Advertisement

Spiritual Treason and the Politics of Intercession: Presbyterians, Laudians and the Church of England

  • Polly Ha
Part of the Christianities in the Trans-Atlantic World, 1500–1800 book series (CTAW)

Abstract

English Presbyterians believed they belonged to a universal ecclesiastical society. They identified with a global visible church which stretched back through history and expanded during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries across Europe, Britain, and the Atlantic. But, at the same time, the Presbyterians were at pains to prove the compatibility of the Reformed tradition with the Church of England. Even after their official suppression by the crown in the late sixteenth century, they continued to compete with bishops in making claims to the English Protestant tradition.

Keywords

Conspiracy Theory Catholic Tradition Historical Journal Peter Lake Prayer Book 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    Polly Ha, ‘Genevan Jesuits: Crypto-Presbyterianism in England’, in Robert Armstrong and Tadhg O’h Annrachain (eds), Jnsular Christianity: Alternative Models of the Church in Britain and Ireland, c. 1570–1700 (Manchester, 2013), pp. 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 3.
    For the most recent work on Puritan conspiracy, see Patrick Collinson, Richard Bancroft and Elizabethan Anti-Puritanism (Cambridge, 2013).Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Peter Lake, ‘Anti-Popery: The Structure of a Prejudice’, in Richard Cust and Anne Hughes (eds), Conflict in Early Stuart England (Harlow, 1989), pp. 72–106.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Jason Peacey, ‘The Paranoid Prelate: Archbishop Laud and the Puritan Plot’, in Barry Coward and Julian Swann (eds), Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theory in Early Modern Britain and Europe, 1500–1800 (Aldershot, 2004), pp. 113–34.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Peter Lake has pointed out how Puritans claimed that the bishops themselves who were the true conspirators. I have discussed elsewhere how Presbyterians alleged that episcopacy was foreign and un-English. This chapter explores another extreme version of episcopal de-Anglicisation. Polly Ha, English Presbyterianism, 1590–1640 (Stanford, CA, 2011), chapter 2.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Josias Nichols, Plea of the Innocent (1602), pp. 32–33.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Thomas Beard, The Theatre of Gods Judgements (1642), p. 66.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Edward Garland, An Answer to a Printed Book (1657), p. 83.Google Scholar
  9. For further on this line of argument, Psee Owen Williams, ‘Exorcising Madness in Late Elizabethan England: The Seduction of Arthington and the Criminal Culpability of Demoniacs’, Journal of British Studies 47 (2008), pp. 30–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alexandra Walsham, ‘‘Frantick Hackett”: Prophecy, Sorcery, Insanity and the Elizabethan Puritan Movement’, Historical Journal 41:1 (1998), pp. 27–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thomas Cartwright, A Brief Apologie of Thomas Cartwright (Middelburg, 1596), sig. B3.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Travers had similarly written that such extraordinary offices had ceased; see Walter Travers, A Full and Plaine Declaration (Leiden, 1617), pp. 25, 27.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Henry Hammond, A View of the New Disrectorie (1646), p. 55.Google Scholar
  14. More recently, Michael Winship has argued that Hacket’s conspiracy was far closer to the heart of Puritanism than contemporaries cared to admit; Michael Winship, ‘Puritans, Politics, and Lunacy: The Copinger-Hacket Conspiracy as the Apotheosis of Elizabethan Presbyterianism’, Sixteenth Century Journal 38 (2007), pp. 345–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Andrew Willet, A Catholicon, that is, A General Preservative or Remedie against the Pseudocatholike Religion (1602), sig. B5v.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henry Arthington, The Seduction of Arthington by Hacket Especiallie (1592), p. 13.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arthington, who was particularly concerned to condemn his implication in the Hacket conspiracy in his later career, devoted his Exhortation of Salomon to refuting Catholics and false professors; Henry Arthington, The Exhortation of Salomon (1594).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    John Ley, A Discouse concerning Puritans (1641), p. 38.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    John King, ‘The Bishop’s Stinking Foot: Milton and Antiprelatical Satire’, Reformation 7 (2002), p. 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 21.
    Patrick Collinson, The Birthpangs of Protestant England: Religion and Cultural Change in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (London, 1988), p. 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 22.
    Kenneth Fincham and Nicholas Tyacke, Altars Restored: The Changing Face of English Religious Worship, 1547-c.1700 (Oxford, 2008).Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    For an example of contemporary responses to Montagu’s work, see Antimontacutum. An Appeale or Remonstrance of the Orthodox Ministers of the Church of England; Against Richard Mountagu Clerke, Lately made Byshop of Chichester. To the most Illustrious, High, and Honble, Court of Parlament, Now Assembled, (1629). For a discussion of parliamentary and literary opposition to Montagu, see Hillel Schwartz, ‘Arminianism and the English Parliament, 1624–1629’, Journal of British Studies 12 (1973), pp. 41–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 24.
    Alexandra Walsham and Anthony Milton, ‘Richard Montagu: “Concerning Recusancie of Communion with the Church of England”’, in Stephen Taylor (ed.), From Cranmer to Davidson: A Church of England Miscellany (Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 71–101.Google Scholar
  24. Anthony Milton has also discussed more generally how reference to the Church of Rome and foreign Reformed churches in religious discourse contributed to fragmentation in the Church of England; Anthony Milton, Catholic and Reformed: Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought, 1600–1640 (Cambridge, 1994).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Judith Maltby, Prayer Book and People in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 113–24.Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    Richard Montagu, Analecta ecclesiasticarum exercitationum (1622).Google Scholar
  27. 29.
    Idem, Appello Caesarem A Iust Appeale from Two Vniust Informers (1626), Dedicatory Epistle. For discussion of Laudian responses to their parishioners, see Alexandra Walsham, ‘The Parochial Roots of Laudianism Revisited: Catholics, Anti-Calvinists and “Parish Anglicans” in Early Stuart England’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 49:4 (1998), pp. 620–51, and Andrew Cambers, ‘Pastoral Laudianism? Religious Politics in the 1630s: A Leicestershire Rector’s Annotations’, Midland History 27 (2002), pp. 38–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 34.
    As Anthony Milton pointed out, both ‘Calvinist’ and ‘anti-Calvinist’ writers could engage in cross-confessional exchange through moderate forms of anti-Catholic writing: ‘A qualified intolerance: The limits and ambiguities of early Stuart anti-Catholicism’, in Arthur F. Marotti (ed.), Catholicism and Anti-Catholicism in Early Modern English Texts (Basingstoke, 1999), pp. 85–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 35.
    Peter Lake observed that anti-Roman polemic could also undermine the positive values asserted by zealous Puritans in their version of anti-Roman arguments; Peter Lake, ‘Antipopery’, pp. 181–210. Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: The rise of English Arminianism c. 1590–1640 (Oxford, 1987), chapter six.Google Scholar
  30. 39.
    John Yates, Ibis ad Cœsarem. Or A Submissive Appearance Before Cœsar; In Answer to Mr Mountagues Appeale, in the Points of Arminianisme and Popery, Maintained and Defended by Him, Against the Doctrine of the Church of England (1626), p. 3.Google Scholar
  31. 41.
    For English Protestant views on the afterlife of saints, see Peter Marshall, Beliefs and the Dead in Reformation England (Oxford, 2002), chapter five.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 43.
    William Perkins, A Reformed Catholike: or, A Declaration Shewing How Neere We May Come to the Present Church of Rome in Sundrie Points of Religion: And Wherein We Must for Euer Depart from Them (1598), p. 250.Google Scholar
  33. 44.
    James Ussher, An Answer to a Challenge Made by a Iesuite in Ireland. Wherein the Iudgement of Antiquity in the Points Questioned is Truly Delivered, and the Noveltie of the Now Romish Doctrine Plainely Discovered by Iames Vssher Bishop of Meath (1625), p. 402.Google Scholar
  34. 45.
    Ibid., f. 29–40. This was also a point which Daniel Featley objected to in his response to Montagu’s Appello: he ‘denyeth Invocation of Saints onely vpon this ground; that the Saints departed, ordinarily, know not our affayres … Whereas, the Church of England denyeth Invocation of Saints upon many other grounds … ‘; Daniel Featley, A Second Parallel Together with a Vvrit of Error Sued Against the Appealer. A Second Tablet (1626), p. 30.Google Scholar
  35. 46.
    Montagu did not argue for unconditional patronage, but qualified this statement, denying that ‘any man may call vpon any Saint, in any place, at any time, for any exigence, or occasion’; Montagu, Immediate Addresse Vnto God Alone. First Deliuered in a Sermon Before his Maiestie at Windsore. Since Reuised and Inlarged to a Just Treatise of Inuocation of Saints (1624), p. 163.Google Scholar
  36. 55.
    Richard Montagu, The Acts and Monuments of the Church before Christ Incarnate. Written by Richard Montagu late Bishop of Norwich (1642), Explanation of Annas and Caiphas.Google Scholar
  37. 56.
    John Cosin, The Works of the Right Reverend Father in God John Cosin, Lord Bishop of Durham (Oxford, 1843–55), p. 10.Google Scholar
  38. 58.
    Ibid., 11. Although the focus of discussion here is on the role of departed saints, the role of angels in intercession also came under dispute. For Laudian angelology, see Peter Marshall and Alexandra Walsham (eds.), Angels in the Early Modern World (Cambridge, 2007), especially pp. 154–5.Google Scholar
  39. 59.
    P. G. Stanwood, ‘Introduction’, in John Cosin, A Collection of Private Devotions, ed. P. G. Stanwood (Oxford, 1967), pp. xli-xlii.Google Scholar
  40. 61.
    William Prynne, A Briefe Suruay and Censure of Mr Cozens his Couzening Deuotions. Prouing Both the Forme and Matter of Mr Cozens His Booke of Priuate Deuotions, or the Houres of Prayer, Lately Published, to be Meerely Popish (1628), p. 8.Google Scholar
  41. 65.
    Travers, Vindiciae Ecclesiae Anglicanae: or A Iustification of the Religion Now Professed in England (1630), pp. 56–68.Google Scholar
  42. 82.
    Maija Jansson and William B. Bidwell (eds.), Proceedings in Parliament 1625 (New Haven, 1987), p. 339.Google Scholar
  43. 85.
    Barbara Donagan, ‘The York House Conference Revisited: Laymen, Calvinism and Arminianism’, Historical Research 64:155 (1991), pp. 326–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 86.
    S. R. Gardiner (ed.), Debates in the House of Commons in 1625 (London, 1873), p. 180.Google Scholar
  45. 89.
    The Admonition to Parliament complained that the Book of Common Prayer was ‘an unperfected booke, culled & picked out of that popishe dunghill, the Masse booke full of all abhominations’; Puritan Manifestos: A Study of the Origin of the Puritan Revolt: With a Reprint of the Admonition to the Parliament and Kindred Documents, 1572, eds W.H. Fere and C. E. Douglas (London, 1907), p. 21. Peter King, ‘The Reasons for the Abolition of the Book of Common Prayer in 1645’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 21:4 (1970), p. 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 92.
    S. J. Knox, Walter Travers: Paragon of Elizabethan Puritanism (London, 1962), p. 67.Google Scholar
  47. 95.
    John Ball, A Friendly Triall of the Grounds Tending to Separation in a Plain and Modest Dispute Touching the Lawfulnesse of a Stinted Liturgie and Set Form of Prayer, Communion in Mixed Assemblies, and the Primitive Subject and First Receptacle of the Power of the Keyes (1640), p. 24. For further discussion of this point see Ha, English Presbyterianism, chapter five.Google Scholar
  48. 96.
    Christopher Durston, ‘By the Book or with the Spirit: The Debate over Liturgical Prayer during the English Revolution’, Historical Research 79:203 (2006), pp. 50–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 97.
    John Walter, ‘Confessional Politics in pre-Civil War Essex: Prayer Books, Profanations, and Petitions’, Historical Journal 44:3 (2001), pp. 677–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Polly Ha 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Polly Ha

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations