’scharacterizationoftheorthodoxCalvinismthatmanyCalvinistswouldhaveobjectedwasamisrepresentationoftheirviews.Leavingthataside,hebelievedthatabsoluteanddoublepredestinationnecessarilycompletelyobviatedfreewillandmorality.FurthermoretheChurchofEnglandpubliclyopposedandcondemnedthisdoctrine. Tobegin,hearguedthataChristian’sfaithandthereforegracearemutableandinflux.Heformulatedathreefoldhierarchyofgracethroughwhichmenmaymove.First,amanmustmovefromthestateofnatureandoriginalsintoastateof
57Ibid.,109.58Ibid.,110.59Ibid.,157.60Ibid.,159.61Ibid.,179.
![Page 20: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
14
graceprimarilythroughremissionofsin;second,amanmayrenderhimselfmore“justandrighteous;”andthird,amanmaybedeclaredandrecognizedas“justandrighteous.”62Theconceptofamutablehierarchyofgraceinandofitselfpresentedproblemsforabsolutepredestinationbecauseitimpliedthatgracewasnotpermanent.Coupledwithhisassertionthatonemayfalltotallyandfinallyfromastateofgrace,itstruckattheheartofCalvinistcertainty.ItimpliedthatGodwasnot,afterall,incontroloftheuniversehehadcreated. Thesecondassertion,thatmancouldmakehimselfmorerighteous,clearlyindicatedthatnotonlywasastateofgraceimpermanentbutthatmancouldthroughhisownfreewillhelporhinderhisownsalvation.Thethirdandfinalstep,thatmanmustbedeclaredrighteous–that“hisnobleactsaremadeknown,andmendopraisehimforhismercy,goodness,andsalvation”–alsomadetheretentionofgracecontingentontheactionsandthoughtsofman.63Furthermoreinhissummaryofhishierarchyofgrace,MontagumadeacaseforadistinctlydifferentformulationofpredestinationfromtheCalvinistmodel.Thechangefromastateofnaturalsintoastateofgrace
ismotion,astheysay,betwixttwoterms,andconsistethinforgivenessofsinsprimarilyandGraceinfusedsecondarily:boththeactofGod’sspiritinman,butapplied,orratherobtainedthroughfaithwhichrepresentsfirstGodwilling,andreadytoforgiveandrenew.Drawethnearuntohim;closetfastwithhim.Adherethuntohiminseparablywith,Iwillnotlettheego,exceptthoubless.AndGoddothreturn,Iwillblessetheepardonthysinsfornamessake,andaccepttheeasmineowninChristmySon,whoseBloodhathmadeatonementforMan...Godonlyjustifieth,whoaloneimputethnot,butpardonethsin...[OnlyGodcan]translateusfromdeathuntolife,renewetharightSpiritandcreatethnewheartwithinus...[ButGod]wasdrawntheretobyourFaith...TheSoulofmanisthesubjectofthisact.Inwhich,untowhich,arenecessarilyrequiredcertainpreparations,andpreviousdispositions...64
Inotherwords,Montagubelievedthatman’sfaithandactionswereinstrumentalinsalvation.Electiontoeverlastinglifeiscontingentonman’sfaith:faithistheinstrumentofsalvationofwhichGodisthecauseandGodofferedfaithtoall.Hecoupledjustifyingfaithwiththebeliefthatgoodworksandcharity,whilenotthesolecausesofsalvation,wereeffectivedemonstrationsofaman’sfaith.Forexample,hepointedtoICor.13:2(AndthoughIhavethegiftofprophesy,andunderstandallmysteriesandallknowledge:andthoughIhaveallfaith,sothatIcouldremovemountains,andhavenocharity,Iamnothing)assignifyingthat“ThoughIhaveallfaith,sothatIcouldremovemountains,andhavenocharity,Iamnothing.Thereforeonlyfaithdothnotjustify.”65
Montaguthoughtthatthehumanwillplayedamuchgreaterroleinsalvationthanmanyofhispeers.Heoftenrelegatedtheintricaciesofthepointsincontention
62Ibid.,14063Ibid.,142.64Ibid.,143.65Ibid.,145.
![Page 21: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
15
tothecategoryofadiaphora,thingsindifferenttosalvationandprivateopinions,andclaimedthattheyweremoresuitedforacademicdiscoursethanpopularpreaching.66EventhoughheadmittedthatmanyEnglishmenheldthepointsinquestionasthetruedoctrineoftheChurchofEngland,heassertedthat“thelearndestintheChurchofEngland”wereofthemindthateventheelectcouldlosejustifyingfaithtotallyandfinally.67HeclearlyfounddoubleandabsolutepredestinationdistastefulandwishedtodistancetheChurchofEnglandfromthem.Havingintroducedfreewillintothedebate,heenvisionedamuchgreaterroleforthesacraments,goodworks,andtheecclesiasticalhierarchyinsalvationandthemaintenanceoftheChurchofEngland. InANewGagg,Montaguwroteextensivelyonthesacraments.Heenvisionedalargeroleforthesacramentsinachievingsalvation.Indeedhisemphasisonhumanwillinpredestinationandemphasisonthesacramentswere“logicallyconnected,”with“sacramentalgracereplacingthegraceofpredestination.”68Hedevotedsectionsinhisworktotheroleofbaptism,lastrites,andtransubstantiation.BaptismwasthemostcontroversialofthesethreeinEnglandamongPuritans,ashewascarefultonote.Howeverhearguedthatas“allmenareconceivedandborninsin...onecannotenterintotheKingdomofGod,exceptheberegenerateandborneanewofwaterandtheHolyGhost.”69Inhismodel,baptismdispensesgracenecessaryforaninfanttobebornagainandbeeligibleforentryintoHeaven.Hisinsistenceontheroleofbaptisminsalvationmadesensewhenthewholeofhisargumentisconsidered.Theroleofsacramentsindispensinggraceandbuttressingjustifyingfaithcouldonlyhaveincreasedwhenanindividualwasrequiredtoexercisetheirownwillsincooperationwithdivinepredestination.HearguedvigorouslyagainsttheinclusionofextremeunctionorlastritesamongthesacramentsoftheChurchofEngland.ButheviewedtheremainingsacramentsasvehiclesthroughwhichtheChurchconferred“inwardandspiritualgrace”andrepresented“God’sloveandpromise,sealsofhiscovenantandgrace,andinstrumentsandconveyancesofhismercy.”70 TheChurchofEngland’sstanceonbaptismwasambiguous.Indeed,therelationofbaptismtosalvationwasacontentiousissueinMontagu’stime.TheElizabethanBookofCommonPrayerstatedthatbaptizedchildrenweremade“heirsofeverlastingsalvationthroughourLordJesusChrist”buttheirsalvationwascontingentonadherencetothewordofGodandhiscommandments.71Thesixteentharticle,Ofsinafterbaptism,oftheThirtyNineArticles(1563)wassoambiguousastobeimpenetrableandcouldbeinterpretedtosupportanumberofpositions.72TheceremonyofbaptismmadeboldpromisesonbehalfofthebaptizedchildandabodyofexpositionsontheElizabethanBookofCommonPrayerinorder66Ibid.,107,157–158,179,67Ibid.,179.68AntiCalvinists,176.69Montagu1624,246.70Ibid.,251.71ThePrayerBookofQueenElizabeth,(Edinburg:JohnGrant,1911),109.72"TheThirtyNineArticles,1563,"ReligionandSocietyinEarlyModernEngland,ed.DavidCressyandLoriAnneFerrell(NewYork:Routledge,1996),73.
![Page 22: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
16
tosquarethemwithpredestinariansoteriology.Montaguhimselftookissuewiththegagger’sassertionthatchildrencouldbesavedsolelybytheparentswithoutbaptism.Referencingthecontroversythatsurroundedtheceremonyofbaptism,hecomplainedthattheChurchofEngland“hadbeenputtomaintainandjustifyitagainstschismaticalhumors,notPapistsbutPuritansathome.”73Again,hedidnotdenythatsomeheldthisdoctrinebutitwasmerelyaprivateopinion,andtheCatholicsthemselves“wouldbelothtomaintainallprivateopinionsintheChurchofRome.”74 Montagudevotedanentiresectiontorefutingthegagger’sproposition“ThattheBreadoftheSupperisbutafigureofthebodyofChrist.”75HerethegaggerclaimedthattheChurchofEnglandheldtheZwinglianpositionthatthecommunionwasamemorialofChrist’ssacrificeandfurthermorethatthebodyandbloodofChristwerenotphysicallypresent.Montagurejectedthisclaimoutright,pointingtotheCommunionBook,whichexplicitlystated“thebodyandbloodofChristtakenandeatenintheLord’sSupper;”theEnglishliturgystated“Thisismybody,thisismyblood”not“thisfigureth”orthis“defineth.”76Asforthemannerinwhichthistransformationoccurred,heconsidereditamootquestionandherefusedtodelveintothe“unexplicablelabyrinthsofConsubstantiationandTransubstantiation.”77 Havingassertedthatbaptismdispensedsavinggrace,Montaguthenmadethegraceimpartedbycommunionnecessaryforsalvation:“Life,beguninbaptismbythelaver[washbasinofbaptism]ofregeneration,isconfirmedandsustainedintheholysupperbyhisbodyandblood.”78Furthermore,heplacedemphasisontheroleofpriestsinconsecratingthehost.CitingtheancientapologistJustinMartyr,Heexplainedthatitwasbettertothinkofthehostintermsofbreadandwinetransformedbyconsecrationby“whomwecallDeacons”insteadofbreadandwinetransformedbytransubstantiation.79Elaboratingonthisidea,heappealedtotheauthorityoftheFrenchSaintRemigius:“ThefleshwhichtheWordofGodtookintheVirgin’swomb,andtheBreadconsecratedintheChurch,areofthesamebody.”80HeinterpretedRemigiustomeanthat“thebreadwhichwas,beingconsecratedintheChurch,istransubstantiatedintothatfleshwhichtheWordofGodtookintheVirgin’swomb,andbecamethesamebody.”81Whileheemphasizedthemiraculousnatureoftransubstantiation,hesimultaneouslyemphasizedtheveryconcreteroleofchurchmenineffectingit.
AppelloCaesarem(1625)
73Montagu1624,246.74Ibid.,248.75Ibid.,250.76Ibid.,250.77Ibid.,25278Ibid.79Ibid.,254.80Ibid.,256.81Ibid.
![Page 23: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
17
AccordingtoMontagu,AppelloCaesaremhadbeenwrittenwithJamesI’sencouragementtodefendhimselfinprint.JamesIalsoinstructedFrancisWhitetolookovertheworktomakesurethatthebookwasinagreementwiththedoctrineoftheChurchofEngland.82Indeed,thebookboretheapprobationofFrancisWhitewhichstatedthathefound“nothingtherein,butwhatisagreeabletothepublicfaith,doctrineanddisciplineestablishedintheChurchofEngland.”83However,sincetheearly1620sWhitehadbeenidentifiedwiththeArminianpartyandwouldlaterdefendMontaguattheYorkHouseconference,sohisapprovaloftheworkdidnotsatisfyCalvinists.Furthermore,bythetimeofpublicationJamesIhaddiedandhissonCharlesI,amanofverydifferentreligiousinclinations,hadtakenthethrone.
TherewassignificantcontinuitybetweentheargumentsofAppelloCaesaremandANewGagg.However,inAppelloCaesaremMontaguwasrespondingtodirectcriticismsofhispreviouswork.Hetookhiscriticstotask,sayingthatwhathisopponentshadsupposedtobethetruedoctrinesoftheChurchofEnglandwereinreality“theproblematicalopinionsofprivateDoctors,tobeheldornotheldeitherway;orelsethefanciesmanyoftheoffactiousmen,disclaimedandcensuredbytheChurch,nottobeheldanyway.”84Thesefactiousmenwere“classicalPuritans”whowishedtopasstheir“strangedeterminations,sabbatarianparadoxes,andapocalypticaldoctrine”asthedoctrineoftheChurchofEngland.85MontagureiteratedmanyofhisargumentsfromANewGaggbutincludedmuchmoreexplicitcommentary.Reexamininghisexampleoftheperversenatureofabsolutepredestination(thatPeterwassavedandJudasdamnedsolelybecauseofGod’swill),heremainedasdefiantasever.86Heflungtheattacksonhisworksbackathiscritics.Inhismind,Calvinistshadmade“GodtheAuthorofSin”andthereforetheauthorofthetreasonofJudas.87Thechapter,whichhelabeled“DangerousconsequencesbroughtbyOthers,upontheirrespectivedecree,”wasdirectlyaddressedto“YouCalvinists.”88Thoughthesubstanceoftheargumentisidentical,inAppelloCaesaremMontagutargetedtheCalvinistsmoreexplicitlythaninANewGagg. Indeed,withtheauthorityoftheEnglishmonarchbehindhim,Montagubecamebolder.Theworkwasfullofbroadaccusationsof“Presbyteriantricks”and“Puritanicalrefinedmalice.”89HecontinuedwithhisclaimtodefendtheestablisheddoctrineoftheChurchofEnglandversustheopinionsofprivatemenorsects.Employingapopularrhetoricaldeviceofthetime,heassertedthathehadnotpositivelyresolvedanyissueofdoctrine.HehadmerelyelaboratedtheestablisheddoctrineoftheChurchofEnglandthatwasinfullagreementwiththeChurchfathers.Inotherwords,ANewGaggwasanattempttodefendthe“consented,resolved,andsubscribedArticlesoftheChurchofEngland”againstCatholic82Montagu1625sig.a3r.83Ibidsig.A4v.84Ibidsigs.a1v‐a2r85Ibidsig.a2v.86SeePage7above.87M on t a g u 1 6 25 , 5 4 . 88Ibid., 53. 89Ibid., 23‐24..
![Page 24: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
18
agitatorsbentonmisconstruingsaiddoctrine.90AsfortheantiqueChurch,theChurchFathers“affirmmorethanMr.Montaguhithertohathdone.”91TheideasthathehadespousedinANewGaggwerenotinventedbyMontaguandweretheestablisheddoctrineoftheChurchlongbeforeANewGaggortheauthorexisted.92
InANewGagg,MontaguhadissuedachallengetotheCatholicgagger.InAppelloCaesarem,HeissuedachallengetohisfellowEnglishProtestants.HewantedhiscriticstopointtoonearticleorestablishedconfessionoffaithoftheChurchofEnglandthatcontradictedANewGagg;notArminius,notCalvin,andcertainlynottheprivateopinionsorfanciesofsomeEnglishchurchmen.Montagudidnothavetowaitlongbeforethechallengescameontothescene.
ThetermArminianismwasabsentfromANewGagg.Incontrast,thefirstelevenchaptersinAppelloCaesaremconcernArminianism.WhereasANewGaggwaswritteninresponsetoaCatholictract,AppelloCaesaremconcerneditselfwithhisfellowEnglishProtestants.Therefore,MontagudirectlyaddressedArminianismandCalvinism,whereasinANewGagghisviewshavetobededuced.HiscriticswereundoubtedlyPuritanswhowishedtorepresenttheirownprivateopinionsandthoughtsasthedoctrineoftheChurchofEngland.93Termslike“Papist”and“Arminian”were,hecontended,merelyinsultsdirectedagainsthimbymaliciousCalvinistsbentonportrayinganyonelessCalvinistthanthemselvesasthreatstotheChurch.94
Hefurtherelaboratedonhiscriticismofabsoluteanddoublepredestinationthroughhisaffirmationofsublapsarianism.ThispositionaffirmedthatGodhaddividedhumanityintotheelectandthereprobateafterthefallofmaninEden.Supralapsarianism,thepositionusuallyheldbyCalvinistsclaimedthatGodhaddividedhumanityintotheelectandthereprobatebeforethefallofman.ThecrucialdistinctionbetweenthetwopositionswasthatinsublapsarianismmanwasresponsibleforhisowndestructionandinsupralapsarianismGodwastheauthorofman’sdestruction.ThusGodcreatedthehumanraceknowingthathewouldconsignthemajorityofhumanitytoeternaldamnation.ThiswasfurtherevidenceonCalvinism’sAntinomianperversionsinceitmadeGod,notman,theauthorofsin,destruction,anddeath.95Tothecontrary,accordingtoMontagu,manwasresponsibleforhisowndestruction:“Usinghisfreedomofwillnotwellasheought,he[Adam]losthisfreedom,undidhimselfandhiswholerace,theninhisloins.”96Adam’sactionscausedmankindtobebornintooriginalsin,notGod’simmutabledecree.ThusmanwasultimatelyresponsibleforhisdestructionandGodliftedtheelectoutofreprobationthroughmercy;toarguethecontrarymeantthatGodwasacapriciousbeingwhoarbitrarilysavedanddamnedindividualsaccordingtohispleasure.
90Ibid., 2 6 . 91Ibid.,27.92Ibid.,56.93Ibid.,3.94Ibid.,4.95Ibid.,49‐51.96Ibid.,63.
![Page 25: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
19
Figure2:Montague’ssublapsarianismcomparedtoCalvinisttheologianWilliamPerkin’ssupralapsarianism.
MontaguclaimedthathewouldnomorelabelhimselfanArminianthana
CalvinistoraLutheran.97IfScriptureandtheancientchurchsupportedArminius,thenhewasanArminian,andthesameforCalvin.98WhetherornothispositionssharedcommongroundwithArminiuswasofnoimport;hewouldaffirmArminianismasfarasscripturesupportedit.99HiscriticshadrepresentedhimasanArminianthrough“shredscutoutfromseveralparts[ofANewGagg],andlaidtogetheragainformostadvantagetotheircalumniation.”100However,heassertedthatthejudgmentofantiquitywasthatfaithcouldbelosttotallyandfinallyandfurthermorethatLutheransheldthesametenet.101Again,heacknowledgedthatsomemenoftheChurchofEngland(“reputedlearned,”inMontagu’swords)holdthat“faithhadcannotbelost.”102However,theystandinoppositiontotheChurchofEngland.TheoppositeopinionhadbeenreaffirmedagainstPuritanagitatorsatHamptonCourtandthereforeallchurchmenhadconsentedtothemuponreceivingbeneficesoruponconsecration.103Furthermore,theThirtyNineArticlesoftheChurchofEngland(1563)werecontrarytoCalvinism.Montagucitedthesixteentharticlewhichread“AfterthatwehavereceivedtheHolyGhost,wemaydepartawayfromgrace,andfallintosin,andbythegraceofGodwemayriseagain,andamendourlives.”104Hisreadingofthisarticlewasthatthesaintsmightfallfromgraceandthepossibilityofreturningtothatstateofgraceexistsbutitisnotacertainty.105
MontagualsotackledtherelationoftheChurchofEnglandtoforeigncouncilsandsynodstotheChurchofEngland.JamesIhadsentadelegationofEnglishdivinestotheSynodofDort(1618‐1619)wheretheDutchCalvinistshad
97Ibid.,10.98Ibid.,13.99Ibid.,65.100Ibid.,22.101Ibid.,22.102Ibid.,28.103Ibid.104Ibid.,29.105Ibid.,30.
![Page 26: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
20
condemnedDutchArminiansandproducedaresoundingendorsementofCalvinistdoctrineintheCanonsofDort.HeclaimedthatitmatterednotwhataforeignsynodhadproclaimedsincehewasboundbythedoctrineoftheChurchofEngland,notthefindingsofaforeignsynod.ContinuinghisthemeofprivateopinionsversusthepublicdoctrineoftheChurchofEngland,MontagumaintainedthatthosemenwhofoundthecanonsofDorttotheirlikingmightsubscribetothem.However,hewouldsupportthedoctrinesofDortonlysofarasthey“consentuntothatwhichIamboundtomaintain,thedoctrineoftheChurchofEngland.”106HeknewofnodecreeorstatuteofParliament,convocation,orthekingthatboundhimtodefendtothedecreesofasynodthat,inhisview,“condemnsuponthebye[byimplication]thedisciplineoftheChurchofEngland.”107HisideasabouttheCatholicChurchwerenolessexplosivethanhisargumentsaboutpredestination.TheRomanCatholicChurchwasanathematomanyEnglishProtestants.Indeed,itwascommonforthePopetobelabeledtheAntichrist. MontagudeniedintheirentiretychargesthathewasaCatholic:“Inor[sic]am,norhavebeen,norintendtobehereafter,eitherPapist,orRomishCatholic;aPapistofState.”108LeavingasideanysimilaritiesbetweenMontagu’sdoctrineandthatoftheRomanCatholicChurch,hisviewsonthenatureoftheRomanCatholicChurchandtheChurchofEnglandrelationshiptoitcausedgreatcontroversy. Tobegin,Montaguclaimedthatthe“ChurchofRomeisatrue,thoughnotasoundChurchofChrist.”109TheRomanCatholicChurch,thoughflawed,didnoterrinessentialsandfundamentals.WhathemeantbyfundamentalswerethoseuniversalandbasictenetsoftheChristianfaiththatallChristianshadtobelievetobesaved.NotallthathereticsbelievedwasheresyandnotallthatCatholicsbelievedwasPopery.SomebeliefswerecentraltoChristianityinthatonemustbelieveinthemtobeconsideredaChristian. ThePopewasoftenidentifiedastheAntichristinProtestantliterature.MontaguarguedthatthePopewasnotdemonstrablytheAntichristandfurthermorethatthequestionhadneverbeenresolvedbytheChurchofEngland.Usingafamiliartrope,heaskedhiscriticswhat“Parliament,Law,Proclamation,orEdict[oftheChurchofEngland]didevercommanditbeprofessed.”110HeacknowledgedthatsomeEnglishdivinesorChurchmenheldthisbeliefandthatReformedChurchesorsynodshadproclaimeditasfactbutmaintainedthattheChurchofEnglandhadnotresolvedthequestionpositivelyornegatively.Forexample,heacknowledgedthattheFrenchReformedSynodofGap(1603)hadinsertedintotheconfessionoffaiththatthePopewastheAntichristbut,inthesamewaythatMontagudeniedtheauthorityoftheSynodofDort,hedismissedtheauthorityoftheSynodofGap. ThisstrainofMontagu’sargumentwasoftenemphasizedbyhiscritics.Theyoftendemanded–before,during,andafter–thattheChurchofEnglandincorporate
106Ibid.,107.107Ibid.,108.108Ibid.,111.109Ibid.,113.110Ibid.,143.
![Page 27: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
21
theArticlesoftheSynodofDort(1618)ortheArticlesoftheIrishConvocationof1615.Hisrejectionoftheauthorityofforeignsynods,usuallyReformedorCalvinistsynods,convincinglydemonstratedwherehissympathieslay.SincehiscriticsgenerallywantedtobringtheChurchofEnglandintothefoldoftheReformedChurches,theysawhisinsistenceonthefundamentalagreementbetweenCanterburyandRomeasevidencethathewantedtobringtheChurchofEnglandintothefoldoftheRomanCatholicChurch.
![Page 28: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
22
‐2‐
HenryBurton:Puritanism,Popery,andtheSynodofDort
HenryBurtonwastherectorofSt.Matthew’s,FridayStreet,London.HewasformerlytheclerkoftheclosettoPrinceCharlesandPrinceHenryuntildismissedfromhispostforpresentingalettertoCharlesIaccusingBishopsRichardNeileandWilliamLaudofsympathytowardsRomanCatholicism.Followinghisdismissal,BurtonbegantoaseriesofpolemicaltractsthatattackedMontagu,EnglishArminians,RomanCatholics,andtheEnglishecclesiasticalestablishment.111Burton’sassessmentofMontaguwasthathechampioned“alltheArminianheresies”aswellasmaintaining“manygrosspointsofPopery.”112Hewastheadvanceguardofthe“prelacticallparty”thatcausedBurton“tofallofffromtheceremonies”bothinconvictionandpractice.113
Burton’stractAPleatoanAppeale(1626)tooktheformofaconversationbetweenthelaymanAsotus,theJesuitBabylonius,andtheCalvinistOrthodoxus.FollowinganappealtoCharlesIandbriefsectionaddressedtothereader,thethreedebatedthemeaningofthelabel“Puritan,”thenatureofpredestination,andtheRomanCatholicChurch.AccordingtoBurton,Montagumadenumerouserrorsinhisworks.Firstandmostgrievously,hemisrepresentedthedoctrineoftheChurchofEngland.Thiserrorwasmanifold:Montagusaidthatthesaintsmayfallfromgraceandthatman’swillworkedinconcertwithGodintheachievementofsalvation.Furthermore,MontagucharacterizedanyonewhodeniedthesedoctrinesasPuritans,besmirchingmanyfaithfulEnglishmananddishonoringtheChurchofEngland.Finally,MontaguhadmischaracterizedtheEnglishChurchasbeingintotalagreementwiththeRomanCatholicChurchinfundamentalswhilesimultaneouslydenyingtheauthorityoftheSynodofDortandotherreformedsynods,drivingawedgebetweentheChurchofEnglandandReformedchurchesinScotland,France,Switzerland,andpartsoftheGerman‐speakinglands.114 BurtonflatlyrejectedMontagu’scharacterizationofPuritanism.Helabeledthewordan“infamousterm”anda“reproach.”ChargingMontaguwithusingthetermtoturn“apeaceableconformist”intoa“seditiousschismatic,”BurtoninturnlabeledhimanArminian.115ThediscussionofthetermPuritaninAPleatoanAppealerevealedcrucialdifferencesintheinterpretationoftheterm.Burtonclaimed,“NonconformistsonlywereaccountedPuritans.”116AchurchmanwhoconformedtotheChurchofEnglandbutwishedforfurtherreformwasnotaPuritan.Forexample,thesameclergymanwhoinveighedagainstnon‐residencyandpluralism,balkedatthoughsofthemassandidolatry,andurgedhisparishioners111ODNBHenryBurton112HenryBurton,ANarrationoftheLifeofMr.HenryBurton(1643),4.113Ibid.,8.114Burton,sigs.¶2v‐¶4r.115Ibidsigs¶2v,a1r.116Ibid.,8.
![Page 29: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
23
keeptheSabbathholyratherthanplayingsportsanddrinkingcouldalso“practicehimself,andpreachuponoccasioninthedefenceofecclesiasticalceremonies”aswellasrefusetogivecommuniontothosewhorefusedtokneel.117Therefore,byMontagu’sdefinitionanyreformedChristiancouldbecalledaPuritan.118
BurtonaccusedMontagunotonlyofArminianheresybutalso“Pontifician[Papist]idolatry.”119SimilartoFrancisRous’scharacterizationofArminianismasaTrojanhorseforRomanCatholicism,BurtonchargedthatMontaguwassympathetictowardsandinagreementwithRome.APleatoanAppeale,RomanCatholicismandArminianismwereinextricablylinkedin.HedenouncedAppelloCaesaremasaworkof“popishArminianism”andthoseofMontagu’silkwere“PontificianArminian[s].”120Montagu’srejectionoftheauthorityoftheSynodofDortaswellashisclaimsthattheRomanCatholicChurchwasfundamentallysoundparticularlyirkedBurton.HepointedtothefactthatalthoughMontagurejectedtheauthorityoftheSynodofDort,heclaimedthattheChurchofEnglandwasinagreementwiththeCouncilofTrent(inwhichtheCatholicChurchcondemnedProtestantism);thatis,“inthemainandfundamentalpointsofreligion,theDoctrineoftheChurchofEnglandagreethwiththeCouncilofTrent.”121Montagu’sunderlyingerrorwashismisrepresentationofthefundamentalsandessentialsofProtestantism.Burtonincludedtheperseveranceofthesaints,absolutepredestination,andCalvinistteachingonman’swillandjustificationintheessentialsoftheChurchofEngland.122
Therefore,inBurton’seyesMontagulaboredtoaligntheChurchofEnglandwiththeRomanCatholicChurch,andindeedtheCounter‐ReformationCouncilofTrenttothedetrimentoftheReformedChurches.TheCouncilofTrentwasthefoundation“ofthemainfabricofRome’sreligion,consistinginhumansatisfactionsandmerits,alldevisedtofillthevastemptinessoftheirjustification.”123BurtonconciselyexplainedtherelationbetweenMontagu,theCouncilofTrentandtheSynodofDort: Andwhatspirit,[trowwe?]isthatmanof,orpossessedwith,that
standssomuchfortheCouncilofTrent,andsolittleesteemstheCouncilofDort?IwotwelltheSynodofDortisanadversarytohisArminianPontificianopinions.124
Atdebatewas“towhatextenthadtheEnglishChurchtrulyseparatefromRome,andwhatwasherpreciserelationshipwiththeReformedChurchesofthecontinent;”astrugglebetween“differentgroupswithinthechurch…overjusthowtheEnglishChurchwastobeunderstoodasboth‘CatholicandReformed.’”125
Burton’sanswertothequestionwastwofold:MontagudisparagedtheChurchofEnglandandintheprocessthemonarchy.HeremindedMontaguthat
117Ibid.118Ibid.,sig.a1v.119Ibid.,sig.a1r.120Ibid.,sig.a3r,a4v.121Ibid.,sig.a2r.122Ibid.,sig.¶3.123Ibid.,sig.a4v.124Ibid.,88.125Milton,5.
![Page 30: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
24
JamesIhelpedtheSynodcometofruitionandsentateamofEnglishdivines.ConsideringhowMontagulaboredtoprovethattheChurchofEnglandagreedinfundamentalswiththeCouncilofTrent,itwaspresumptuousforhimtodefamethememoryofJamesIandtheauthorityofthelearnedEnglishdivineswhoattendedthesynod.MontaguspentmanypagestryingtoprovethattheSynodofDortheldnoauthorityovertheChurchofEnglandandBurton,aswellasYates,vigorouslyarguedtheopposite.Montagu’scriticsrepeatedlycitedthatJamesIlenthisauthorityandhisapprovaltotheSynodofDort.
Furthermore,themenwhorepresentedEnglandattheSynodofDortdirectlyrespondedtoMontaguwith“AJointAttestationavowingthattheDisciplineoftheChurchofEnglandwasnotimpeachedbytheSynodofDort.”ThistextwasattachedtoAnExaminationofthosethingswhereintheauthorofthelateappealeholdeththedoctrinesofthePelagiansandArminiansbyBishopGeorgeCarleton,whohadhimselfbeenamemberoftheEnglishdelegationtotheSynod.ItchallengedMontagu’sassertionsthatthesynodwasunlawfulandthatthesynodhadcondemnedthedoctrineoftheChurchofEngland.126MirroringthelaterparliamentaryprosecutionofMontagu,thedelegatesforcefullyarguedthattheyhadonlyaffirmedorthodoxyinthefaceofArminianheresywiththeexpressapprovaloftheking.
IntheprefacetohisPlea,BurtoninveighedagainstMontagufordestroyingthe“comfortablecertaintyoftruefaith.”127Burton’sbeliefthatwhenhis“footslipped,his[God’s]mercyheldmeup”wascategoricallydismissedbyMontaguwhoassertedthattheelectmayfalltotallyandfinallyfromastateofgrace.128SimilartoFrancisRous’sassertionthatArminianswouldmakeGodlackeytothewillofman,BurtonwrotethatMontaguwouldhavemen“madetherebyGods,self‐sufficient,self‐wise,self‐abletosavethemselves,notonlyintheirreceivingbutretaininggrace,whichworkoftheirownwillsforeseenofGodwas(saythey)thefirstmovingcauseofelectingandpredestinatingthemtosalvation[?]”129BurtonthoughtthatMontagudiminishedthegloryofGodanddenigratedGod’sgiftofeternalsalvationbymakingitcontingentonmen.
JohnYates:Puritanism,Ceremonialism,andtheHouseofCommons
JohnYatespetitionedtheHouseofCommonsafterANewGaggeand
answeredMontaguinprintfollowingAppelloCaesarem.Yates’spolemicalcareerhadbegunbeforetheappearanceofMontagu’sworks.Yates’sfirstworkwasGod’sArraignementofHypocrites(1615),avigorousattackonArminiushimself.130ItcameasnosurprisethathequicklyrespondedtoMontagu’ssecondbookwithhisIbisAd
126GeorgeCarletonetal.AJointAttestationavowingthattheDisciplineoftheChurchofEnglandwasnotimpeachedbytheSynodofDort(1626),2.127Porter,281.128Burton,sig.a3v.129Ibid.,sig.A2v.130ODNBJohnYates
![Page 31: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
25
Caesarem.Init,heaccusedMontaguoffightingagainsttheChurchofEngland“undertheensigneofArminius.”131
IndeedYateswouldplayalargepartinbringingMontagu’scasebeforetheHouseofCommons.HereprintedhispetitiontotheHouseofCommonsattheendofhisIbisadCaesarem(1626)andthereinemphasizedthefactthatJamesIhadapprovedofandhelpedsettheSynodofDortinmotion.132ThekinghadseenthedisorderandchaosthatthespreadofArminianismhadengendered.NowMontagusoughttospreadthesesameopinionsinEngland,andYateschargedthattheresultwouldbethesame.LikeBurton,heusedJamesI’sapprovaloftheSynodofDortasapotentpoliticalargumentagainstMontaguandremindedCharlesIofhisfather’sactions.
YatesalsorejectedMontagu’suseofthetermPuritan.YatesthoughtofPuritanismintermsofnon‐conformitytotheliturgyoftheBookofCommonPrayerratherthanindoctrinalterms:“NeitherChurchnorStatepresumethtojudgethesecretsoftheheart,orcondemnthemforrebels,thatreligiouslyanddutifullyconformthemselvestoorderandgovernment.”133IfMontagu’sredefinitionofPuritanismwereaccepted,CalvinistswhoconformedtotheChurchofEnglandwouldbeincludedamongPuritansandthusexcluded.YatesclaimedthatMontaguportrayedCalvinistsasschismaticsloyaltotheforeign“Genevadiscipline”merelybecausetheywereinagreementinmostpointsofdoctrine.134MontagucouldeasilybelabeledanArminianusingthesamelogic.YatesproceededtothrowthechargeofPuritanismbackinMontagu’sface,claimingthathefitthelabelofPuritanbettersincehewasthecauseofdisturbanceintheChurchofEnglandandhiswritings,atleastinbroadthemes,wereverysimilartoArminius.YatesrecognizedthetrueintentionofMontagu’sredefinitionofPuritanism:to“measurethaPuritanwithSpalatoismet‐wand[measuringstick]concerningFree‐will:Godtheauthorofsin;thegoodpleasureofGodindamningmanywithoutcause.”135
MuchasBurtonhad,YatescriticizedMontagu’ssoteriologybyexaminingtherelationshipbetweenChrist’sdeath,God,andman’sfreewill.MontagusoughttomakemancopartnerwithGodinsalvation.Montagu,Yatesclaimed,madetheargumentthatGodcan“donothingbutwhatthewillofmanimposethuponhim[God].”136God’swillworksuponallmeninfalliblyanditmadelittlesensetoarguethatChrist’sdeathhadbeensufficientforallmen.Yate’sreasoningwasthatGodchoseJesusChrist,hisson,todieforthesinsofallmankind.YetGodtheFatherremainedthefinalarbiterofelectionandreprobation:“TheFatherhathbeguna
131Yates,1:sig.B2r.132Ibid.,3”45‐46.133Ibid.,3:36.134Ibid.135Ibid.,3:36‐37.“Spalatois”referstoMarcusAntoniusdeDominis,ArchbishopofSpalatowhopublishedaseriesofpolemicalattacksontheRomanCatholicChurchandfledtoEnglandundertheprotectionofJamesI.DominislaterlefttheChurchofEnglandandpublishedaseriesofequallyviciousattacksontheChurchofEngland,criticizingEnglishCalvinistsinaverysimilarmannertoMontagu.VideODNBMarcoAntoniodeDominisandRichardNeile’sMarcusAntoniusdeDominis...hisshiftingsinReligion(1624).136Ibid.,I65.
![Page 32: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
26
divineworkforus:theSonbyhisdeath,resurrectionintercession,hathfullydispensedit.”137ThusfaithinChristwasonlyeffectiveinsofarasGodchosewhichChristiansitwaseffectiveupon.
WhereasBurton’swritingontheliturgyemphasizedhisconformitytotheBookofCommonPrayertorefutetheimputationofPuritanism,YatesattackedMontaguforhisliturgicalinnovations.MostoftheliturgicalmaterialinANewGaggeandAppelloCaesaremfocusedontheuseofsacraments,butalsotheuseofimagesandtheexcessiveuseofceremonialformslikethesignofthecross.Hisunderlyingconcernwasthatthesacramentsandceremonialformswerebeingimbuedwithholinessinandofthemselves,placingthemonthesamelevelaspreachingandgodlyworship.ItwassimilartoconflictbetweentheZwinglianideaoftheEucharistasrepresentativeofthesacrificeofChristversustheviewthatbreadandwinetransformedintothebodyandbloodofChristthereforemakinganactualreenactmentofthesacrificeofChrist;inotherwords,weresacramentsandceremonialformsmerelyrepresentationsofGod’sgraceoractualinstrumentsfordispensingGod’sgrace?
Intermsoftheuseofimages,Yatestookissuewiththeassertionsthatreligiousimageswereusefulforinspiringreligiousdevotionintheliturgy,thattheywereappropriatesubjectsforreligiousveneration,thattheChurchofEnglandandtheRomanCatholicChurch’sviewsontheuseofimageswereidentical,andthatimageswereespeciallyusefulforilliterate“simplepeople.”138Predictably,hethoughtthattheseviewsinclinedtoPopishceremonialism.HismainconcernwasthatMontaguwasblurringthedistinctionbetweenimagesusedasrepresentationsoffaithandidolatrousworshipoftheimagesthemselves.139“Popish”bitsandbaublesshouldnevertakeprecedenceoverpreaching.
WhatconcernedYatesmorewastheceremonialismcreepingintoMontagu’sliturgy.Thesigningofthecrosspresentedaninterestingexample.YatestooknoissuewithitsuseinbaptismandfreelyacknowledgedthattheChurchofEnglandmandateditsuse.Therealissuewaswhatitsusesignified.HetookitasaprofessionoffaiththatsignifiedtheentranceofthebaptizedchildintothefoldofChristendom.140InthesamewayhetooktheimageofthecrossorthecrucifixtoberepresentativeofthemiraclesofGodorChrist’ssacrificebutrejectedthattherepresentationsheldanypowerinandofthemselves.141Bycontrast,MontaguhadstrayedintoPopishterritorywhenheclaimedthatboththesignofthecrossandtherepresentationwereimbuedwithholiness,andhestrayedintopagansuperstitionwhenheclaimedthattheymightworkwonders.142“ItisIdolatrynowtoputvirtueinthecross,”Yatesasserted,“[and]superstitiontouseitmorefrequentlythenPapists.”143
137Ibid.,I87.138Ibid.,3:16.139Ibid.,16‐20.140Ibid.,20‐21.141Ibid.,22.142Yates,3:22‐24;VideMontagu1624,321andMontagu1625,281‐282.143Yates,3:24.
![Page 33: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
27
MontaguandtheParliamentof1624:TheTroublesomeCleric
YatesandSamuelWardbridgedthegapbetweentheclericaloppositionandlayoppositionbysubmittingapetitiontotheHouseofCommonsfollowingthepublicationofANewGagge.Indeed,the1624ParliamentwasthefirsttimeArminianismcamebeforetheHouseofCommons.144Thiswasevidentfromtheconfusionaboutthenatureofthecharges,howtoeffectivelyproceed,andevenhowtheworkwaspublishedinthefirstplace.VeryfewMPsinthe1624Parliamentwere“theologicallyalert”enoughtoappreciateMontagu’sarguments.WhenthetheologicallyastuteJohnPymaccusedMontaguofArminianism,eventhestaunchCalvinistSirWalterEarlesuggestedinsteadthechargeofArianism,aheresyconcerningthedistinctionbetweenthehumananddivinenaturesofChristfromthefourthcenturyAD.145Indeedintheabsenceofanyawarenessofwhat“EnglishArminianism”was,thedefinitionwouldhavetobecreatedinlargepartthroughwhatitwasdefinedagainst,namelyEnglishCalvinism.DutchArminianismandEnglishinvolvementintheSynodofDortweretheonlyreferencepointsavailabletotheCommonsin1624:
Thestrengthoftheseaccusations[ofYatesandWard]derivedfromthepoliticalassociationsoftheDutchArminians.NoEnglishdivineintheearlyseventeenthcenturycalledhimselfanArminian.ThepetitionofYatesandWardtothe1624parliamentwasthefirstinaseriesofopposingcertaindoctrinalandceremonialattitudes,effectivelydefinedEnglishArminianism.In1624thisdefinitionwasessentiallystillunformed.146TheCommonswasinitiallyconfusedoverwhetheritcouldevendiscuss
MontagueandwhetheritwasmoreadvisabletodeferthemattertoConvocationortoinitiateajointprosecutionwiththeHouseofLords.MPscoulddrawfromalargebodyofprecedentofprosecutingRomanCatholics,recusants,andevenerrantbishops.Theonlyrecorded“Calvinistactivists”forHouseofCommonsin1624wereThomasWentworthandJohnPym,whofromthe1624ParliamentonwardtookleadershipoftheprosecutionofMontagu.147HowevermostMPsweremoreconcernedwithforeignpolicymattersandtheprosecutionofcontroversialLordTreasurerLionelCranfield.Theyhadlittletimeorappetitetodealwithatroublesomeclericwhohadpublishedsomecontroversialbooks.ItwasplainlyevidentthatArminianismwasnotanissueatall,exceptinrelationtothecondemnationofDutchArminianismattheSynodofDortandconcernsthatMontagu’sideasinclinedtopopery.
IntheendtheCommonsdecidedthesafestcourseofactionwastoreferthemattertoConvocation:
‘Aftermuchdebate,’reportedSirSimondsD’Ewes,‘anddislikeofthebookbeingsooffensivetothestate,yetnotwillingtobecomejudgesinsodeeppointsofreligion,itwasorderedtosendthebookandpetitiontomyLord’s
144Schwartz,43.145Russell,Parliaments,207;ODNBSirWalterEarle.146Schwartz,45.147Anti‐Calvinists,130.
![Page 34: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
28
GraceofCanterbury,entreatinghimtotakesuchcourseinitasheinhiswisdomshouldthinkfit.’148ThusthematterfellintothehandsofArchbishopGeorgeAbbot.Heproved
unabletocontrolthetroublesomeclericandhisattemptstoresolvethematterwereultimatelyineffectual.Theonlyresult,tothefrustrationoftheCommons,wasalightrebukeandanadmonishmenttonotpublishanymoreworksuntilthefalloutfromthefirstcouldbesortedout,whichwasignored.149FollowingtheArchbishopofCanterbury’sbotchedhandlingoftheordeal,theCommonsprovedmuchmorereadytodealwithMontagudirectly.IndeeditwasonlyinthefirstParliamentofCharlesI’sreignthatextensiveoppositionintheHouseofCommonswoulddevelop.
MontaguandtheParliamentof1625:TheDevelopmentofOpposition
ThecontentiousrelationshipbetweenRichardMontaguandtheHouseofCommonsfrom1624‐1629wasanimportantindicatoroflayattitudestowardsthegrowingcontroversy.WhileclericalcriticsofMontagupublishedlengthyandlearnedresponsestohim,laycriticsusuallyrespondedwithactioninParliamentratherthanpolemicaltracts.ThereforeParliamentarydebateaboutandParliamentarymaneuveringagainstMontaguprovideourbestsourcesoflayattitudes.AsNicholasTyackehaspointedout,
Directevidence,however,oflayattitudesisrelativelyhardtofind.Hencetheimportanceofthedebatesofthe1620s,intheHouseofCommons,provokedbytheanti‐CalvinistwritingsofRichardMontagu.BeginningwithapetitiontoParliamentin1624,theMontagucaseinvolvedtheeducatedlaitywiththesequestionsasneverbefore...ThroughoutthesedebatesMontagu’sbookswerethechiefconcern,althoughhisopponentsincreasinglylinkedthemwithawiderconspiracytosubverttheestablishedteachingsoftheEnglishChurch.150
ThoughthemonarchwassupremegovernoroftheChurchofEngland,themonarchandParliamentwerehistoricalcopartnersinestablishingorthodoxdoctrineandliturgy.ThusthedebateoverMontaguintheHouseofCommonstookonapoliticaldimensionthatwasabsentintheecclesiasticalsphere.LaymanJohnPym,step‐brothertoFrancisRousandafellow‐Puritan,wasindisputablytheleadprosecutorofMontaguintheCommons,andhisconvictionsconcerningreligionillustratedthereligiousassumptionsofmanyMPs.Forthesemen,absoluteanddoublepredestinationformedpartoftheessentialsoftheChurchofEnglandaswellasinternationalProtestantism.Furthermore,thesedoctrineswerethelawoflandbackedupbyanactofParliament.ArminianismwasanaffronttotheChurchofEnglandandtoProtestantism.Itwasthereforeapoliticallysubversiveanddestabilizingforce.151
148Schwartz,45.149Cosin,Correspondence,I78.150AntiCalvinists,125.151ConradRusell,“TheParliamentaryCareerofJohnPym,”UnrevolutionaryEngland,ed.byA.Clark,A.G.R.Smith,andN.Tyacke(HambledonPress,1990),222.
![Page 35: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
29
PoliticalcircumstancesexacerbatedthecontroversysurroundingAppelloCaesarem.JamesIdiedonMarch271625,andthereforehisson,CharlesI,wasthenewking.JamesIhadeffectivelyprecludeddebateonANewGaggeduringhisreign.Aspreviouslymentioned,clergymenJohnYatesandNathanielWardpetitionedtheHouseofCommonsinprotestANewGagge.JamesIhadreactedfuriouslyandthreatened“tomakethekingdomtoohot”forYatesandWard.152However,CharlesI’sreligiousinclinationswereunknown,andalthoughMontaguhopedforsupportfromCharles,hisfateremainedverymuchindoubt.153AnastonishinglyvirulentoutbreakoftheplaguestruckLondonandanother“popishplot”scarewasgrippingtheEnglishnation.CharlesIwasnegotiatingforthehandofFrenchprincessHenriettaMariaandtheprospectofmarriagetoaforeignRomanCatholicinevitablystokedthezealofacountryinwhichanti‐Catholicismwasadefiningcharacteristicofnationalidentity.TherelaxationofrecusancylawsaspartofthemarriagetreatyandthefactthatParliamentwaslargelykeptinthedarkaboutthestatusofnegotiationsonlyservedtoinflamethegrievances.154 AtthebeginningofCharlesI’sreign,bothMontagu’salliesandenemiesmaneuveredtogainroyalsupport.JohnBuckeridge,JohnHowson,andWilliamLaudlobbiedGeorgeVilliers,dukeofBuckingham,thefavoriteofbothkings,forsupportandinterventioninfavorofMontagu.155ArchbishopGeorgeAbbottandhischaplainsattemptedtohaltthepublicationofAppelloCaesarembuttonoavail.156BeforetheopeningofthefirstParliament,itwasreportedthatCharlesIhadresolvedtoleaveMontagu’sfatetoParliament,perhapsasasoptoMPsangryoverhisforeignpolicyandhisdemandforincreasedfunds.157ItremainedtotheHouseofCommonstomakethefirstdecisivemovesagainstMontaguinthefirstParliamentofCharlesI’sreign.WiththeCommonsalreadyinablackmoodoverreligion,Montaguwasaneasytargetforreligiousgrievances. ThefirstParliamentofCharlesI’sreigncommencedonJune181625andreligiousgrievanceswereairedimmediately.Inthe1625Parliament,someMPsassertedintheirspeechesandcommitteereportsthatMontagu’sworkswerelinkedtothegrowthofRomanCatholicisminEngland.TheyallegedthatRichardMontagu’sworkswere“anencouragementtoPopery.”158ThisallegationwascoupledwithachargeofpublishingworkscontrarytotheArticlesofReligionestablishedbyauthorityofParliament.ThefactthatJamesIhadsanctionedthepublicationofANewGaggeandAppelloCaesaremmadethecasemorepoliticallysensitive.MontaguwasdulycalledbeforetheHouseofCommonsonthismatter,andheclaimedinhistestimonythatJamesIhadapprovedofbothbooks.159 DespitetherevelationthatthelateKingJamesIhadlenthisapprovaltoMontagu’sbooks,onJuly7thecommitteeassembledtoreviewthecleric’sworks152ODNBJohnYates.153Cosin,Correspondence,I68.154Rusell,Parliaments,207‐209.155WilliamLaud,WorksVI.244‐246156“DebatesintheHouseofCommons,1625,”HistoricalCollectionsI,173.157“TheKingresolvedtoleaveMr.MontaguetoParliament,”HistoricalCollectionsI,199.158“DebatesintheHouseofCommons,1625,”HistoricalCollectionsI,173.159Gardiner,46.
![Page 36: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
30
presentedtheirfindings.ThecommitteetouchedbrieflyonANewGaggbyrecommendingthattheCommonsforgojudgmentuponthebookuntilaconferencewiththeLordscouldbeorganizedandasuitablemeasuredrawnuptopreventarepeatofthecontroversy.160AppelloCaesaremwasthetargetofthemajorityofabusebecausebypublishingitMontaguhadallegedlydisturbedthebodypolitic.161 Eachgeneralchargewasbrokendownintoseveralconstituentpoints.162Elaboratingonthefirstcharge,thecommitteefocusedonJamesI’soppositiontoDutchArminianismandhiscensureofArminiantheologianConradVorstius.163TheCommonsproceededcarefullyonthischargebecauseoftherevelationthatJamesIhadapprovedANewGagg.ThereforetheyconcentratedonArminianismasasoteriologicalpositioncondemnedbyEnglishdivinesattheSynodofDortwithJamesI’sblessing:“theCommitteeconceiveth,theFirekindledintheLowCountriesbyArminius,liketobekindledherelikewiseby”Montague.164WhilemanyclericalcriticsofMontaguhadcriticizedhimonboththeseaccounts,theCommonscommitteeusedthemasapotentpoliticalargumentagainsthim.Asacorollarytothesecondcharge,ParliamentaccusedMontaguofpublishingmaterialcontrarytotheThirty‐NineArticlesaswellasdisrespectingtheauthorityofParliament. ThesecondchargeconcernedMontagu’sviewsonbothPuritanismandtheRomanCatholicChurch.ThecommitteeimmediatelyseizeduponhisredefinitionofPuritanism.TheyrejectedhisclaimthatPuritanismcanbedefinedindoctrinalterms.Tosaythat“therearePuritansinheart”drewnodistinctionbetweenthosewhodoconformandthosewhodonot.165Forexample,Montaguassertedthat“Mr.WardandMr.YatesarePuritans,andyetthesearementhatsubscribeandconform.”166Recusancyandnon‐conformitywerealreadydefinedbystatute,notMontagu’sopinionsondoctrine.Interestingly,theCommonstreatedMontagu’sdefinitionofPuritanismasapoliticalissueandnotadoctrinalissue.BydefiningPuritanismintermsofdoctrine,MontagusoughttodriveawedgebetweenthesovereignandhissubjectsbydrivingconformistCalvinistsoutoftheChurchofEngland.ThereforeMontaguwasactuallyguiltyofdisturbingthepeaceoftheChurchandState.“Forbyhisopinion,”thereportwarned,“wemaybeallPuritans.”167Furthermore,afterslanderingconformistEnglishmenasPuritans,MontaguthenaffirmedtheRomanCatholicChurchtobeatrue,thoughflawed,church.TheCommonstookthisasencouragingEnglishmento“persevereinpopery”andalsoallegedthatMontagu’sworksfoundgreatfavoramongstthe“Papists.”168 ThethirdchargeaccusedMontaguofpublishingmaterialthatopenlycontradictedtheThirtyNineArticlesanddoingitwhenacomplaintstoodagainsthimintheCommons.Thefirstpartofthechargestatedthathehadoffendedthe
160Ibid.,47.161Ibid.,48.162Ibid.,48‐51163HisMajestie’sDeclaration...intheCauseofD.ConradusVorstius(1612)164CommonsJournal,1:805.165Gardiner,49.166Ibid.167Ibid.168Ibid.,50.
![Page 37: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
31
authorityofParliamentasaninstitution.SinceParliamenthadaffirmedtheThirty‐NineArticlesandvariousotherreligiousstatements,itwasoffensivetothe“jurisdictionandlibertyofParliament”topublishopinionscontrarytotheThirty‐NineArticles.169ThedocumentfailedtoexplainexactlyhowMontagutransgressedtheThirty‐NineArticlesbutthechargeprovidedfurtherjustificationfortheCommonsmoveagainsthim.Thesecondchargewasfairlystraightforward,asJohnYatesandNathanielWardhadpetitionedtheHouseofCommonsfollowingthepublicationofANewGagg.MontaguhadnotonlypublishedAppelloCaesaremwhilethepetitionwasbeingconsideredintheCommonsandtheLords,butalsohadthetemeritytodirectlyslander“thetwounjustinformers”whiletheywereundertheprotectionofParliament. Althoughthecommitteeclaimedthat“therebetenetsinthatfirstbook[ANewGagge]contrarytotheArticlesofReligionestablishedbyActofParliament,”theyrecommendedthattheCommons“forbeartillsomeseasonabletimetodesireaconferencewiththeLordsthatcoursemaybetakentorepairthebreachesoftheChurchandpreventthelikeboldnessofprivatemenhereafter.”170TostrengthenthecaseagainstMontagu,theCommonscreatedasubcommitteetomorecloselyexamineMontagu’sworksforseditiousideasthatposedadangertotheEnglishbodypolitic.HewasallowedtodefendhimselfinabsentiathroughapetitiontotheCommons,butnocopyhassurvived.171HewasbroughttothebaroftheCommonsandthedulyinformedthathewasguiltyofcontempt[againsttheCommons.]Hecouldeithersurrendertothesergeant‐at‐armsorpostbondtoguaranteehisappearanceatthenextsessionofParliament.
However,whentheCommonspresentedtheirpetitionofgrievancesagainstMontaguthekinginformedthemthathewasnowaroyalchaplaininordinaryandthatthekingwouldtakecareofthematterpersonally.ConvocationwouldjudgeMontagu,nottheassembledlaymenoftheCommons.TheSolicitoroftheCommonsprotestedthattheywerenotawareofthisfactandthattheCommonshadalreadyfoundMontaguguiltyofcontempt.Charles’ssimply“smiledwithoutanyfurtherreply.”172
MembersoftheHouseofCommonshadonceagainbeenfrustratedbyroyalinterventioninfavorofMontagu,buttheycoulddonomorethanrecommendthatheshouldbepubliclycensured.Theoutcomeofthebrief1625ParliamentdidnotbodewellfortherelationshipbetweenMontagu,thekingandParliament.
TheproportionatelylargeamountoftimespentbytheHouseofCommonsononetroublesomeclericwasindicativeofthedeepinterestandconcernforreligioninEngland...TheCommonsproceededoutwardlyasifMontaguwereonlyguiltyofcontempt,buttherealmotivewasafirmwishtoprohibithistheologicalideas...TheKingbyhisinterventionrevealed,atleastindirectly,wherehisreligioussympathieslay.173
169Ibid48.170Gardiner,47.171Macauley,282‐283.172Gardiner,62173Macauley,288‐289.
![Page 38: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
32
RichardMontaguhaddrivenasignificantwedgebetweentheKingandParliament. However,Montaguwasstillnothomefree,eventhoughthekingwouldsoonmakehimabishop.Thoughtheprosecutionagainsthimstalledduetoroyalintervention,the1625HouseofCommonshadtakenadecidedlylargerinterestinhiscasethanthepreviousyear’sHouse.InapatternthatwouldrepeatitselfineachsuccessiveParliament,thesupportofthecourtforthetroublesomeclericonlyincreasedopposition.Inthe1624Parliament,thecontroversyoverMontaguwasconfinedtohimselfbutthesupportofthecourtcausedMPstoquestionwheretheking’ssympathieslay.WithCalvinistArchbishopAbbotseeminglyimpotent,royalinterventioncausedmanyMPstoquestionwheretheChurchofEnglandstoodonthedoctrinaldispute.Iftheauthorofsucha“dangerousbook”wasaroyalchaplain,didthatmeanthereideascontainedtherein“thedoctrineofthechurchofEngland?”174SuchquestionscausedaproliferationofCalvinistactivistsinthe1625Parliament.WhereasWentworthandPymwererecordedastheonlyMPswhotookanysignificantinterestinMontagu’scaseinthe1624session,manyMPsin1625tookupthecause:SirHeneageFinch,LaurenceWhitaker,FrancisDrake,SirGeorge,andSirRobertMore.175FurthermoreinthefollowingyearthetwocontroversialbookswouldbedebatedbylearnedclergymaninthepresenceofpowerfullaymenandtheroyalfavoriteGeorgeVilliersattheYorkHouseConference.
TheYorkHouseConference(1626)
GeorgeVilliers,dukeofBuckingham,theroyalfavoritewhomCharlesIhad
inheritedfromhisfather,playedacrucialroleinthecontroversyoverMontaguuntiltheduke’sassassinationin1628.AlreadyatargetofcriticismbecauseofhislavishandpreferentialtreatmentbyJamesI,BuckinghamcameunderfirefollowingdebateinParliamentforpatronageofthe“semi‐PelagianandPopishfaction”whoespoused“libertyoffreewill”insalvation.176Oneobserverofthecontroversyopinedthat“TheDukeisthegreatprotectoroftheMontagutians;sothatthebusinessofreligionisliketofollowhisstandingordownfal.”177HavingfailedtopunishMontaguin1625,disgruntledmembersofbothhousesofthe1626Parliamentsoughttoforcetheissuebyprocuringadisputationonhisworks.LaymenRobertRich,secondearlofWarwick,andWilliamFiennes,firstviscountSayeandSelesecuredtheconference.TheyemphasizedthefactthatJamesIhadapprovedandhelpsettheSynodofDortinmotionandsawanopportunitytoforceBuckingham’shandonthereligiouscontroversy.178UptotheYorkHouseconference,Buckinghamhadsupportedboththe“Montaguists”andpowerfulCalvinists.179ChiefamongBuckingham’sCalvinistclientswasinfluentialanderuditeJohnPreston,formerchaplain‐in‐ordinarytoPrinceCharles,preacheratLincoln’s
174Russell,Parliaments,240.175Anti‐Calvinists,131.176JohnPym,”TheCommonsArticlesagainsttheDuke,1626,”HistoricalCollectionsI,337.177Macauley,253. 178ODNBRobertRich179Macauley,307‐308.
![Page 39: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
33
Inn,andmasterofEmmanuelCollege.180SeizingonPreston’sdissatisfactionwithBuckingham’ssupportofMontagu,thepeersurgedPrestonto“putit[Montagu’sworks]toanissue”andforcetheduketo“leavetherottenandcorrupted[Arminian]clergy.”Inthisway,thecontroversy“mightcometoadebate,andnotremain,asitnowdid,unsettled.”181
Montagu’sallieswereuneasyattheprospectoftheconference.Priortoit,JohnBuckeridge,JohnHowson,andWilliamLaudlobbiedBuckinghamforsupportandinterventioninfavorofMontagu.182TheirmainfearwasthattheCalvinistbishopsandlaymenwouldconvinceBuckinghamtosupportconfirmingtheresolutionsoftheSynodofDortastheofficialdoctrineoftheChurchofEngland.ThismovewouldrendermootMontagu’sinsistencethattheforeignsynodheldnoauthorityovertheChurchofEnglandandbethefirststeptowardspoliticaleviscerationoftheArminianparty.183However,followingtheHouseofCommons’attackonMontaguin1625,thepresenceofpowerfullaypeersattheconferencemeantthepossibilityofpersuadingsomeofthemembersoftheHouseofLordstotheArminians’side.Furthermore,thepresenceofthefavoritemeantthatroyalpatronageandsupportwasatstake.Bothparties’successdependedontheirabilitytopersuadethelaymenpresent.
TheYorkHouseConferencelastedonlytwodays(11and17February).Onthe11th,Montagu,thoughsummonedtotheconference,failedtoappearandlike‐mindedalliesdefendedhim.JohnBuckeridge,bishopofRochesterandformerchaplaintoJamesI,wastheprinciplespokesmanforMontagu.FrancisWhite,deanofCarlisle–responsibleforthelicensingofAppelloCaesarem‐‐andJohnCosin–responsibleforthelicensingofANewGagg‐‐attendedtheconferenceatthelastminutewithBuckeridgesincebothhadbeeninvolvedinthepublicationofbothbooks.ThomasMorton,bishopofLichfieldwaspresentasMontagu’schiefaccuser.ThelearnedCalvinistJohnPrestonwasalsopresentbutdidnotparticipateintheconferenceuntilnearlytheendofthefirstdebate.Amongthelaymenpresent,JamesHay,earlofCarlislewasthesolesupporterofMontagu.WilliamHerbert,earlofPembroke,RobertRich,earlofWarwick,WilliamFiennes,ViscountSayeandSele,andSecretaryJohnCokeattendedinsupportofMorton.184Theassembledlaymensatas“auditors”whileBuckinghamfulfilledtheroleofmoderator.OstensiblytheissueathandwaswhethertheGaggandAppellocontainedanythingcontrarytotheThirty‐NineArticlesoftheChurchofEngland,thoughtheconferencebecameaproxytrialofArminianismandCalvinism.
Byallaccounts,thefirstdayoftheconferencewasatriumphforMontagu’sallies.Theobjectionsraisedfellintotwocategories:(1)theChurchofEngland’srelationshiptotheRomanCatholicChurchandtoChristendomasawhole,andtheSynodofDortand(2)Montagu’sviewsonthesacraments,theperseveranceofthesaints,andsoteriology.Thetwochargesoverlappedinmanycases.
180ODNBJohnPreston181Ball,118.182WilliamLaud,WorksVI.244‐246183IrvonwyMorgan,PrinceCharles’sPuritanChaplain,(AllenandUnwin,1957),157‐158.184Cosin,WorksII,19‐20;Maculey,309‐310;AntiCalvinists,168‐174.
![Page 40: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
34
ThefirstchargeconcerningtheRomanCatholicChurchandChristendomwastheassertionthatGeneralCouncilscouldnoterrinfundamentalsorthingsnecessarytosalvation.This,soMortonclaimed,contradictedthetwentyfirstarticleoftheChurchofEnglandwhichreadinpart“thingsordainedbythemasnecessarytosalvationhaveneitherstrengthnorauthority,unlessitmaybedeclaredthattheybetakenoutofHolyScripture.”185Morton’sobjectionraisedtheoft‐debatedpointastowhatexactlyconstitutedthefundamentalsoressentialsoftheChristianfaith,withMortonaccusingMontaguofhavinginmind“CatholicRomanfancyandinfalliblemadness.”186Mortonwaspointingtothecontroversialassertionthat“Notallthatpapistssayispopery”andmorespecificallytheclaimthattheChurchofEnglandagreedinfundamentalswiththeCouncilofTrent.Buckeridgespoke,claimingthateventhoughTrentwasnotatruegeneralcouncil,ithadnoterredinanything“fundamentalornecessarytosalvation.”187BuckeridgepointedoutthattheCouncilofTrenthadstatedthattheNiceneCreedestablishedatthefirstgeneralcouncilinthehistoryofChristianitywasthe“unicumfundamentumfidei[theonlyfoundationoffaith],”andthereforeanythingelsethatthecouncildeterminedwasnotfundamentalornecessarytosalvation.188Morton,whileagreeingthatthefirstfourancientecumenicalcouncilsweregenerallysound,angrilyclaimedthatMontaguseemedtocontradicthimselfwhentalkingabouttheauthorityofecumenicalcouncilsespeciallyRomanCatholiccouncils.OnthispointSayeconcurred,accusingMontaguofprevaricationanddoublespeak.189TheunspokendifferencebetweenMortonandMontagu,identicaltothedifferencebetweenMontaguandBurton,wasthatMorton’sdefinitionoffundamentalswasmoreinclusive,includingtheCalvinistdoctrineofabsoluteanddoublepredestination.190Buckinghamfinallyassertedhisauthorityofasmoderator,concludingthatgivenMontagu’sdefinitionoffundamentalsandhisqualificationoftheauthorityofecumenicalcouncils,hehadnotcontradictedtheThirty‐NineArticles.191
HavingbeenoverruledbyBuckingham,MortonthenchargedMontaguwithviolatingtheeleventharticle,specificallythatChristiansaresavednotfortheir“worksordeservings”butaresaved“byfaithonly.”192Mortonvigorouslyobjectedtotheinclusionof“hopeandholiness,thefruitsoftheSpiritingoodworks.Allthese,”Mortonprotested,“besidesGodandfaith.”193WhiterespondedthattheChurchofEnglandrecognizedgoodworks,inthetwelftharticle,astheresultsofelectionandfaithandnotasintrinsictotheactofbeingsaved.Montaguhadmerelybuiltonthisconcept.WhiteelaboratedbyquotingtheAppelloCaesarem:theauthoracknowledged“instrumentallyfaithalone”and“causallyGodalone”intheactof
185CressyandFerrell,75.186CosinWorksII,23footnoted.187Ibid.,26.188Ibid.189Ibid.,27.190AntiCalvinists,173.191Cosin,WorksII,28.192CressyandFerrell,72.193Cosin,WorksII,48.
![Page 41: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
35
electionwithgoodworksmerelythe“fruitsandconsequences”ofelection.194MortonprotestedthattheoveralleffectofthesewordswastobringtheChurchofEnglandclosertoRomanCatholicismandmakegoodworksintrinsictosalvation.Mortonthenchangedtackbylevelingaseriesofcritiquesontheuseofthewords“merits”and“deservings”195andhisviewsonthenumberofsacramentsintheChurchofEnglandandtheRomanCatholicChurch.196WhiteandCosinadroitlydefendedMontaguonalltopics,andBuckinghamprofessedthathefoundnothingcontrarytotheThirtyNineArticles.ThereligioussemanticsbegantowearonthepatienceofthelaymenpresentwhenthelaypeerSayeforthefirsttimeintheconferenceexplicitlybroachedthetopicofArminianism. “Thechiefestmatterofallisyetbehind,”Sayedeclared,“whichistouchingfallingawayfromgraceandconcerningthedefinitionsofthesynodofDortagainstArminianism,whereinDr.Prestonshallspeak.”197Thedebateshiftedfromawayfromaconferenceonthetwobooksandintoanopendebateabouttheperseveranceofsaints.Montagu’sallies,previouslyonthedefensive,nowhadachancetoattacktheiropponents.Whiteimmediatelycriticizeddoubleandabsolutepredestinationbyaskingifaman“prodigalinactsofdrunkennessandwhoredom”couldstillbeinthegraceofGod.198HethenansweredhisownquestionbyaffirmingthatamanwhowasinastateofsincouldnotbejustifiedordeclaredrighteousbeforeGod.“Praedestinationihilpointinpraedestinato[predestinationsupposes/implantsnothinginthepredestined],”Whiteexplained.199Savinggraceiscontingentonremissionofsinsandrepentance.ThusanyChristiancouldlosefaithorfallintoperditionand,barringrepentanceandrenewedfaith,bedamnedtoHell.
PrestoncounteredthatGodisthefinalarbiterofsalvationanddamnationandexplainedtheconceptthroughaseriesofmetaphors,presumablyforthebenefitofthelaymenpresent.Twomenmightcommitthesamesinbutonebeingamongtheelect,“thechildrenofGod,”wouldfeelhisfather’swrathbutwouldnotandcouldnotbecastoutofGod’sfamily.200Similarly,Prestonexplained,“twotenantsofGod,notpayingtheirrent,orkeepingcovenants,forfeitedtheirleases;yettheLordmightseizetheone,andnottheother,asHepleased.”201Furthermore,Godwouldnecessarilyraisetheelectoutofastateofsin,repairingthemtoastateofgrace.202TheelectmighttemporarilysinorlosefaithbuttheseedofGodremainedinthemandguaranteedthattheywouldnotfalltotallyandfinallyintoreprobation.IfaChristiandid,thenhewasneveramongtheelecttobeginwith.
WhiteandCosinseizedonthisstatement,decryingitas“thewaytoalllicentiousnessandlooseness.”203Theyclaimedthatiftheelectweresubjectonlyto
194Ibid.,29.195Ibid.,30‐33,50‐52,70.196Ibid.,33‐35,54‐56,70.197Ibid.,56;198Ball,120.199Cosin,WorksII,36.200Ibid.201Ball,120‐121.202Ibid.,121‐122203Ibid.,121.
![Page 42: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
36
God’swrathandtemporarypunishmentthentheelectwereessentiallyfreefrommorallawandfreetocommitsin.Iftheelectweredestinedforsalvation,thenitfollowedtheymusthaverepentedtheirsins.CosinandWhite’slineofquestioningreliedonthesameargumentthatCalvinismwasequivalenttoantinomianperversionthatMontaguhadlaboredtoexposewithhisexpositionofthelogicofabsoluteanddoublepredestinationappliedtoSt.PeterandJudas.204“IfIshallbesaved,Ishallbesaved”wasMontagu’scharacterizationofthisbelief.ByusingthislineofattackWhiteandCosin,andmanyotheranti‐Calvinists,couldcaricatureabsoluteanddoublepredestinationasequivalenttothebeliefsofdecidedlyradicalgroupsintheProtestantspectrum;inotherwords,doctrinallyoutsideoftheChurchofEngland.
ItwasnowtheCosinandWhite’sturntoaccusePrestonandMortonofviolatingthedoctrineoftheChurchofEngland.CosinandWhitepointedtotheChurchofEngland’steachingonbaptismandgrace.Theexchangeisinstructivebecauseithighlightsthedifferentviewsthatthetwocampshadontheroleofsacramentsindispensinggraceandachievingsalvation.Whitepointedtothecatechism’sdescriptionofbaptism,whichread“NonecanenterintothekingdomofGod,exceptheberegenerateandbornanewofwaterandtheHolyGhost.”205Heinterpretedthisasmeaningthatin“baptismtheyweremadethesonsofGod,andtheheirsofeverlastinglife.”206Whitepointedoutthatthisstatementimpliedthatbaptismwasnecessarytosalvation,whichwasdifficulttoreconcilewithabsoluteanddoublepredestination.Pressingonwithhiscritique,Whiteaskedwhatwasthepointofbaptismifthosebaptized“receivednograce,norremissionofsinsbyit?”207EvenSt.Augustine,usuallycitedandassociatedwithabsolutepredestinarianviews,wroteinhisEpistles“QuicumquenegatparvulosperbaptismumChristiperditioneliberari,etsalutempercipereaeternam,anathemasit.[AnyonewhodeniesthatthechildrenaretobefreedbythedestructionofthebaptismofChrist,andtoreceiveeternalsalvation,lethimbe.]”208Morton,theanti‐Calvinistdisputantsclaimed,disparagedtheChurchofEnglandandhisownministrybydebasingthesacramentofbaptism.
White’slineofargumentintriguedBuckinghamwhoqueriedMortonastowhetherhebelievedintheefficacyofbaptism.Mortonscoffedatthenotionthatbaptismdispensedsavinggraceinandofitself,andheaskedWhite“willyouhavethegraceofGodtiedtoSacraments?”209Mortonassertedthat“electionwasaperquisiteofsacramentalefficacy”andthattheCatechismcharitablyassumedthatthechildbeingbaptizednumberedamongtheelect.210ThelaymanSayeconcurred,arguingthatoneshouldnottakethelanguageoftheCatechismliterally.Itwasa“judgmentofcharity”becauseelectionorreprobationwereunknowable,andMortonelaboratedthatonlyGodcouldknowwhetherthechildwasdestinedfor204SeePage7above.205CressyandFerrell,59.206Cosin,WorksII,61.207Ibid.,62.208Ibid.,37209Ibid.,61.210AntiCalvinists,176.
![Page 43: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
37
electionorreprobation.211Whitecounteredthatlogicallythismeantthatpreaching,amongotherservicesprovidedbytheChurchanditsministry,wereonlyeffectivefortheelect.Throughthedebateoverthesacraments,WhitewasabletoopposeacommonideaamongCalviniststhatthechurchconsistedsolelyofthe“companyofGod’selectandchosen.”212ThisdefinedmembershipintheChurchasequivalenttoelectionwhich,sincenotallmembersofthe“physical”Churchcouldbeelect,createdtheproblemofaninvisibleChurchwithintheChurch.IntheArminians’minds,thisideawasunacceptablebecauseitrenderedtheChurchofEngland’sministryandecclesiasticalpersonneluseless.IfelectionbasedonGod’simmutabledecreewastheonlyprerequisiteformembershipinthechurchandsalvation,theneverythingelse–theliturgy,thesacraments,theministry,etc.–wereatbestredundantoratworstuseless.Buckinghamconcurred.
Thefirstday’sconference,havingreviewedallthechargesagainstANewGaggandAppelloCaesarem,wasreadytodisbandandreconveneatadatewhentheauthorcouldbepresenttodefendhimselfwhenSayeandCokemovedthatthecanonsofDortbeestablishedasauthoritativeintheChurchofEngland.Whiterespondedimmediatelybyimploring“yourlordships”thatthe“ChurchofEnglandbenotputtoborrowanewfaithfromanyvillageintheNetherlands.”213TheSynodofDortwrongedtheChurchofEnglandbyreservingChrist’sdeathandthesacramentssolelyfortheelect.The“Dortist”doctrinewouldonlydenigratetheChurchofEngland,itssacraments,andthegiftofsalvationpromisedtoallinbaptism.TheearlsofPembrokeandCarlislespokeinsupportofMontaguandWhite,saying“LettheSynodofDortbindthemthathavesubmittedthemselvesuntoit.”Buckinghamconcurred,opiningthat“Wehavenothingtodowiththatsynod;itisallhiddenandintricatepointsofpredestination,whicharenotfitmatterstotroublepeoplewithal.”214Cosinelaboratedonthissentimentbyclarifying“theconclusionofthatArticle[ArticleSeventeen“OfPredestinationandelection]”wasthatpredestinationshouldbetaughtwithintheChurchofEngland,butnotinawaythatdisparagedtheGospel,theChurch,anditssacraments.215
BuckinghamwaspleasedwithCosinandWhite’sperformance.MortonandPrestonfailedonallcounts,evenfailingtosecureastayonpublishingthetwobooks.Onedayremainedintheconferencebutitwasalreadyapparentthattheroyalfavorite,andbyproxytheking,wasdisowningMontagu’sopponents.
ThesecondsessionoftheconferencewasheldonFebruary17anddealtwithmanyofthesameissuesasthefirst.MontaguhadtheopportunitytorespondinpersontotheobjectionsraisedduringthefirstsessionbuthisresponsesdidnotdiffersignificantlyfromWhiteandCosin’s.216However,PrestontookovertheprosecutionfromMortonandcoveredsomenewground.Preston’sfirstobjectionwaswhathecalledthe“DoctrineofTraditions.”217Prestontookissuewiththe211Cosin,WorksII,61.212AntiCalvinists,262.213Cosin,WorksII,63.214Ibid.,64.215Ibid.,64.216Ibid.,75‐81.217Ball,124.
![Page 44: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
38
statementinANewGaggthat“unwrittentraditions”and“writteninstructions”had“alikeforceuntopiety.”218Theimplicationofthisidea,that“religiousceremoniesceasedtobeamatterof‘indifference’andbecameinsteadobligatorybydivinelaw”–couldnothavebeenlostonPreston.219PrestonpointedtoseveraltraditionsinChristianitysuchasprayinginacertaindirectionortheuseofoilinbaptismthat,whileconsideredcanonicalandtraditionalinotherChristiandenominations,wererejectedbytheChurchofEngland.FurthermorePrestonallegedthatthesupportforthisstatementwasbasedonaRomanCatholicglossofStBasil.220
Havingattackedceremonialism,PrestonmovedontotheArminianchargesbyattackingMontagu’sconceptionofabsoluteanddoublepredestination.221Herejectedthenotionthatelectionwasbasedonfaithorworksforeseen.Electionmustimpartsomeinherentqualitytotheelect.AccordingtoPreston,thequestionboileddownto“whethersavinggracewereaneffect,orfruit,ofelectionorno?”222IfaChristianhadsavinggrace,thenhenumberedamongtheelect.Ifhedidnot,thenhehadneverdoneso.Savinggracewasthecauseandelectiontheeffect.223Ifonecouldfallfromthestateofgracethenthetermwasmeaningless.ArguingthatChrist’sdeathwassufficientforallorthatsavinggracewascommontoallresultedinthesameconclusion.
Withtheconferencerapidlydrawingtoaclose,Whitewearilyvoicedthesentimentthat“itisamatterverydifficult,andperadventureimpossibleinthislife,exactlyanddistinctlytodeclarethewholemannerandorderofdivineelection,andhowthesamebeingoneeternalandsimultaneousactinGodistobeconceivedaccordingtoseveralactsinourapprehension.”224IntheendMontagupromisedtowriteabookin“butterandhoney”inordertoexplainthecontroversialaspectsofhisworksmorefully.225HoweversomeofthelaymenagainurgedthatthecanonsofDortbeestablishedastheofficialdoctrineoftheChurchofEngland,buttheproposalwasshotdownagain.
TheYorkHouseConferencedidnotresolveanydoctrinalissuenordiditquellthegrowingcontroversy.HowevertheconferencemarkedthepointinwhichMontaguandhislike‐mindedallies“emergedastheeffectivespokesmenoftheEnglishChurch.”226ManyCalvinistpeerswereunhappywithPreston’sperformanceandweredisappointedthatthetroublesomeclericwasnoteffectivelyprosecuted.227ThroughouttheconferenceBuckinghamhadshownfavortoMontagu’sideas.AccordingtoPreston,BuckinghamdecidedtosidewithArminianfaction.228CosinreportedthatfollowingtheconferenceCharlesIswore“perpetual
218Ibid.219AntiCalvinists,177.220Ball,124.221SeePage7above.222Ball,128.223Ibid128‐129.224AntiCalvinists,179225Ball,130.226AntiCalvinists,180.227Ball,141.228Ibid.,142.
![Page 45: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
39
patronageofourcause.”229Thefavorite’sfailuretoendorsetheCalvinistbidtomaketheresolutionsofDortpartofthedoctrineoftheChurchofEnglandorendorsethecensureofRichardMontagualienatedmanyofhisformerallies.HoweverthesupportoftheroyalfavoritewouldactuallyworkagainstMontagu.FollowingtheYorkHouseConferenceandBuckingham’salienationofhisCalvinistallies,the1626Parliamentlaunchedconcertedandeffectiveattackagainsttheduke.UnfortunatelyforMontagu,hisnamewasnowlinkedtotheincreasinglyunpopularroyalfavorite.
229Cosin,WorksII,74.
![Page 46: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
40
‐3‐
MontaguandtheParliamentof1626:MontaguandtheDuke
Montagu’ssituationgrewincreasinglyworsefollowingtheYorkHouseConference.ThesupportoflayandclericalauthoritiesonlyservedtomakeMontaguamoreprominenttargetforParliament.Buckingham’ssupportoftherecalcitrantclericlinkedthetwomentothedetrimentofboth.Buckingham,alreadyunderheavycriticismbecauseofhisstatusasfailedexpeditionstoCadiz(amongotherthings),furtherinfuriatedhisenemiesbyprotectingMontagu.FurthermoreaconferenceofbishopsconsistingofMontaigne,Neile,Andrewes,Buckeridge,andLaudhaddeterminedthattheGaggandAppellocontainednothingcontrarytothedoctrineoftheChurchofEngland.230ThebishopshadgonefurtherandassertedthatParliamentdidnothavetherighttojudgemattersofdoctrine.231Montagu’scasewasignitingapowerstrugglebetweenParliament,theking,andtheChurchabouttherighttojudgedoctrine.ThusEnglishArminianismrapidlyacquiredapoliticalelementinadditiontoitsdoctrinalandliturgicalinnovations:“resistancetoParliamentaryjudgmentsuponreligiousmatters(interpretedbroadly),relianceuponroyalauthorityforprotectionoforthodoxy,[and]refusaltoacceptthedoctrineoftheChurchofEnglandasunderstoodbyParliament.”232
ThusintheaftermathofYorkHouse,CharlesI’sinterventiononbehalfofMontague,andthesupportofseveralbishopsforMontague,hiscasebecameheavilypoliticized.Montagu’sdoctrinewasnowtiedtotheroyalfavoriteBuckingham,theking,andincreasinglytheecclesiasticalestablishment.CharlesI’sinsistencethathewoulddealwithMontagupersonally,coupledwithMontagu’sinsistencethathisdoctrinalsoundnesscouldnotbejudgedbyParliament,angeredParliament.TheypointedtoalonghistoryofParliamentcooperatingwiththesovereigntoestablishdoctrine:theActsofSupremacyandUniformity,theThirtyNineArticles,andlegislationconcerningrecusants.
TheCommonsestablishedageneralcommitteeonreligioninadditiontoasubcommitteetospecificallyexamineMontagu’sworkstomakepreparationsforaconferencewiththeLords.ThecommitteereiteratedthechargesbroughtagainstMontaguinthe1625Parliament,statingthatMontaguheldopinionscontrarytotheThirtyNineArticlesoftheChurchofEnglandandthatwerealsocondemnedattheSynodofDort,wassympathetictoRomanCatholicism,andaccusedconformistEnglishmenofbeingPuritans.TheYorkHouseConferencewasdiscussed,especiallyMontagu’spromisetowriteabookin“butterandhoney”insteadof“ingalland
230Laud,Works,6:249.231Heylyn,137.232Schwartz,52.
![Page 47: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
41
vinegar.”ThecommitteewasunimpressedandagreedtomakepreparationsforaconferencewiththeLords.233
However,thecontroversyoverMontaguhadbeguntobleedintotheimpeachmentofBuckingham.MontaguwasrepeatedlyusedasevidenceofBuckingham’sreligiousmalfeasance.TheYorkHouseConferencehadcometoacloseonFebruary17duringthefirstdaysofParliament.ManylaymenwereunhappywiththeperformanceofPrestonandevenunhappierthatBuckinghamhadfavoredthe“Montaguists”duringtheconference.234Buckingham’sunwillingnesstosupportcensureoforabanonthepublicationofhisworksaswellashisstatementthattheChurchofEnglandwasnotboundbytheSynodofDortinfuriatedmanymembersofthe1626Parliament.SplitfromhisCalvinistallies,Buckinghamwasthetargetofaseriesofreligiouslymotivatedattacks.SegueingfromthechargethatBuckinghamwasresponsibleforinstallingmensympathetictoRomanCatholicisminpositionsofpower,therabidlyanti‐ArminianSirWalterErlecomplainedthat“MontagureceivestoomuchcountenancingfromtheDuke[ofBuckingham].”235CalvinistlawyerChristopherSherlandconcurred,addingthatanybodywhosupportedMontagu“cannotbutbeenemiestothestateandchurch.”236
ReligionwasonlyapartofamuchlargersetofgrievancesagainstBuckingham.InthesixpageremonstranceonBuckinghampresentedtoCharlesI,Buckingham’ssupportofMontagumeritedonlyasinglesentence.237HowevermembersoftheCommonswereawareofBuckingham’sroleatYorkHouseandtheappointmentofBuckinghamasChancelloroftheUniversityofCambridgeduringthe1626ParliamentonlyheightenedtheCommons’antagonismtowardsBuckingham.238ThatJohnCosin,closefriendandallyofMontagu,helpedsecurethechancellorshipreinforcedtheideathatBuckinghamwasbeholdentotheArminianfaction.WhentheCommonsraisedobjectionstoBuckingham’sappointmentaschancellor,Buckingham’ssupportofMontaguwasraisedmultipletimes.ThatamanwhosupportedMontagu,amanbentonbringing“halfpoperyandArminianism”intotheChurchofEngland,couldbeChancellorofCambridgeuniversityindicated“thewholeframeofreligionliesatthestake.”239Ironically,BuckinghamprovedtobeMontagu’ssaviorin1626.TheCommons,occupiedwiththeoverridingissueofBuckingham,sidelinedthecaseagainstMontagu.Indeed,theCommonsmighthaveruinedMontaguifCharlesIhadnotdissolvedParliamenttoprotectthedukeofBuckingham.
JohnPymcontinuedhisroleasleadprosecutorintheCommons.OntheseventeenthofApril,PymreadoutastatementoutliningthenatureofParliament’sroleinthecaseaswellasthegeneralcharges.Waryofoffendingtheauthorityofthebishopsandthekingoverquestionsdoctrine,heassertedthatParliamentdidnotintendtojudgethesoundnessofdoctrine,thatbeingtherightofconvocation.But233Proceedings1626,2:206‐207.234Ball,141‐142;Proceedings1626,4:341‐342.235Proceedings1626,2:358.236Ibid.,359.237Ibid.,3:438‐439.238Macauley,323.239Proceedings1626,2:361,355.
![Page 48: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
42
theThirty‐NineArticlesandtheBookofHomiliesweresanctionedbyParliament,andMontaguhadpublishedmaterialcontrarytoboth.HewasalsoguiltyofcontemptoftheCommonsbypublishingAppelloCaesaremwhiletherewasanunresolvedpetitionagainstANewGaggintheParliamentsof1624and1625.However,inadditiontothestandardchargeofpublishingmaterialcontrarytotheThirtyNineArticlesandpopery,thestrugglebetweenParliament,Montagu,andCharlesImeantthatArminianismwasacquiringpoliticalovertones.InthemindsofPymandotherParliamentaryCalvinists,Arminianismwasdefinedas“anespousalofdoctrinecontrarytothatoftheChurchofEngland(aboveall,initsviewsofelection,predestination,andthesacraments);arefusaltoacceptParliamentaryjurisdiction[overreligiousmatters](andsosetting‘KingagainstthePeople,andthePeopleoneagainstanother’)andpurposesandbeliefssimilartothoseoftheChurchofRome.”240 Pym,representingthecommitteeonreligion,allegedthatMontagu’scharacterizationofconformistCalvinistsasPuritanswassedition.AsidefrombeingasmearonrespectableEnglishchurchmen,hisredefinitionofPuritanismposedadangertotheEnglishbodypolitic.ForexamplePym,inthesectionofthechargeslabeled“sedition,”putforththreepropositions:“1.M[ontagu]doesdrawtogetherinonecollectivenameofPuritansthegreatestpartoftheKing’struesubjects.2.Diversecrimeslaidtotheircharge,andendeavorstobringtheKingintojealousywiththem.3.Bydiverseodioustermsendeavorstobringthemintohateandscornwiththerestofthepeople.”241Montagu’swritingonthepoliticaldangerofPuritanism,namelyhisassociationsofPuritanismwithanarchyandantipathytowardsauthority,angeredPymandothermembersoftheCommons.JustasBurtonandYatesobjectedtobeingcalledPuritansandthereforenonconformistswhentheywereobedientmembersoftheecclesiasticaladministration,Pymobjectedtotheaccusationofpoliticalnonconformity.HowcouldtheybeaccusedhimandfellowParliamentaryCalvinistsof“antipathizingtokingsandprinces”whentheywereobedientifcontentiousmembersofParliament?242 Thecommittee’ssecondconcernwasMontagu’s“Popery”andArminianism.PymandthereligioncommitteefounditespeciallyirritatingthatMontagulaboredtoslanderCalvinismwhilesimultaneouslylaboringtoprovethattheRomanCatholicChurchwasatrueifflawedchurch.HehaddrasticallyreducedthedoctrinaldistancebetweentheChurchofEnglandandRome,statedthattheRomanCatholicChurchwasbuiltonasoundtraditionalanddoctrinalfoundationevenifithadsubsequentlyerred,claimedthepopewasnotdemonstrablytheAntichrist,espousedtheefficacyofprayerstosaints,andwrittenfavorablyofpopishceremonialism.243TakenwiththedefinitionofdoctrinalCalvinismasPuritanism,itwascleartothecommitteethatMontagusoughttodefametheProtestantreligionandreconciliationwithRome.
240Schwartz,55.241Proceedings1626,3:7.242Ibid.,7.243Ibid.,6‐11.
![Page 49: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
43
Montagu’sArminianismwasoffensiveonmultiplecounts:hedishonoredthelateKingJamesIwhohadlentauthoritytotheSynodofDortanddisparagedtheReformedchurchesandtheirdivines.Hehadthetemeritytoinsistthattheelectmayfallfromgrace;adoctrineroundlycondemnedbyboththeChurchofEnglandandbyEnglishdelegatesattheSynodofDort.244HisrejectionoftheauthorityoftheSynodofDortandhisattacksontheContinentalReformedchurcheswasevidenceofhisArminianism.TakenwithMontagu’ssympathytowardsRomanCatholicism,thecommitteesurmisedthathewishedtopushtheChurchofEnglandawayfromGenevaandtowardsRome.245 CharlesIseemedcontenttolettheCommons’casemoveforward.WiththeroyalfavoriteBuckinghamunderattack,thekingcouldillaffordtolendsupporttohisunfortunatechaplainMontagu.TheCommons’firstprioritywastosilenceMontagu.WorriedbytherumorthathewascomposingaresponsetoBishopGeorgeCarleton’sAnExaminationofthoseThingswhereintheAuthoroftheLate“Appeale”HoldstheDoctrinesoftheChurchofthePelagiansandArminianstobetheDoctrinesoftheChurchofEngland,theCommonspetitionedthekingtoforbidMontagufrompublishinganybooksuntilParliamentresolvedthecurrentcontroversy.CharlesIexpresseddistasteforthechaplain’sworksandagreedtoreferhiscasetoConvocation.Anyfuturewritingswouldbethoroughlyexaminedfor“seditionorfalsedoctrine”beforetheywereallowedtogotopress.246CharlesI’spromisestotheCommonssatoddlywithhisinterventiononMontagu’sbehalfin1625.HeappearedtobeusingMontaguasasoptotheCommons,appearingtoyieldtoParliament’sdemandstodeflectcriticismelsewhere.247 TheCommonswasnotsatisfiedwiththeking’shalfwaymeasures.Pym’spresentationoftheaccumulatedgrievancesagainstMontagutookafulltwohourstodeliver.Theeffectofthespeechwassuchthat“nomanspokeinthehousebutindetestationofhimandhisbestfriendswereobservedtoleavethehouse[ofCommons]beforethequestioncame[tovote.]”248OnApril29theCommonsfoundMontaguguiltyofasweepingsetofcharges:publishingdoctrinecontrarytotheThirty‐NineArticles,disturbingthepeaceofthechurchandstate,encouragementtoRomanCatholicismandofpopishceremonialism,slanderofconformistEnglishmenasPuritans,Arminianism,disgraceofReformedchurchesanddivines,anddenigrationofgodlypreaching.249Contrarytotheassertionofthecommitteethattheydidnotpresumetojudgedoctrine,theresolutionincludedthedoctrineoffallingfromgrace.250TheresolutioncouldnothavecomeasasurprisetoMontaguorCharlesIastheresolutionmerelyreiteratedandformalizedthechargesofthe1625Parliament.Pym,theperpetualthorninMontagu’sside,waschosentopresentthecasetotheHouseofLords.
244Ibid.,2:206.245Ibid.,3:6‐11.246Ibid30,34.247AntiCalvinists,154‐155;Macauley,324‐325.248Macauley,318.249Proceedings1626,3:8,101.TheresolutionincludesPym’s“fourheadsofaggravation.”250AntiCalvinists,128.
![Page 50: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
44
HoweverthecasewassidelinedbypreparationsfortheimpeachmentofBuckingham.NosignificantprogresswasmadeduringMayanditwasnotuntilmid‐JunethattheCommonsmadesignificantprogressagainstMontagu.CharlesIforcedtheCommons’handbyissuingthe“ProclamationfortheestablishingofthepeaceandquietoftheChurchofEngland”onJune14/16.TheproclamationindirectlyreferredtoMontagu’sworks,referencingreligiousquestions“atfirstonlybeingmeantagainstthepapists”whichlaterdisturbedthepeaceoftheChurchofEngland.251Theproclamationbanned“anynewinventionsoropinionsconcerningreligion[other]thansuchas[are]clearlygroundedandwarrantedbythedoctrineanddisciplineoftheChurchofEnglandheretoforepublishedandhappilyestablishedbyauthority.”252Theauthorityofthesovereignandthechurch,notParliament,wouldenforcethisproclamation.Bishopsandarchbishopswerechargedwithpreventingfurtherreligiouscontroversy,andCharlesIreservedtherighttopunishtransgressors.
TheCommonsrespondedbyreadinginabill“forthebettercontinuingofpeaceandunityintheChurchandCommonwealth”onJune13and14.253ThebillsoughttoincorporatetheIrishArticles(1615)intotheofficialdoctrineoftheChurchofEnglandalongsidetheThirty‐NineArticles.Themotivebehindthismovewasclear:theIrishArticlesincorporatedtheCalvinistLambethArticlesformulatedduringtheCambridgepredestinariancontroversyofthe1590s.254TheincorporationoftheIrishArticleswouldmeantheincorporationofCalvinistorthodoxyintothedoctrineoftheChurchofEngland.Montagu’sgoosewouldhavebeencooked.HoweverhewassavedbyCharlesI’sinterventiononbehalfofBuckinghamonJune15.TheLordsweremovingsteadilytowardtheimpeachmentofBuckingham,goingsofarastopresentCharlesIwitharemonstranceofgrievances.255CharlesIobstinatelydefendedBuckingham,claimingthattheDukehadfaithfullyexecutedhisofficeandwasnotguiltyofanypoliticalmalfeasance.256WhenitbecameclearthattheLordswouldnotdismissthechargesagainstBuckingham,CharlesIdissolvedtheParliament.257
CharlesI’sdissolutionofParliamentaswellashisproclamationforthepeaceandquietoftheChurchofEnglandattheeleventhhourtemporarilysparedMontagu.ThebilltoincorporateIrishArticlesnevercametoavote,thoughitwouldbereintroducedintothe1628Parliament.BooksellerswereorderednottoprintorsellanytractsagainstMontagualthoughhisAppelloCaesaremwouldnotbesuppresseduntiltwoandhalfyearslater.258ButthecontroversywasescalatingintoaconfrontationaboutthedirectionoftheChurchofEngland.CharlesI’s
251“AproclamationfortheestablishingofthepeaceandquietoftheChurchofEngland,16June1626,”TheStuartConstitution16031688:documentsandcommentary,ed.J.P.Kenyon(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1986),138.252Ibid139.253AntiCalvinists,154‐155.254R.BuickKnox,JamesUssher,ArchbishopofArmagh(Cardiff:UniversityofWales,1967),18.255Proceedings1626,3:438‐439.256CharlesI,“TheKing’sReply,”HistoricalCollections,I216‐217.257ODNBGeorgeVilliers,dukeofBuckingham;Russell,Parliaments,321.258Macauley,329.
![Page 51: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
45
proclamationforthepeaceandquietoftheChurchofEnglandwasenforcedselectively,silencingthe“Puritans’[Calvinists’]mouthsand[giving]anuncontrolledlibertytothetonguesandpensoftheArminianparty.”259 HoweverthepatronageofBuckinghamandincreasingroyalsupportforthe“Montaguists”againservedonlytoincreasethestrengthofopposition.ThreenewCalvinistactivistsrosetoprominenceduringthe1626Parliament,somedrawnintothedisputebecauseofoppositiontoBuckingham:HenrySherfield,ChristopherSherland,andSirThomasFanshaw.260Theanti‐ArminianpartyhadgrownfromtwocommittedCommonsMPsinthe1624ParliamenttoagrouplargeenoughtoconstituteanidentifiableinterestgroupintheHouseofCommons.ManymorewerebroughtintothefoldbytherapidrisetopowerofahandfulofArminianbishopsintheinterveningyearsbetweenthe1626Parliamentandthe1628Parliament.
“IsanArminiannowmadeaBishop?”
Indeed,intheyearsbetweenthe1626and1628Parliamentstheideaofan
“Arminianparty”emerged.FrancisWhite,amanwhodefendedMontaguatYorkHouseandwasinvolvedthepublicationofAppelloCaesarem,wasconsecratedbishopofCarlisleatDurhamHouse.261JohnCosin,amanofidenticalcredentialstoWhite,wasappointedrectorofBrancepethatDurham.262AtWhite’sconsecrationceremonyattheDurhamhousechapel,CosindeliveredasermoncelebratingthestartofaneweraintheChurchofEngland.Theauthorityoftheapostolicsuccessionwouldelevatetheclergytotheirproperplaceandanewceremonialismwouldbeintroducedintotheliturgy.
AgainstcriticswoulddenigratetheEnglishepiscopacyaslackingauthorityandwantingofrespect,“nolawfulsucession”and“noorderlyconsecration,”CosinpreachedthatEnglishbishopsbenefittedfromtheanunbrokenlineofsuccessionfromChrist’sapostles.263TheapostolicsuccessioninfusedeachsuccessivebishopwithGod’sgrace.BishopsdependedsolelyonGodfortheirauthorityandwere“subordinatetonopowerbeside[thatofGod].”264Thebishop’sauthoritydidnotderivefromParliamentaryprecedentorstatutebutfromapostolicsuccessionitself.TheimplicationofthisideawasthatbishopsandotherecclesiasticalpersonnelwerebeyondtheauthorityofParliament.TheirdesiretoincreasetheauthorityofbishopsthroughtiestoancientChristianitymeantawillingnesstoacceptRomeasatrueifflawedChurch.265
Thepowerofsacramentsandceremoniestodispensegracewassimilarlyelevated.CosinscornedCalvinistswhowould“believethatthereisnothingtobedonemorebuttobelieveandsobesaved.”266TheseEnglishmenwerethereason259HistoricalCollections,1:413.260AntiCalvinists,132;Rusell,Parliaments,298.261ODNBFrancisWhite262ODNBJohnCosin263Cosin,Works,I92.264Ibid93.265Schwartz,58.266Cosin,Works,I97.
![Page 52: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
46
thattheChurchofEngland’sserviceandliturgyhadfallenintodisrepair.AccordingtoCosin,theChurchofEnglandhad
aservice,butnoservantsatit...churches,butkeepthemnotlikehousesofGod...Sacraments,butfewtofrequentthem;Confession,butfewtopractiseit...religiousduties...butseldomobserved;allgoodlawsandCanonsoftheChurch,butfewornonekept;thepeoplearemadetodonothing;theolddisciplineisneglected,andmendowhattheylist.267
AnanonymousEnglishman,frustratedattheprefermentofthe“Montaguists,”postedasignonDurhamChapelonthedayofWhite’sconsecrationreading“IsanArminiannowmadeaBishop?”268ThusCosinarticulatedboththemotivesofthenew“Arminianparty.”
Furtherevidenceoftheriseofan“Arminianparty”camewithCharlesI’sappointmentofMontaguhimselftothebishopricofChichesterpreviouslyheldbytheCalvinistGeorgeCarleton,whohadscathinglydenouncedMontaguinprint,inthemonthfollowingthe1628Parliament.269TheappointmentinfuriatedCalvinistswhothoughtMontaguwasbettersuitedto“fireandfaggotthanfurtherpreferment.”270ArchbishopAbbot,whohadheretoforeattemptedtorestrainMontagu,wasexiledintothecountryandpowerwastransferredtoacouncilconsistingsolelyofArminiansympathizers:GeorgeMountain,RichardNeile,JohnBuckeridge,JohnHowson,andWilliamLaud.271WilliamLaudnowreplacedAbbotasarchbishopinallbutnameandamanwhowassympathetictoMontaguindoctrine,ifnotpersonally,wasthedefactoheadoftheChurchofEngland.272Thusbythe1628ParliamentArminianismacquiredadualpoliticalandreligiousdefinition:inadditiontothedoctrinalelementsconcerningpredestinationandthesacraments,EnglishArminianismnowcarriedtheconnotationsofanenhancementofmonarchicalauthority,anelevationofthestatusofbishops,andaliturgicalprogramthatemphasizedthebeautyofholiness.
Montaguandthe1628Parliament:TheArminianConspiracy
Muchofthe1628ParliamentwasdominatedbyforeignpolicyandthegrowingconstitutionalconflictbetweenthekingandParliamentinadditiontotheodiumcausedbyadisastrousforeignpolicy.TheattempttorelievebatteredProtestantforcesofLaRochellewithEnglishtroopsunderthecommandofthedukeofBuckinghamhadfailedspectacularly.ThecostofthisexpeditionwasmetbyimposingtheForcedLoan,whichgeneratedconsiderableoppositionandbecameatestfortheboundariesoftheroyalprerogative.Thepresenceofalargebodyoftroopsundertheking’scommandonlyservedtoheightentensions.273Nonetheless267Ibid268Macauley,339.269ODNBRichardMontague270AnAppelaeoftheOrthodoxMinistersoftheChurchofEnglandAgainstRichardMontague(1629),25.271CharlesI,“TheCommissiontoSequesterArchbishopAbbot,”HistoricalCollections,I431‐433.272Macauley,344.273Russell,Parliaments,323‐338.
![Page 53: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
47
religiontensionscontinuedtomount.ThesummoningofanewParliamentdidnotbodewellforRichardMontagu,whoseelevationtoabishopriconlyincreasedtheferocityoftheattacksagainsthim.Paradoxically,royalpatronagemadehispositionmorevulnerable.ParliamentwasincreasinglyawarethatMontaguwasnotaloneinhisviews,androyalpatronagemadememberssuspiciousofanArminianconspiracytosubverttheestablishedchurch.ThusMontaguandhisparty,reliantontheprotectionofthekingandtheepiscopacy,werefearfulofanotherParliamentbeingcalledespeciallywhenthekingandParliamentwereincreasinglyatodds.WilliamLaudfearedthattheywould“falluponchurchbusinesswhich(inthewaytheyhavegone)isnotfitforthem.”274 AlthoughArminianismwasnottheprimaryconcernofthe1628Parliament,itbegantobleedoverintoothergrievancessuchasBuckinghamandCharlesI’sarbitraryroyalpolicies.Thusthe1628Parliamentsawthebirthofanideaofan“Arminianparty”alliedtopoliticalinnovators.Montaguandthereligiousinnovatorswerenowinseparablyconnectedtopoliticalinnovators;thebishopandhisallieswerenowidentifiablemembersofa“malignantandpopishparty.”275The“Montagents,”disciplesofMontagu,were“advancedandpreferred,andhavemeetingsand,underauthorityandamonarchy,willundermine,authority,andwillpreachthatwehavenoproperty.”276BecauseMontaguandhisilkwerenowapoliticalthreat,the1628Parliamentweremoreconfidentinattackinghisdoctrineandsoteriology.277Overall,thestrengthwasoverwhelminglywithMontagu’senemiesinParliament. The1626billforthe“bettercontinuingofpeaceandunityinchurchandcommonwealth,”whichaimedtomaketheLambethArticlespartoftheofficialdoctrineoftheChurchofEngland,wasreadintotheCommonsonApril3,1628.278ThereintroductionofthebilldidnotbodewellforMontagu.JohnPym,reassuminghisroleasleadprosecutor,reportedtheaccumulatedgrievancesweretobemadeintoofficialchargesattheendofApril.Muchofthematerialwasaretreadfromthe1626Parliament.However,PymattackedMontagu’s“Arminianism,”especiallyhisinsistencethattheelectmightfalltotallyandfinallyfromgrace,muchmorestrongly.Inaddition,hisviewsonbaptismandtheuseofimagesintheliturgyformedalargerpartofthecomplaintsagainsthim.TheriseofceremonialismwasclearlyagrowingconcernofParliament.Cosin,Montagu’sclosestfriendandally,cameunderattackfromParliamentforhisCollectionofPrivateDevotions.Publishedin1627,thework’sinclusionofprayersforthedead,emphasisonthepoweroftheChristianmartyrsandsaints,andthevenerationoftheauthorityoftheclergyirkedEnglishmenstillreelingfromtheearliercontroversyoverMontagu.TheworkwasaddedtothelistoftroublesomebooksalongsideGaggandAppello,indicatingthegrowingconcernwithceremonialisminParliament.279274Ibid.,338.275Ibid.,380.276Proceedings1628,2:85‐86.277Schwartz,64.278Proceedings1626,2:275.279ODNBJohnCosin;Proceedings1628,2:86.
![Page 54: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
48
Thecommitteereiterateditsjustificationforconsideringthebooks:theycontaineddoctrinecontrarytotheChurchofEngland,disturbedthepeace,andstrovetoreconciletheChurchofEnglandandtheRomanCatholicChurch.280However,Montagu’scontentionthattheelectcouldfallfromgracetotallyandfinallyismentionedinfourdifferentsectionsmorethaneventhepoliticallypotentchargeofreconciliationwithRome.281Suchaviewwascontrarytothe17thArticle,whichthecommitteetookasespousingthesupralapsarianpositionthatGoddividedhumanityintotheelectandthereprobatebeforethecreationoftheworld.282Montagu’sinsistenceontheefficacyofbaptismirkedPym,especiallysincethebishop’sbooksalreadymuddiedthewatersofabsolutepredestinationwithfreewill.283GiventhestatementsthattheRomanCatholicChurchconstitutedatruechurchandhisviewsonthesacraments,itseemedthatMontaguwasproposingtoreplacethegraceofpredestinationwiththegraceofsacraments.Increasingly,thecommitteeonreligioninParliamentwithJohnPymasitsleaderemphasizedthe“ceremonial”aspectsofMontagu’sthought,previouslysidelinedtohisredefinitionofPuritanismandhis“doctrinalArminianism.”Forexample,thecommitteeconsideredtheliturgicalideasindetailforthefirsttime.Citingthesermon“AnHomilyagainsttheperilofIdolatry”fromtheBookofHomiliesurging“soberness,modesty,andchastity”intheadornmentofchurchesagainstMontagu’sassertionthatimageswerenotnecessarilyidols.284 Thecommittee’scaseagainstalledintheCommons,andPymwasagainpreventedfrombringingthechargestotheLords.NonethelessoppositionwasgrowingintheCommons.WhereaslessthanahandfulofdedicatedMPsprosecutedMontaguintheParliamentsof1624‐1626,1628witnessedaproliferationofanti‐Arminianactivists:SirNathanielRich,SirRobertHarley,SirHenry,Midmay,SirEdwardGiles,SirWilliamBeecher,RichardKnightley,WalterLong,SirJohnJackson.285CommonssatasaCommitteeoftheWholeHouseforthreedays,June6,June9,andJune11toconsider,amongotherthings,“innovationinreligion.”286 ForthreedaystheCommonssatasacommittee,heapingabuseuponthetroublesomeArminianparty.TheCommonscomplainedthattheArminianswerefavoredandMontagu’sbooksweresoldfreelywhilehiscritics’booksarepreventedfromgoingtopress,onlyArminianswereadvanced,andpreachingwasneglected.287TheHouses’religiousgrievanceswereformalizedintoaremonstrancedeliveredontheJune14.MuchoftheremonstranceconcernedBuckingham,andtheMPsconcernoverBuckingham’soffenses.However,thegrievancesconcerninginnovationsinreligionhammeredoutduringthecommitteeasawholewereasignificantportionoftheremonstrance.AppealingtothememoryofJamesIandthe
280Proceedings1628,2:112.281Ibid.,112‐114.282Ibid.,113;CressyandFerrell,73‐74.283Proceedings1628,3:114.284Sermons,orHomilies,appointedtobereadinchurchesinthetimeofQueenElizabeth(SocietyforPromotingChristianKnowledge),189.285AntiCalvinists,133.286Proceedings1628,4:150.287Ibid.,169,151,156,
![Page 55: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
49
SynodofDort,theCommonswarnedCharlesIagainstthoseEnglishmen,“ProtestantsinshowbutJesuitsinopinion,”nowbeingadvancedtobishoprics.288TheremonstrancenamedRichardNeile,bishopofWinchesterandWilliamLaud,bishopofBathandWellsastheluminariesoftheburgeoningArminianmovement.TheremonstrancealsoexpresseddissatisfactionwiththeunevenapplicationoftheproclamationforthepeaceandquietoftheChurchofEngland,complainingthatMontaguandhisilkwrotefreelyintheirdefensebutdefendersofthe“orthodox”churchweresilenced.289 Theremonstrancecametonaught.Buckingham,increasinglyblamedforadisastrousforeignpolicyandthefailuretorelievethebeleagueredHueguenotsofLaRochelle,wassparedfurtherattackbyParliamentonlytobebrutallyassassinatedbyadisgruntledsubordinateonAugust14.ThepassingofthePetitionofRightassuagedtheCommons’politicalgrievances,andBuckingham’sassassinationmeantthehatedroyalfavoritewasnolongerbetweenCharlesIandParliament.CharlesIissuedapardontoMontaguandappointedhimtothevacantseeofChichester.290CharlesIsuppressionofAppelloCaesarembyproclamationactuallyhelpedMontagubecauseitmeantthebookwasnolongeratargetfortheCommons.291HowevertheremovalofthemajorpoliticalobstaclesbetweenCharlesIandParliamentmeantthattheCommonswerenolongerdistractedfromtheissueofreligion.CharlesI’spatronageonlyinfuriatedtheMPsfurther.
ThoughMontagureapedtherewardsofroyalpatronage,heknewhewasvulnerabletofurtherattackfromtheCommons.Publicly,hekickeddirtintothebonfiresofEnglishmencelebratingthepassageofthePetitionofRightwhilewarningthecelebrantstheywouldanswerfortheiractions.292Privately,heconfessedtoCosinthattherewas“nomanIcanbuildupon”intheCommons.293Montagu’sassessmentofthesituationprovedcorrect.WithmanyofthegrievancesthathadpreviouslydistractedtheHouseofCommonsfromtheMontagucaseremoved,the1629Parliamentwaspoisedtomakeaconcertedanddirectattackuponthenewlyconsecratedbishop.
Montaguandthe1629Session:EnemyofChurchandStateCharlesIproroguedthe1628Parliament,meaningthatthesamemembers
reassembledforthe1629session.ThedeathofBuckinghamandthefallofLaRochelleremovedimportantpointsofconflictbetweenthekingandParliament.However,itwascleartoallobserversthatArminianismwouldbetheoverridingissueofthe1629Parliament.IftheCommons’wasalreadyconcernedabouttheriseofthe“Montagents,”thekingwasforcingtheirhandbyblatantlyfavoringtheArminianparty.ItseemedtomanyMPsthat“foraclergymantobecomplainedofbytheParliamentwastheshortestroadtopreferment;”CharlesIwasdeliberately288Ibid.,313.289Ibid.,313.290Macauley,349‐350.291AntiCalvinists,161.292Russell,Parliaments,389.293Cosin,Correspondence,I141‐142.
![Page 56: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
50
snubbingtheCommons’complaintsaboutreligion.294ArminiansintheEnglishepiscopacywasanaffrontinandofitself.ButCharlesIpatronizedArminianclergyinthefaceofParliamentaryopposition,therebydrawingmoreMPstotheanti‐Arminiancause.
ThusmorethaninanypreviousParliamentArminianismandpoliticalissueswereintimatelylinked.Whiletheawarenessoftheexistenceofan“Arminianparty”hadmaterializedearlier,inthe1629ParliamentMPsbegantoviewArminianismasaconspiracytosubverttheestablishedorderanddoctrineoftheChurchofEngland.295WhereasinprevioussessionsMontaguhadbeensidelined,indeedsavedbymorepressingpoliticalgrievances,religiontookprecedenceoverallotherbusinessin1629.BeginningonJanuary21,resoluteCalvinistSirWalterErleelucidatedthesentimentoftheParliamentonJanuary27:
Iamofthenumberofthosethatatourlastmeetingthoughtthetimebestspentinvindicatingtherightsandlibertiesofthesubject...[and]topostponethebusinessofreligion...Nowgivemeleavetotellyou,thatreligionoffersitselftoyourfirstconsiderationatthistime...Asforthepassingofbills,settlingrevenues,andthelike,withoutsettlingReligion,ImustconfessthatIhavenoheartinit...[Thereisnot]amorenearconjunctionbetweenmatterofReligionandmatterofStateinanykingdomintheworldthanthereisinthisKingdomatthisday.296
Indeeddedicatedanti‐ArminianactivistssuchasJohnPymandRobertRich,earlofWarwickusedpoliticalandfinancialissuestoforceCharlesI’shandonArminianism.Thekingbadlyneededrevenueandthetwomensoughttomakethegrantingoftonnageandpoundage,importdutiescrucialthatwerecrucialsourcesofroyalrevenue,conditionalonthekingabandoningtheArminianepiscopate.297Montagu,White,andothers,recentlyadvancedtobishopricsandundertheprotectionofroyalpardons,knewthatanewsessionofParliamentwouldopenthemtoattack.InmanyMPsminds,ArminianshadavestedinterestinsupportingCharlesI’sextra‐parliamentarytaxationinordertonotcallanotherParliament.FurthermoreEnglishmilitaryfailureagainstcontinentalCatholiccountrieslikeFranceandSpainmademanyMPsmoresensitivetoreligiousheresyathome.Forexample,SirFrancisSeymour,relativelyuninvolvedinthecontroversyoverMontaguandArminianismheretofore,complainedonJanuary26that“IfGodfightnotourbattles,thehelpofmanisinvain...thecausethereofisourdefectinreligion,andthesinsofidolatryandpopery.”298ThereforemanynewMPsweredrawnintothecontroversybesidesthemorereligioudlymotivatedMPslikePymandRous.
FrancisRous,stepbrothertoPym,madetheconnectionbetweenthetwoevidentinhisspeechbeforetheCommons.Segueingfromdebateabouttonnageandpoundage,RousimploredtheCommonstomakereligiontheirfirstpriorityinthe
294Russell,Parliaments,396.295Ibid.,404.296CommonsDebates1629,18‐19.297Rusell,Parliaments,406.298CommonsDebates1629,14.
![Page 57: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
51
comingmonths.WhereasinthelastsessiontheCommonsconcerneditselfwiththePetitionofRightandthelibertiesofsubjectsnowtheCommonsmustturnitselfto“fargreaterthings,eternallife,oursouls,yeaourGodhimself.”299TheChurchofEnglandwasundersiegefromanArminianconspiracy:
IdesirefirstthatitmaybeconsideredwhatnewpaintingsarelaiduponthewhoreofBabylontomakeherseemmorelovely,andtodrawsomanysuitorstoher.IdesirethatitmaybeconsideredhowtheSeeofRomedotheatintoourReligion...sincetheirPoperyisaconfusedmassoferrors,castingdownKingsbeforepopes,thepreceptsofGodbeforethetraditionofmen,livingandreasonablemenbeforedeadandsenselessstocksandstones.IdesirethatwemayconsidertheincreaseofArminianism,anerrorthatmakeththegraceofGodlackeyitafterthewillofman,thatmakeththesheeptokeeptheshepherd,thatmakethmortalseedofanimmortalGod.Yea,IdesirethatwemaylookintothebellyandbowelsofthisTrojanhorse,toseeiftherebenotmeninitreadytoopenthegatestoRomishtryrannyandSpanishmonarchy.ForanArminianisthespawnofaPapist.300
ThesesameArminianssoughtto“breakinuponthegoodsandlibertiesofthisCommonweath”asthemeansto“avoidorbreakParliaments,thatsotheymaybreakinuponourReligion,andbringintheirerrors.”301ArminianswerethusbothathreattothepoliticalandreligiousorderofEngland. NoneoftheideasandchargesagainsttheArminiansintheCommonswerenew,buttheunanimityoftheMPswas.MPafterMPharanguedMontagupersonallyandArminianismingeneralinemotionalspeeches.WiththerecentrashofArminianpreferment,anapocalypticmoodseizedtheCommons.Indeed,whereasin1625,1626,and1628,theCommonshadbeencontenttoforwardthecaseagainstMontagutotheLordsforfurtherconsideration,inthe1629ParliamenttheLordswereahelplessbystanderagainsttheincreasingreligiousfuryoftheCommons.TheCommonsaswholewasincreasinglyradicalized.ThewholeoftheCommons,sittingastheCommitteeofReligion,agreedthatArminianismwascontrarytotheThirty‐NineArticlesevenwithouttheadditionoftheIrishorLambethArticles.302 Halfadecadeofreligiousgrievanceswerecomingtoahead.Pym,headingaCommitteeoftheWholeonReligiononFebruary13,recountedthestepspriorsessionstookagainstMontagu.HebitterlyinformedtheCommonsthatalloftheireffortshadcometonaughtandthatthenumberofhereticsincreaseddaily.Montaguhimselfhadbeenelevatedtothebishopricofoneofhisgreatestopponents.303ManyMPswereinadiremoodandfeltthatdecisiveactionmustbetakenbecause“ifGodbeGod,letusfollowhim,andifBaalbeGod,letusfollowhim,andlongerhaltbetweentwoopinions.”304
TheculminationoftheCommons’religiousgrievanceswastheHeadsandArticlesagreeduponbytheHouseonFebruary23.Thegrievancesthereinhadthe299Ibid.,12.300Ibid.,12‐13.301Ibid.,13.302Ibid.,23.303Ibid.,65‐68.304Ibid.,67.
![Page 58: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
52
assentofthewholehouse.ThearticleslaidtheblameonCharlesI’sministersforsubvertingthedoctrineoftheestablishedchurch.TheCommonschargedthattheChurchofEnglandhadbeenhijackedbytheArminianswhowisheddestroytheChurchofEnglandandalltrue“ProtestantChurchesinChristendom.”305ThesereligiousinnovatorssoughttocleaveEnglandfromtheReformedChurches,sowdivisionamongtheranksofEnglishProtestantsanddrivethemtopopery,andinclineorsympathizetopopery.306MontaguwascondemnedbythearticlesforpublishinganddefendingpointscontrarytothedoctrineoftheChurchofEngland,allwithoutpunishmentorcensure.307Thearticlesalsocondemnedtheceremonialismcreepingintotheliturgy.308 AllofthiswasthecontrarytothedoctrineoftheChurchofEngland,whichwasfoundintheBookofCommonPrayerandtheBookofHomilies,bothconfirmedbytheauthorityofParliament.309HowevertheyalsocitedtheLambethArticles,theIrishArticles,andtheresolutionsoftheSynodofDort.310TheCommonshadindeedthrustitselfintotheroleofarbiteroforthodoxy.MontaguremainedthebêtenoireoftheCommonsandwasused,perhapsunfairly,asthesymbolofallthatwaswrongwiththechurch.“ThatgreatbishopofChichester,”asSirJohnEliotsarcasticallylabeledhim,wasanaiderandabettorofthespreadofArminianismespeciallysincehiselevationtoabishopric.311
CharlesIwasincreasinglyfrustratedwiththeCommonscombativerhetoriconreligionandfinance.OnMarch2,theSpeakerinformedtheCommonsthatthekinghadorderedanadjournmentandrosetoendthesessionwhenseveralMPsgrabbedhimandforcedhimbackintohischair.Withthespeakerpinnedtothechair,EliotinveighedagainstMontaguandLordTreasurerRichardWestonfortheirroleininnovationofreligion.312WiththeHouseinchaos,theArticlesofreligiousgrievanceswerereadintothehouseandshoutedinwitharesoundingvoicevote.Furthermore,DenzilHollesthenreadintheProtestationsoftheCommonsinParliamentwhichdeclaredthatanyEnglishmanwhocontrovertedtheorthodoxdoctrineoftheChurchofEnglandasunderstoodbytheCommonsorsoughttointroduceArminianinnovationwasa“capitalenemytothisKingdomandCommonwealth.”313TheCommonsrespondedwitharesoundingYea.ThewholeHouseofCommonshadturnedonMontagu.
ThustheHouseofCommonsdeclaredMontaguahereticandenemyofthestateonMarch2.ThistimeCharlesIdirectlyintervenedtosaveMontaguandhisfellowsfromdestruction.ThekingcouldnotabidebythebehavioroftheCommonsandhedissolvedtheParliamentonMarch2.AfterorderingtheCaptainofthePensionersandGuardtoforcethedooroftheCommonsandfacingfurtherdefiance
305Ibid.,96.306Ibid.,97‐98.307Ibid.,98.308Ibid.,98.309Ibid.,99.310Ibid.,99.311Ibid.,102.312Ibid.,104313Ibid.,101‐102.
![Page 59: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
53
fromtheCommons,thekingdissolvedtheParliament.314Arrestsandimprisonmentssoonfollowed.Inaseriesofroyalproclamationsfollowingthedissolution,thesovereignattackedtheCommonsandannouncedtheinaugurationofPersonalRule.MalevolentfactionsandoverzealousMPshadcausedtheCommonstoactrashlyanddishonortheking’sauthority.315FurthermoreCharlesIwouldsummonnomoreParliamentsforanasyetindeterminateperiodoftime.316
ConclusionTheeleven‐yearinterludefromparliamentaryrulecouldonlymeanagolden
oppurtunityfortheArminianparty.Freedfromparliamentaryattack,theArminianslostnotimeimposingtheirdoctrinalandliturgicalprogramontheChurchofEngland.MontaguenjoyedthespoilsofthebishopricofChichesterandwaslatertransferredtolucrativebishopricofNorwich.Hisactionsasthebishopwerepredictabletoanyinformedobserverofthereligiouscontroversyofthe1620s.Heattemptedtoclampdownon“Puritan”activitybysuppressingCalvinistclergy,andhisvisitationarticlesdisplayedaprofoundconcernfortheupkeepofchurchesandamissiontoenforceconformityinliturgicalpractices.Theobstreperousclericwasstillnotimmunetoattackevenwiththeprotectionofthemonarchandtheepiscopacy.HisresidenceatChichesterandNorwichsawtheimplementationofatolerantpolicytowardsrecusantRomanCatholicsexemplifiedinhistract“CertainconsiderationstouchingRecusancy,”contactwithRomanCatholicstostarttheprocessofreconciliationwithRome,andcontinuedproductionofreligioustractswhichexemplifiedhisfocusonpatristicsandchurchhistory.317Nevertheless,therumblingsofdiscontentbeginningin1639andintothe1640sinMontagu’sbishopricsdemonstratedthefactthatdecadesofreligiousturmoilwerecomingtoahead.Twoyearsbeforehisdeathin1641parishionersbegantorevoltagainstthebeatificationofthechurchandliturgybypullingdownthealtarrailsinNorwich.318
Montagu’sdeathin1641provedtimelyastheArminianascendancyduringthePersonalRulewasrapidlycomingtoanend.ThekingfinallycalledanewParliamentin1640becausetheAchillesheeloftheEnglishmonarchy,lackofmoney,forcedhishand.Parliamentwouldprovenomorecooperativein1640thanin1629,andtheimpositionoftheArminianprogramintheinterveningyearshadincreasedthestrengthofreligiousgrievances.HoweverimportantthepoliticalconflictbetweenkingandParliamentinthe1640s,inthecaseofreligionthediehadbeencastinthelatterhalfofthe1620s.TheblamecannotbelaidsolelyupontheheadofCharlesIsinceheinheritedanincreasinglydividedchurchfromhisfather.
314Ibid.,106;ODNBCharlesI.315“AProclamationaboutthedissolvingoftheParliament,”StuartRoyalProclamationsVol.II:RoyalProclamationsofKingCharlesI,16251646ed.JamesF.Larkin(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1983),223‐224.316“AProclamationforsuppressingoffalseRumourstouchingParliament,”StuartRoyalProclamationsVol.II:RoyalProclamationsofKingCharlesI,16251646ed.JamesF.Larkin(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1983,226‐228.317ODNBRichardMontagu318Ibid.
![Page 60: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
54
Theanti‐CalvinistoppositionhadbeenvagueandformlessduringJamesI’sreignandreligiouscontroversyhadbeenmanagedinawaythatobviatedmajorconflict.HoweverthelegacyofHamptonCourt,theSynodofDort,andtheriseofArminiansavantlalettreleftadelicatesituationfortheCarolineChurch.
Nevertheless,itwasCharlesI’smoveinsupportofMontaguandothercontroversialdivinesinitiatedadrawingofdefinitivebattlelinesbetweenthetwoparties.EnglishArminianismwouldneverhavebeendefinedinthewayitdidwithoutitsincreasingtiestothecourt.ANewGaggandAppelloCaesaremaswellasthepolemicalresponsearticulatedtheideologicalframeworkofEnglishArminianism.BeginningwithYorkHouse,thenascentArminianideologywasthrustintothepoliticalspherewhereitwouldthroughaseriesofpoliticalmaneuversandtimelyinterventionsbythekingbecomeintimatelyassociatedwithpoliticalandreligiousinnovation.Montagu’sideascouldnothavegainedthepotencythattheydidwithoutthereligiousoppositionintheHouseofCommons.PushedintothearmsofawelcomingsovereignbyaconcertedandvigorousoppositionintheCommons,thetroublesomeclericandhisalliesimmediatelysawthebenefitofsupportingextra‐parliamentaryruleifitwouldprotectthemfromcensurebyParliament.TheparallelemphasisonclericalandepiscopalauthoritymadeConvocationtheultimatejudgeofdoctrine,nottheassortedrabbleoflaymenintheCommons.
In the process, the “Montagutians” succeeded in temporarily pushingCalvinists out of the Church of England. The Montagu controversy actuallywitnessed thebirth of EnglishArminianismandof the a new “Puritanism.”Thesenew Puritans were actually the “Anglican” establishment of yesteryear, slowlysqueezed out of the establishment by an innovating party of avant‐garde divines.The epithet “Puritan” was well established by the 1620s and even though theArminians substantially redefined it theydidnot create it. By contrast, the 1620strulywitnessedthecoinageof the term“Arminianism” inEngland.Theargumentsespoused byMontagu and allies during the 1620swere similar in core areas likepredestinationtoDutchArminianismandsimilarargumentshadbeenairedintheuniversitiesduringthereignofElizabethIandecclesiasticalconferencesbutduringthe 1620s the predestinarian disputewas violently thrust into the public sphere.There anti‐Calvinist thought logically took shape through disputation with itsideologicalenemyCalvinism.
HoweverthemostcrucialplayerinthecontroversyturnedouttobeCharlesI, not Richard Montagu. Without the king’s support, Montagu might have been afootnoteinhistoryandtheremightnothavebeenariseofArminianisminEngland.MontaguhadmadeaquidproquooffertotheyoungkinginhisAppelloCaesarem:“Domine imperator, defende me gladio, et ego te defendam calamo [O Emperor,defendmewith the sword and Iwill defend youwith the pen.]”319The sovereigntookuptheoffer,weddinghimselftoagroupofdivineswillingtoallythemselvestoandpreachinsupportforthemonarch’sexperimentinextra‐parliamentaryrule.
319Montagu1625,322.
![Page 61: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
55
Bibliography
AllplacesofpublicationLondonunlessotherspecified.I. PrimaryTheAnglicanCanons15291947,ed.GeraldBray.Woodbridge:BoydellPress,1998.TheBritishDelegationtotheSynodofDort,ed.AnthonyMilton.Woodbridge:
BoydellPress,2005.Burton,Henry.ANarrationoftheLifeofMr.HenryBurton.1643.Burton,Henry.APleatoanAppeale.1626.Canons,ratifiedintheNationalSynodoftheReformedChurch,heldat
Dordrechtintheyears1618and1619.NewYork:WhitingandWatson,1812.
Cardwell,Edward.AHistoryofconferencesandotherproceedingsconnected
withtherevisionoftheBookofCommonprayerfromtheyear1558totheyear1690.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1840.
Carleton,Georgeetal.AJointAttestationavowingthattheDisciplineofthe
ChurchofEnglandwasnotimpeachedbytheSynodofDort.1626.CommonsDebatesfor1629ed.WallaceNotesteinandFrancesHelenRelf.
Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1921.ThecorrespondenceofJohnCosin,LordBishopofDurham:togetherwithother
papersillustrativeofhislifeandtimesI‐II.Durham:Andrewes,1872.Cosin,John.WorksI‐V.Oxford:J.H.Parker,1843.Gardiner,S.R.DebatesintheHouseofCommonsin1625.J.B.NicholsandSons,
1872.Heylyn,Peter.CyprianusAnglicus.1671.HistoricalCollectionsofPrivatePassagesofState,WeightyMattersinLaw,
RemarkableProceedingsinFiveParliamentsbeginningthesixteenthyearofKingJames,anno1618andendingthefifthyearofKingCharles,anno1629ed.JohnRushworthFarnborough:GreggInternationalPublishers,1969
![Page 62: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
56
Historicalcollectionsthesecondpartcontainingtheprincipalmatterswhich
happenedfromthedissolutionoftheParliamentonthe10thofMarch,4.Car.I.1628untilthesummoningofanotherParliamentwhichmetatWestminster,April131640ed.JohnRushworth.Farnborough:GreggInternationalPublishers,1969.
JamesVIandI.BasiliconDoron.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,
2006.Laud,William.Works.MemorialsofAffairsofStateintheReignsofQ.ElizabethandK.JamesI,ed.E.
Sawyer.NewYork:AMSPress,1972.ProceedingsinParliament,1626I‐IVed.byWilliamB.BidwellandMaija
Jansson.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1991‐1996.ProceedingsinParliament,1628I‐VIed.MaryFrearKeeler,MaijaJansson
Cole,andWilliamB.Bidwell.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1977‐1983.
Montagu,Richard.Agaggforthenewgospell?No,anewgaggforanoldgoose.
1624.Montagu,Richard.AppelloCaesarem:ajustappealfromtwounjustinformers.
1625.ThePrayerBookofQueenElizabeth.Edinburg:JohnGrant,1911.ReligionandSocietyinEarlyModernEngland:asourcebook,ed.Davidand
LoriAneeFerrell.NewYork:Routledge,1996.Sermons,orHomilies,appointedtobereadinchurchesinthetimeofQueenElizabeth.SocietyforPromotingChristianKnowledge.TheStuartConstitution16031688:documentsandcommentaryed.J.P.
Kenyon.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.StuartRoyalProclamationsVol.II:RoyalProclamationsofKingCharlesI,
16251646ed.JamesF.Larkin.Oxford:ClarendonPress,1983.TheWorksoftheMostHighandMightiePrinceJames.1616.Wotton,Anthony.ADangerousPlotDiscovered.1626.
![Page 63: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
57
Yates,John.IbisadCaesaremI‐III.1626.II. SecondaryCollinson,Patrick.TheElizabethanPuritanMovement.Berkeley:Universityof
CaliforniaPress,1967.Dewey,WallaceJr.PurtiansandPredestination:GraceinEnglishProtestant
Theology.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1982.TheEarlyStuartChurch16031642ed.KennethFincham.Stanford:Stanford
UniversityPress,1993.Macauley,JohnS.“RichardMontagu:CarolineBishop,1575‐1641.”
CambridgePhDThesis,1965.H.C.Porter.ReformationandReactioninTudorCambridge.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress,1958.R.BuickKnox,JamesUssher,ArchbishopofArmagh.Cardiff:Universityof
Wales,1967.McGee,J.Sears.“SirSimondD’Ewes:A‘respectableconservative’ora‘fiery
spirit?,”England’sWarsofReligionRevisiteded.CharlesW.A.PriorandGlennBurgess.Farnham:AshgatePublishingLimited,2011.
McGee,J.Sears.“WilliamLaudandtheOutwardFaceofReligion,”Leadersof
theReformationed.RichardLDeMolen.Cranbury:AssociatedUniversityPress,1984.
Morgan,Irvonwy.PrinceCharles’sPuritanChaplain.AllenandUnwin,1957.Russell,Conrad.ParliamentsandEnglishPolitics16211629.Oxford:
ClarendonPress,1979.Russell,Conrad.“TheParliamentaryCareerofJohnPym,”Unrevolutionary
Englanded.byA.Clark,A.G.R.Smith,andN.Tyacke.HambledonPress,1990.
Schwartz,Hillel.“ArminianismandtheEnglishParliament1624‐9,”Journalof
BritishStudies,12/21973.Tyacke,Nicholas.AntiCalvinists:TheRiseofEnglishArminianism.Oxford:
ClarendonPress,1987.
![Page 64: The Emergence of English Arminianism: Richard Montagu …...The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. Parker & Co., 1885. Burton Henry Burton. A Plea to an Appeale. 1626. Cardwell Edward](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081411/60aeda9471e198181c42ceaa/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
58
Tyacke,Nicholas.AspectsofEnglishProtestantismc.15301700.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,2001