Uni) Rums International 300 N
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. Uni) rums International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8400304 Teverow, Paul THE TRANSFORMATION OF ENGLISH ARMINIANISM, CA. 1625-40 The Ohio State University Ph.D. 1983 University Microfilms I ntern Sti 0 nel 300 N. zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark 1. Glossy photographs or pages. 2. Colored illustrations, paper or ______print 3. Photographs with dark background______ 4. Illustrations are poor copy______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy. 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page. 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages i / 8. Print exceeds margin requirements______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost______ in spine 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print. 11. P ag e(s)_____________lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. P ag e(s)_____________seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages n u m b ere_____________ d . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled p______ a g e s 15. O ther____________________ ________________________________ University Microfilms International THE TRAI^SFORI-TATION OF ENGLISH ARMINIANISM, ca. 1625-40 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Paul Teverow, B.A., M.A. ****** The Ohio State University 1983 Reading Committee: Dr. Clayton Roberts Dr. John C. Rule {J Adviser Dr. James M. Kittelson Department of History Copyright by Paul Teverow 1983 Dedicated to the memory of my father. 11 PREFACE Armlnianlsm, in its most precise sense as a rejection of the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, played a major role in the religious conflicts of Early Stuart England. The term is also applied more broadly to that faction which most strongly supported the ecclesiastical policies of Charles I and Archbishop Laud. Yet, this usage notwithstanding, the debate over the doctrine of pre destination was only one among several issues dividing English Protestants, and, by the time they were engaged in a civil war, by no means the most important one. My purpose in this dissertation is to examine the change in the nature of the religious conflict from approximately the accession of Charles I to his sunmoning of the Long Parliament. In particular, I propose to explain: 1. The principle concerns of the English Arminiens. While other studies explain in detail the origins and rise of English Arminianism, I will attempt to show how the Arminians presented their position when they were at the height of their influence and the canmon themes in their attacks on the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. 2. When and through what specific issues the doctrinal issue was overshadowed; 3. To what extent the divisions created by these issues ill correspond to the earlier ones between Calvinists and Arminians; 4. To what extent the doctrinal conflict over predestination persisted under other guises; 5. What new concerns were reflected in the defense of Laud's policies. Inasmuch as these problems encompass differences over what members of the Church of England were publicly to profess and practice, I have attempted to answer them primarily on the basis of what was publicly written and said in contemporary books, pam phlets, and sermons. In quoting from these and other primary sources, I have retained the original spelling and punctuation except when the meaning would otherwise be unclear or when a work was available only in an edition with modernized spelling. I also substitute "u" for "j" and "v" and "i," respectively, in accordance with modem usage. All dates are given in old style. I gratefully acknowledge the assistance I received from the staffs of the Thurber Reading Room of The Ohio State University Main Library, the Institute for Historical Research, the British Library, the Public Record Office, the Lambeth Palace Archiépiscopal Library, and the Dr. Williams's Library of London, and of the Bodleian Library of Oxford. I also thank Dr. Nicholas Tyacke for permitting me to read his D. Phil, thesis and for offering invaluable advice during the early stages of my research. Dr. Clayton Roberts, my adviser, iv gave unstintlngly of his time, well beyond what his professional responsibilities require. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues at Missouri Southern State College and, above all, my wife, Laura, for their encouragement, without which I could not have completed this project. V VITA January 9 , 1 9 5 1 ................ B o m - Pawtucket, Rhode Island 1973........................... B.A., magna cum laude. Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 1973 - 1977 ....................University Fellow, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 197^........................... M.A., The Ohio State University 1974 - 1977, 1977 - 1979.......... Teaching Assistant, Department of History, The Ohio State University 1979 - 1980, I9B2- ............. Instructor, Social Science Department, Missouri Southern State College, Joplin, Missouri PRESENTATIONS "Arminians without Arminianism: The Nature of Religious Conflict in Early Stuart England," The Ohio Academy of History, Spring meeting, 1983j Columbus, Ohio. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Tudor-Stuart England. Professor Clayton Roberts Modern Britain. Professor Philip Poirier Renaissance and Reformation. Professor James M. Kittelson Early Modern Europe. Professor John C. Rule vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE...................................... 111 VITA........................................... vl INTRODUCTION..................................... 1 Chapter I. ARMINIANISM AND ITS DEFENDERS.............. II. THE CONFLICT SHIFTS FOCUS ................. 46 1. Arminianism and Royalism.............. 52 11. The Cosln Connection.................. 62 111. Bowing at the Name of Jesus ........... 8? III. THE SABBATH OR THE LORD'S DAY ? ............ 120 IV. THE ALTAR OR THE COMMUNION TABLE'?........... l63 CONCLUSION....................................... 208 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................... 2l4 vll INTRODUCTION Both constitutional and religiousjssues led to the English Civil Wars, and no attempt to explain the conflict can ignore either group of issues. Yet-attempts to explain the religious conflicts of Early Stuart England have created considerable confusion in the historio graphy of the period. All historians agree that the religious conflict involved a group loosely labelled "Puritans" and those favoring the ecclesiastical policies of Charles I and Bishop, later Archbishop, Laud. There is less agreement, though, as to the size and membership of the opposing groups and as to the significance of the issues over which they clashed. One indicator of this confusion is the welter of terms used to denominate - let alone to describe and analyze - the supporters of Charles I and Laud. Historians have, even if with reser vations, accepted the term "Puritan," but the Establishment opposing the Puritans has variously been labelled Laudian, Anglican, High Church, even, anachronistically Anglo-Catholic, but more commonly, Arminian. Arminianism did not originate in England but in Holland. The word describes the theological position of Jakob Hermandzoon (I56O- 1609, in Latin, Jacobus Arminius) and his followers, a position directly opposed to the Calvinist orthodoxy then prevailing in most of the United Provinces.^ The Calvinists, or Contra-Hemonstrants,