TheEmergenceofEnglish

Arminianism:RichardMontagu1624­1629

JesseMcCarthyJune14,2013

Director:ProfessorLeeMentor:ProfessorJ.SearsMcGee

History194H

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

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.

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.

ListofImages1. CommemorativewindowtoRichardMontagu.

(Dr.J.SearsMcGee),Frontispiece.2. ChartcomparingRichardMontagu’ssublapsarianismtoWilliamPerkin’s

supralapsarianism.(ReproducedfromMacauley,JohnS.“RichardMontagu:CarolineBishop,1575‐1641.”CambridgePhDThesis,1965)

Figure1:PortraitofRichardMontaguinstainedglassatChichesterCathedral,WestSussex.Thescrollinhishandbearsthetitleofhis1625workAppelloCaesarem.Theplaquereads“RichardMontagueBishop1628‐1638.ChampionoftheEnglishChurch.”

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,

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

21

theArticlesoftheSynodofDort(1618)ortheArticlesoftheIrishConvocationof1615.Hisrejectionoftheauthorityofforeignsynods,usuallyReformedorCalvinistsynods,convincinglydemonstratedwherehissympathieslay.SincehiscriticsgenerallywantedtobringtheChurchofEnglandintothefoldoftheReformedChurches,theysawhisinsistenceonthefundamentalagreementbetweenCanterburyandRomeasevidencethathewantedtobringtheChurchofEnglandintothefoldoftheRomanCatholicChurch.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

39

patronageofourcause.”229Thefavorite’sfailuretoendorsetheCalvinistbidtomaketheresolutionsofDortpartofthedoctrineoftheChurchofEnglandorendorsethecensureofRichardMontagualienatedmanyofhisformerallies.HoweverthesupportoftheroyalfavoritewouldactuallyworkagainstMontagu.FollowingtheYorkHouseConferenceandBuckingham’salienationofhisCalvinistallies,the1626Parliamentlaunchedconcertedandeffectiveattackagainsttheduke.UnfortunatelyforMontagu,hisnamewasnowlinkedtotheincreasinglyunpopularroyalfavorite.

229Cosin,WorksII,74.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

58

Tyacke,Nicholas.AspectsofEnglishProtestantismc.1530­1700.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,2001