Debating Perseverance: The Augustinian Heritage in Post-Reformation England 9780190858520, 0190858524

Citation preview

i

Debating Perseverance

ii

OXFORD STUDIES IN HISTORICAL THEOLOGY Series Editor Richard A. Muller, Calvin Theological Seminary

Editorial Board Irena Backus, Université de Genève Robert C. Gregg, Stanford University George M. Marsden, University of Notre Dame Wayne A. Meeks, Yale University Gerhard Sauter, Rheinische Friedrich-​Wilhelms-​Universität Bonn Susan E. Schreiner, University of Chicago John Van Engen, University of Notre Dame Geoffrey Wainwright, Duke University Robert L. Wilken, University of Virginia CHRISTIAN GRACE AND PAGAN VIRTUE The Theological Foundation of Ambrose’s  Ethics J. Warren Smith

CALVIN’S COMPANY OF PASTORS Pastoral Care and the Emerging Reformed Church, 1536–​1609 Scott M. Manetsch

KARLSTADT AND THE ORIGINS OF THE EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSY A Study in the Circulation of Ideas Amy Nelson Burnett

THE SOTERIOLOGY OF JAMES USSHER The Act and Object of Saving Faith Richard Snoddy

READING AUGUSTINE IN THE REFORMATION The Flexibility of Intellectual Authority in Europe, 1500–​1620 Arnoud S. Q. Visser SHAPERS OF ENGLISH CALVINISM, 1660–​1714 Variety, Persistence, and Transformation Dewey D. Wallace Jr. THE BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION OF WILLIAM OF ALTON Timothy Bellamah, OP MIRACLES AND THE PROTESTANT IMAGINATION The Evangelical Wonder Book in Reformation Germany Philip M. Soergel THE REFORMATION OF SUFFERING Pastoral Theology and Lay Piety in Late Medieval and Early Modern Germany Ronald K. Rittgers

HARTFORD PURITANISM Thomas Hooker, Samuel Stone, and Their Terrifying God Baird Tipson AUGUSTINE, THE TRINITY, AND THE CHURCH A Reading of the Anti-​Donatist Sermons Adam Ployd AUGUSTINE’S EARLY THEOLOGY OF IMAGE A Study in the Development of Pro-​Nicene Theology Gerald Boersma PATRON SAINT AND PROPHET Jan Hus in the Bohemian and German Reformations Phillip N. Haberkern JOHN OWEN AND ENGLISH PURITANISM Experiences of Defeat Crawford Gribben MORALITY AFTER CALVIN Theodore Beza’s Christian Censor and Reformed Ethics Kirk M. Summers

CHRIST MEETS ME EVERYWHERE Augustine’s Early Figurative Exegesis Michael Cameron

THE PAPACY AND THE ORTHODOX Sources and History of a Debate Edward Siecienski

MYSTERY UNVEILED The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England Paul C. H. Lim

RICHARD BAXTER AND THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHERS David S. Sytsma

GOING DUTCH IN THE MODERN AGE Abraham Kuyper’s Struggle for a Free Church in the Netherlands John Halsey Wood Jr.

DEBATING PERSEVERANCE The Augustinian Heritage in Post-​Reformation England Jay T. Collier

iii

d eb atin g persever ance The Aug us tini a n Heritag e in Pos t-​ Reform ation Eng l a nd j a y t. c o l l i e r

1

iv

3 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2018 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress ISBN 978–​0–​19–​085852–​0 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America

v

cont ent s

1 . The Church of England, Sources of Identity, 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 .

and Theological Distinctives  1 Cambridge Aflame with Controversy: Reassessing the Lambeth Articles  20 Dilemmas at the Synod of Dort: The Conciliatory British Delegation  59 Troubles after Dort: The Case of the “Arminian” Richard Montagu  93 A Further Dilemma for British Divines: Baptism’s Effect on Infants  124 Lingering Reluctance among Reformed Englishmen: Puritans and Confessionalism  162 Perseverance, Augustine, and England’s Struggling Identity  195

Bibliography  207 Index  223

vi

1

chapter one

the church of england, sources of identity, and theological distinctives

The Church of England developed its theological identity during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries through an association with two influential groups. On the one hand, Church leaders strove to maintain relations to the movement of Reformed churches throughout Europe. On the other hand, Church leaders gazed back in time and found great significance in connection to the early church. These two sources of influence often worked harmoniously together; on occasion, they seemed in conflict. But both were ever-​present forces on those within the Church of England, shaping and molding a rather unique self-​understanding expressed in a particular pattern of doctrinal development and argument. Nobody doubts that these two streams of influence were important for the Church of England. Debate exists, however, over the significance of these two traditions and the degree to which they shaped the Church of England’s identity.

Identity

and the Church of England

When King Henry VIII abandoned Roman Catholicism and subsequently modified the Church of England, he had little connection with the reformist activities of William Tyndale, Robert Barnes, and their

1

2

debating perseverance

circle. Nevertheless, the Church of England was soon identified among the Reformed churches of Europe during the sixteenth century. During the short reign of Edward VI, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer made important connections with leading reformers from the European mainland like Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr Vermigli. Both Bucer and Vermigli were invited to England, the former appointed as Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge and the latter Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford. Both men proved influential in shaping the 1552 Book of Common Prayer.1 And even though Queen Mary instituted a brutal reversal of the Reformation, she inadvertently strengthened England’s association with the mainland Reformed churches as numerous exiles fled to cities like Geneva, Strasbourg, and Zurich. These refugees solidified relations with Reformed churches and leaders in those places, and they returned to prominence in the Church of England under Queen Elizabeth’s rule.2 Granted, some differences remained between the Church of England and other Reformed churches, as revealed in controversies over vestments, ceremonies, and polity. Yet the leading reformers on the mainland considered these dissimilarities as matters indifferent.3 There were no valid reasons for Reformed churches to alienate the Church of England, and the Church of England certainly had no desire to distance itself from the churches.

1.  While Bucer and Vermigli were asked to write critiques of the prayer book, only Bucer’s is extant. For a Latin edition with a parallel English translation, see Martin Bucer and the Book of Common Prayer, ed. E. C. Whitaker (London: Mayhew-​ McCrimmon, 1974). For a look at the direct role some mainland Reformers played in the English Reformation, see Timothy Morris McAlhaney, “Influence of the Continental Reformers Bucer, Vermigli, and Laski upon Cranmer and the ‘Via Media’ of the English Reformation” (PhD diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002). 2.  A still-​useful resource on Marian exiles is Christina Hallowell Garrett, The Marian Exiles: A Study in the Origins of Elizabethan Puritanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938). 3.  Martin Bucer, Martin Bucer and the Book of Common Prayer, 18–​21; Vermigli to John Hooper, Nov. 4, 1550, Life, Letters, and Sermons, trans. and ed. J.  P. Donnelly (Kirksville, MO:  Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1999), 102–​109; Vermigli to Henry Bullinger, Jan. 28, 1551, Life, Letters, and Sermons, 111–​114.

2

3

c h u r c h o f e n g l a n d , i d e n t i t y, a n d d i s t i n c t i v e s

In fact, King James I fortified England’s Reformed identity by his advocacy and support of the Synod of Dort—​an international gathering that received the British delegates with highest honor.4 While the Church of England was identified with the Reformed churches of Europe, it is equally evident that its leaders consciously aligned the Church with the doctrine and practice of early Christianity. This ancient catholicity was trumpeted in both John Jewel’s An Apologie of the Church of England and William Perkins’s A Reformed Catholike and Probleme of Forged Catholicisme, where they argued that Rome had strayed from the old paths and that England simply upheld the scriptural position of the ancient faith.5 In fact, a strong sense of English exceptionalism developed within the Church that recognized an early uncorrupted Christianity prior to Augustine of Canterbury with strong remnants of the ancient faith existing during the Middle Ages, despite some corrupting papal influences and ills introduced after the Norman Conquest. Archbishop Matthew Parker promoted this historical perspective by publishing an English translation of an old Anglo-​Saxon Easter sermon of Aelfric and in writing his own history of the British church.6 Such a tie to the early church fathers 4.  See particularly the correspondence with King James I in The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–​ 1619), ed. Anthony Milton (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2005). 5.  John Jewel, An Apologie, or Aunswer in Defence of the Church of England, Concerning the State of Religion Used in the Same (London, 1562); 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 Ever Depart from Them:  With an Advertisement to All Favourers of the Romane Religion, Shewing That the Said Religion Is against the Catholike Principles and Grounds of the Catechisme (Cambridge: John Legat, 1598); William Perkins, Problema de Romanae Fidei Ementito Catholicismo (Cambridge:  John Legat, 1604); English trans. Probleme of Forged Catholicisme, or Universalitie of the Romish Religion, in The Works of That Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ in the Universitie of Cambridge, M. William Perkins, vol. 2 (London: John Legat, 1631), 485–​602. 6.  A Testimonie of Antiquitie Shewing the Auncient Fayth in the Church of England Touching the Sacrament of the Body and Bloude of the Lord Here Publikely Preached, and also Receaued in the Saxons Tyme, aboue 600. Yeares

3

4

debating perseverance

went further than historical sentimentality. Even the sixth canon of the Convocation of 1571 expected agreement with the early church, calling all preachers to align themselves with the common doctrine of “the catholike fathers, and auncient Bishops.”7 In various ways, the leaders of the Church of England made a conscious effort to draw a connection between themselves and antiquity.8 Both the Reformed tradition and the early church tradition served as major streams of influence, and their value in contributing to the identity of the English church can be seen throughout various debates within the Church’s history. Rival factions within the Church looked for precedents among the Reformed churches and ancient catholicity as they sought to shape England in their favor. Puritans, for instance, were quick to appeal to the Reformed churches as they desired to establish a Genevan-​style reform in England. Depicting the establishment as only half-​Reformed, Puritans questioned their opponents’ commitment to the Reformed churches as if that tradition carried weight in England.9 And they were right, at least in their assumption that the Reformed tradition was respected by their opponents. The fact is that the Reformed consensus provided abundant leverage for both sides of the debate. Even Archbishop John Whitgift, the great scourge of the early Puritans, continually appealed to Calvin and other reformers in order to demonstrate the latitude afforded to Reformed churches with regard to

Agoe (London, 1566); Matthew Parker, De Antiquitate Britannicae Ecclesiae & Priuilegiis Ecclesiae Cantuariensis cum Archiepiscopis eiusdem 70 (London, 1572). 7.  A Booke of Certaine Canons, Concerning Some Parte of the Discipline of the Church of England (London: John Daye, 1571), 23. 8.  England’s appeal to antiquity was not unique among Protestant churches. In fact, it was a common strategy among Protestants to argue that they were the faithful followers of the ancient catholic faith and that it was Rome that had abandoned it. 9.  William Fuller, “Booke to the Queene,” in The Second Parte of a Register, Being a Calendar of Manuscripts under That Title Intended for Publication by the Puritans about 1593, and Now in Dr. Williams’s Library, London, 2 vols., ed. Albert Peel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915), 2:52. “But halflie by your majesty hath God been honoured, his church reformed and established, his people taught and comforted.”

4

5

c h u r c h o f e n g l a n d , i d e n t i t y, a n d d i s t i n c t i v e s

ecclesiastical polity.10 Likewise, debates demonstrate how theologians felt comfortable using the early church fathers in order to define official doctrine. For instance, English delegates to the Synod of Dort justified their advocacy of universal redemption by appealing to the early church and the Convocation of 1571.11 The point is that church leaders freely drew upon each of these streams of influence as it suited their purposes. The English church prized both the ancient church and the consensus of Reformed churches as important sources of identity, and most churchmen were not willing to do away with either association.

B e y o n d A n g l ic a n i s m a n d C a lv i n i s t ic C o n s e n s u s Surely churchmen had competing agendas as they struggled to form an identity for the Church of England during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But confusion persists today as historians propose competing paradigms for how they should perceive the identity of the early modern Church of England. The idea of an early Anglicanism looms large in the literature as scholars debate whether the Church of England created a distinct “Anglican” Protestantism that placed it between Rome and Geneva. Advocates of an early Anglicanism typically emphasize the continuity of conformist thought among the early bishops and persisting through the Laudian era and into the Restoration, viewing the Puritan movement as a troublesome incursion into the English way of doing church.12 10.  John Whitgift, “The Defense of the Answer to the Admonition, against the Reply of Thomas Cartwright,” in The Works of John Whitgift, 3  vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1851–​1853). 11.  John Davenant et  al., “Dr.  Davenant on the Atonement,” in The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort, 219. 12.  For a forceful assertion of this in nineteenth-​ century literature, see J.  H. Newman, The Via Media of the Anglican Church Illustrated in Letters, Lectures and Tracts Written between 1830–​ 1841 (London:  Longmans, Green, 1877). For more recent expressions, see J.  E. Neale, Elizabeth I  and Her Parliaments, 2  vols. (New  York:  St. Martin’s Press, 1958); H.  C. Porter, “Hooker, The Tudor Constitution, and the Via Media,” in Studies in Richard Hooker: Essays Preliminary

5

6

debating perseverance

Other scholars have challenged this approach to framing the identity of the English church, calling it an anachronistic and reductionist reading of conformist theology. These critics argue that advocates of an early Anglicanism read high church ideals and nineteenth-​century Anglo-​Catholic sympathies back into early conformist thought. They suggest that the earliest semblance of such an Anglican via media was found in a Laudian incursion, which may have had its initial seeds sown by avant-​garde conformists like Lancelot Andrewes, Richard Hooker, and John Overall. This view tends to see more variance between earlier conformist thought and later Laudian bishops.13

to an Edition of His Works, ed. W. Speed Hill (Cleveland: Case Western Reserve Press, 1972), 77–​116; George W. Bernard, “The Church of England, c. 1529–​1642,” History 75 (February 1990): 183–​206; Christopher Hill, A Nation of Change and Novelty: Radical Politics, Religion and Literature in Seventeenth-​Century England (New  York:  Routledge, 1990), 56–​81; Kevin Sharpe, Politics and Ideas in Early Stuart England (New  York:  Printer, 1989); Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992); Peter White, “The Via Media in the Early Stuart Church,” in The Early Stuart Church, 1603–​1642, ed. Kenneth Fincham (Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan, 1993), 211–​230. 13.  Patrick Collinson, The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society 1559–​1625 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984); Peter Lake, Anglicans and Puritans? Presbyterianism and English Conformist Thought from Whitgift to Hooker (London:  Unwin Hyman, 1988); Peter Lake, “Lancelot Andrewes, John Buckeridge, and Avant-​garde Conformity at the Court of James I,” in The Mental World of the Jacobean Court, ed. Linda Levy Peck (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1991), 113–​ 133; Nicholas Tyacke, “Lancelot Andrewes and the Myth of Anglicanism,” in Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church c. 1560–​1660, ed. Peter Lake and Michael Questier (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000), 5–​33; Diarmaid MacCulloch, “The Myth of the English Reformation,” Journal of British Studies 30 (January 1991): 1–​19; Diarmaid MacCulloch, “Putting the English Reformation on the Map,” Transactions of the RHS 15 (2005): 75–​ 95; Kenneth Fincham, “Clerical Conformity from Whitgift to Laud,” in Lake and Questier, Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church c.  1560–​1660, 125–​158; Dewey D.  Wallace Jr. “Via Media? A  Paradigm Shift,” Anglican and Episcopal History 72, no. 1 (March 2003): 2–​21; Anthony Milton, “ ‘Anglicanism’ by Stealth:  The Career and Influence of John Overall,” in Religious Politics in Post-​Reformation England, ed. Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 2006), 159–​176.

6

7

c h u r c h o f e n g l a n d , i d e n t i t y, a n d d i s t i n c t i v e s

One critical component of the debate over an early Anglicanism is whether a “Calvinist consensus” existed within the Church of England during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Some critics against the Anglican perspective have argued that there was an early English consensus of Calvinistic thought that was eventually abandoned in later conformist thought. By turning the discussion toward the theological issue of predestination, these scholars argue for a theological solidarity among Puritans and conformists during the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras of the Church of England that was challenged by upstart anti-​Calvinists in the 1590s and more trenchantly assaulted by a rising tide of Arminianism during the 1620s and 1630s.14 In response, advocates of the Anglican via media tend to deny a sudden rise of Arminianism and view the church under the reign of Charles I  as a conservative movement rather than as something novel.15 Another important aspect of the Anglican via media debate has been the Church of England’s relation to the early church. Some advocates of an early Anglican spirit identify the Church of England as uniquely possessing a special devotion to the authority of the early church fathers.16 14.  Dewey D.  Wallace Jr., Puritans and Predestination:  Grace in English Protestant Theology, 1525–​1695 (Chapel Hill:  University of North Carolina Press, 1982); Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists: The Rise of Arminianism c. 1590–​ 1640 (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1987); Nicholas Tyacke, “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” Past and Present 115 (May 1987):  201–​216; Peter Lake, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1982); Peter Lake, “Calvinism and the English Church 1570–​ 1635,” Past and Present 114 (February 1987): 32–​76. 15.  See H.  C. Porter, Reformation and Reaction in Tudor Cambridge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958); Peter White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Peter White, “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” Past and Present 101 (November 1983): 34–​ 54; Peter White, “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered: A Rejoinder,” Past and Present 115 (May 1987): 217–​229. 16.  A. J. Mason, The Church of England and Episcopacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914); Henry R. McAdoo, The Spirit of Anglicanism: A Survey of Anglican Theological Method in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Scribner, 1965); Henry R.  McAdoo, “The Influence of the Seventeenth Century on Contemporary Anglican Understanding of the Purpose and Function of Authority

7

8

debating perseverance

This perspective tends to portray Puritans as opponents of the Church of England who devalued the early church. However, this perspective has been challenged as being overly simplistic. Recent scholarship differentiates between the ways conformists appealed to the early church fathers before and after the restoration of the monarchy following the English civil wars.17 Scholars have also demonstrated that the Puritans themselves made repeated appeals to the early church fathers.18 By distinguishing a more Anglo-​Catholic valuation of antiquity from what had been the norm in pre-​Restoration England, and at the same time recognizing the importance of the early church fathers among more than just the conforming ministers, scholars willing to reevaluate the Church’s relation to the ancient church raise significant questions for advocates of an early Anglican spirit. In all of these discussions, modern scholars are effectively debating the significance of the international Reformed community and the ancient church as sources of identity for the Church of England in the

in the Church,” in Christian Authority: Essays in Honor of Henry Chadwick, ed. G. R. Evans (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 251–​277; Theodore Dwight Bozeman, To Live Ancient Lives: The Primitivist Dimension in Puritanism (Chapel Hill:  University of North Carolina Press, 1988); Henry Chadwick, “Tradition, Fathers, and Councils,” in The Study of Anglicanism, ed. Stephen Sykes, John Booty, and Jonathan Knight, rev. ed. (London: SPCK, 1998), 100–​115; Arthur Middleton, Fathers and Anglicans: The Limits of Orthodoxy (Leominster: Gracewing, 2001). 17.  Jean-​Louis Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity:  The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2009); Mary Morrissey, “The ‘Challenge Controversy’ and the Question of Authority in the Early Elizabethan Church,” in The Search for Authority in Reformation Europe, ed. Elaine Fulton, Helen Parish, and Peter Webster (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), 147–​169. 18.  Colin John Cruickshank, “Saint Augustine in Early New England” (PhD diss., University of Maine, 1996); Ann-​ Stephane Schäfer, Auctoritas Patrum?:  The Reception of the Church Fathers in Puritanism (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2012). Even pro-​Anglican writers, in an attempt to belittle the Puritans’ use of early church fathers, nevertheless demonstrate that the Puritans made appeals to the ancient church. See John K.  Luoma, “Who Owns the Fathers? Hooker and Cartwright on the Authority of the Primitive Church,” Sixteenth Century Journal 8, no.  3 (October 1977): 45–​59.

8

9

c h u r c h o f e n g l a n d , i d e n t i t y, a n d d i s t i n c t i v e s

sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Advocates of an early Anglican via media tend to emphasize the early church as a source of identity for the Church of England while deemphasizing the consensus of the Reformed churches as a source. Conversely, revisionists have criticized claims of a unique devotion to the early church fathers as support for an early Anglican via media and tend to emphasize a Calvinistic hegemony during the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras. These debates highlight the importance of the Reformed and ancient communities for determining the identity of the Church of England. But a certain oddity exists in the modern debate. Scholars on both sides of the debate tend to gloss over the possibility that ancient catholicity and the Reformed consensus simultaneously served as sources of identity in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. That is to say, scholars defend one of the two sources as primary, when it may be more helpful to focus on how the two sources were harmonized. In order to advance this discussion about England’s theological identity, historians may do well to observe how the Church handled theological issues that touch on both of these sources of identity at the same time. One profitable way forward would be to evaluate how English theologians used the early church fathers in discussions about Reformed doctrines and practices. Such a project would have the advantage of seeing how church leaders managed both sources of influence as they sought to implement policies and procedures within the Church of England. However, it is well beyond the capacity of this study to perform a comprehensive survey of all determinative theological issues associated with being Reformed and how those topics were discussed in relation to each of the early church writers. Rather, this study will single out one distinctive of Reformed theology and see how receptions of a particular church father on that topic factored into certain debates.

Perseverance as the Reformed Distinctive

Concerning Reformed distinctives, scholars tend to focus on the doctrines of election and predestination. These teachings obviously

9

10

debating perseverance

characterize the Reformed tradition, so it is only proper for historians to pay attention to them in efforts to detect a Reformed identity. But if one thinks of a distinctive more narrowly as something that sets one thing apart from all others, the doctrine of predestination by itself can hardly be characterized as a Reformed distinctive. After all, strong predestinarian strains run throughout the course of church history, even manifesting themselves during the Reformation and post-​Reformation eras in distinctly non-​Reformed communions. For instance, Dominicans and Jansenists rallied to the cause of unconditional election against the Jesuits.19 Furthermore, such a position was not foreign to Lutheranism.20 Predestination can only be considered a distinctive of the Reformed tradition insofar as it ties into the greater system of doctrines related to grace. For instance, one could analyze the five heads of doctrine issued in the Canons of Dort (1619) and say that a distinct Reformed position was taken in how these theological issues work together as a whole. In fact, the Canons of Dort became a defining document for the Reformed tradition, a creed in which non-​Reformed communions would have been hard pressed to affirm in total. However, of the five heads, only one of the doctrines seems distinctively Reformed when taken on its own. That doctrine is the perseverance of the saints. Like predestination, the Dortian doctrines of human depravity, effectual grace, and the restricted efficacy of Christ’s satisfaction could be found within non-​ Reformed communions. However, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Arminians all recoiled from the notion that a person once possessing justifying faith could not lose it. Even before the Synod of Dort, the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints was a significant doctrine for the Reformed tradition. Those outside the tradition recognized its popularity within Reformed 19.  Cornelius Jansen, Augustinus, seu Doctrina Sancti Augustini de Humanae Naturae Sanitate, Aegritudine, Medicina adversus Pelagianos & Massilienses, 3  vols. (Paris, 1641); Jacques-​Hyacinthe Serry (under the pseudonym Augustino le Blanc), Histiriae Congregationum de Auxiliis Divinae Gratiae, sub Summis Pontificibus Clemente VIII et Paulo V (Leuven, 1700). 20.  Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Art. 11.

10

11

c h u r c h o f e n g l a n d , i d e n t i t y, a n d d i s t i n c t i v e s

theology, as was evidenced in 1592 when the Lutherans cataloged it as a Calvinist error in the Saxon Visitation Articles.21 And this perception was due, no doubt, to the fact that many leaders within the Reformed churches explicitly, and sometimes forcefully, taught it.22 To be sure, the doctrine lacked widespread confessional status before Dort. While one may find a confession like the Irish Articles (1615) explicitly stating perseverance of all those who are regenerate and have true faith (Art. 38), many Reformed confessions, like the First Helvetic Confession (1536), simply don’t address the topic. Similarly, doctrinal standards like the Belgic Confession (1561) and the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), which many people find conducive to the perseverance of the saints, never clearly state it. And while the tenth chapter of the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) may be suggestive of perseverance of the saints when it identifies those engrafted in Christ by faith with the elect, it does not come out and say that those with true faith cannot lose it. Other confessions, like the Thirty-​Nine Articles (1563), speak of the elect attaining everlasting felicity (Art. 17) without ever specifying that everyone with saving faith is elect. This path was even followed by the French Confession (1559) and the Confession of La Rochelle (1571), which were highly influenced by Calvin and the Reformers in Geneva.23 But the fact that so many Reformed confessions did not require adherence to the perseverance of the saints does not mean that the doctrine was not prominent. To the contrary, the fact that the confessions did not deny it allowed the doctrine to flourish 21.  For German, Latin, and English versions, see Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, 4th rev. ed. and enl. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1919), 181–​190. 22.  For examples, see John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2  vols., trans. John Allen (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1921), 3.24.7; Heinrich Bullinger, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, the First and Second Decades, trans. H. I., ed. Thomas Harding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849), 99; Girolamo Zanchi, De Religion Christiana Fides (Neustadt an der Haardt, 1585), 20.8–​9 (pp. 127–​128). 23.  English translations of these confessions can be found in James T. Dennison, ed., Reformed Confession of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–​2014).

11

12

debating perseverance

among the Reformed. The doctrine of perseverance of all saints developed primarily and extensively among Reformed Protestants, giving a distinct character to Reformed theology. Considering that perseverance of the saints developed distinctly within the Reformed tradition, this study will analyze the reception of this doctrine among the English in order to evaluate the struggles the Church of England faced by identifying with other Reformed churches. Yet declaring perseverance of the saints as the Reformed distinctive needs some qualification, and the significance of Dort for making that qualification cannot be stressed enough. Perseverance of the saints was the Reformed distinctive before the Synod of Dort in the sense that Reformed churches were the only ones willing to give it a significant hearing. But the Synod solidified a theological identity for Reformed churches by issuing a statement of faith created by consent of an international cast of Reformed delegations. When the Canons of Dort clearly articulated perseverance of the saints and rejected the genuine apostasy of the regenerate as an error, it closed the gaps found in previous confessions and eliminated the possibility of any other Reformed position. After Dort, perseverance of the saints became a Reformed distinctive in the sense that churches could not maintain their Reformed identity without it. Dort amplified the Reformed distinctive, and this maneuver will prove important as this study progresses.24

Augustine as the Preeminent Church Father

Historical theologians have rapidly expanded their understanding of the reception of early church fathers within the Protestant Reformation.25 24.  For someone else who has pointed out the distinctive nature of perseverance for the Reformed and called for historians to devote more attention to it, see Seán F.  Hughes, “The Problem of ‘Calvinism’:  English Theologies of Predestination c.  1580–​1630,” in Belief and Practice in Reformation England:  A  Tribute to Patrick Collinson from His Students, ed. Susan Wabuda and Caroline Litzenberger (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 1998), 229–​249. 25.  S.  L. Greenslade, The English Reformers and the Fathers of the Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960); Peter Fraenkel, Testimonium Patrum: The Function of the Patristic Argument in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon (Geneva: Droz,

12

13

c h u r c h o f e n g l a n d , i d e n t i t y, a n d d i s t i n c t i v e s

A  major subset of this reception history is dedicated to readings of Augustine of Hippo, due to the substantial influence his writings exerted on the church’s theology for centuries.26 Considering his importance, 1961); Hughes O. Old, Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975); E. P. Meijering, Melanchthon and Patristic Thought: The Doctrines of Christ and Grace, the Trinity, and the Creation (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1983); Irvin B. Horst, “Menno Simons and the Augustinian Tradition,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 62 (October 1988): 419–​430; Dennis D. Martin, “Menno and Augustine on the Body of Christ,” Fides et Historia 20 (October 1988): 41–​64; Leif Grane, Alfred Schindler, and Markus Wriedt, eds., Auctoritas Patrium: Zur rezeption der Kirchenväter im 15. Und 16. Jahrhundert (Mainz:  Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1993); Leif Grane, Alfred Schindler, and Markus Wriedt, eds., Auctoritas Patrium II:  Neue Beiträge zur Rezeption der Kirchenväter im 15. Und 16. Jahrhundert (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1998); Irena Backus, ed., The Reception of the Church Fathers, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1997); David Steinmetz, ed., Die Patristik in der Bibelexegese des 16. Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1999); Anthony N.  S. Lane, John Calvin:  Student of the Church Fathers (Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1999); Irena Backus, Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation, 1378–​1615 (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Günter Frank, Thomas Leinkauf, and Markus Wriedt, eds., Die Patristik in der Frühen Neuzeit: Die Relektüre der Kirchenväter in den Wisssenschaften des 15. bis 18. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart-​Bad Cannstatt:  Frommann-​ Holzboog, 2006); Antonia Lucic Gonzalez, “Balthasar Hubmaier and Early Christian Tradition” (PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2008); Andrew P. Klager, “Balthasar Hubmaier and the Authority of the Church Fathers,” Historical Papers 2008:  Canadian Society of Church History:  Annual Conference, University of British Columbia, 1–​3 June 2008, 18 (2008): 133–​152; Andrew P. Klager, “Balthasar Hubmaier’s Use of the Church Fathers: Availability, Access and Interaction,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 84 (January 2010): 5–​65; Andrew P. Klager, “ ‘Truth Is Immortal’: Balthasar Hubmaier (c. 1480–​1528) and the Church Fathers” (PhD diss., University of Glasgow, 2011). Esther Chung-​Kim, Inventing Authority: The Use of the Church Fathers in Reformation Debates over the Eucharist (Waco, TX:  Baylor University Press, 2011); David M.  Barbee, “A Reformed Catholike:  William Perkins’ Use of the Church Fathers” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2013); Byung Soo Han, Symphonia Catholica:  The Merger of Patristic and Contemporary Sources in the Theological Method of Amandus Polanus (1561–​1610) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015). 26.  For an impressive project for facilitating studies in the reception of Augustine, see Karla Pollman, ed., The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine, 3  vols. (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2013). Some individual studies are Luchesius Smits, Saint Augustin dans l’oevre de Jean Calvin, 2 vols. (Assen: van Gorcum, 1956–​ 1958); Robert Dodaro and Michael Questier, “Strategies in

13

14

debating perseverance

Augustine provides a suitable choice in assessing the English reception of the church fathers on the doctrine of perseverance. For one thing, sixteenth-​and seventeenth-​century theologians often treated Augustine as preeminent among the early church fathers. But beyond the high regard people had for his theological opinion in general, Augustine wrote a treatise specifically focused on perseverance, On the Gift of Perseverance, and spoke of the doctrine extensively in a couple of his other writings.27 Moreover, Englishmen had recognized the importance of these treatises as evidenced in their retrieval of English translations beginning in the reign of King Edward VI and continued by exiles under Queen Mary.28 Modern scholars have recognized the significance of Augustine’s thought on perseverance for subsequent church history, but while studies have been done on the reception of Augustine on perseverance in the medieval era, historians have not yet advanced

Jacobean Polemic: The Use of and Abuse of St. Augustine in English Theological Controversy,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44, no.  3 (July 1993):  432–​449; Arnoud S.  Q. Visser, Reading Augustine in the Reformation:  The Flexibility of Intellectual Authority in Europe, 1500–​1620 (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2011); Karla Pollman and Meredith Jane Gill, eds., Augustine beyond the Book:  Intermediality, Transmediality, and Reception (Leiden:  Brill, 2012); Peter Webster, “Augustine ‘Falleth into Dispute with Himself’: The Fathers and Church Music in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England,” in The Search for Authority in Reformation Europe, ed. Elaine Fulton, Helen Parish, and Peter Webster (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2014), 171–​187. 27.  Augustine’s three main works treating the topic are On Rebuke and Grace, On the Predestination of the Saints, and On the Gift of Perseverance. English translations can be found in the volume titled Saint Augustine: Anti-​Pelagian Writings, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-​Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff, ser. 1, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 471–​491, 497–​519, 525–​552. 28.  Augustine, A Worke of the Predestination of Saints Written by the Famous Doctor S.  Augustine Byshop of Carthage,  .  .  .  Item, Another Worke of the Sayde Augustyne, Entytuled, Of the Vertue of Perseveraunce to Thend, trans. Nicholas Lesse (London, 1550); Augustine, Two Bokes of the Noble Doctor and B. S. Augustine Thone Entiteled of the Predestinacion of Saintes, Thother of Perseveueraunce unto Thende, whereunto Are Annexed the Determinacions of Two Auncient Generall Councelles, Confermyng the Doctrine Taught in These Bokes by S. Aug., trans. John Scory (Geneva, 1556).

14

15

c h u r c h o f e n g l a n d , i d e n t i t y, a n d d i s t i n c t i v e s

the topic into the Reformation and post-​Reformation eras.29 Modern scholarship needs to recognize the significance that the Reformed tradition attributed to Augustine’s thought on perseverance.

Scope of the Study

Given the distinctive nature of the doctrine of perseverance of the saints for the Reformed tradition, as well as the high regard English theologians had for Augustine during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, an evaluation of the English reception of Augustine on perseverance could provide a valuable contribution to discussions regarding the identity of the Church of England. As happens to be the case, English theologians developed several discussions during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries where readings and the reception of Augustine influenced their treatment of perseverance. Therefore, this study selects various English debates over perseverance in order to demonstrate the critical importance that readings of Augustine on perseverance played in the development of England’s relation to the Reformed churches of mainland Europe. This book does not intend to give a comprehensive history of perseverance in seventeenth-​century England. Many important debates and books receive less treatment than others or even none at all. However, like an ecologist surveying a landscape, this book takes ground samples at significant points along the contours of the English church of the seventeenth century. In selecting samples, this study adopts events before, during, and after the Synod of Dort in order to reflect the changing circumstances within England and the greater Reformed community. It also selects debates where prominent churchmen wrestled with 29.   Joseph P.  Wawrykow, “  ‘Perseverance’ in 13th-​ Century Theology:  The Augustinian Contribution,” Augustinian Studies 22 (1991):  125–​ 140; Joseph P.  Wawrykow, God’s Grace and Human Action:  “Merit” in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas (Notre Dame:  University of Notre Dame Press, 1995); Cyril Anthony Gorman, “Augustine and High Medieval Theologies of Perseverance: The ‘Perseverance’ Teaching of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Matthew of Aquasparta and Gregory of Rimini” (PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2005).

15

16

debating perseverance

readings of Augustine on perseverance in settings where the shape or acceptance of confessional standards were at stake. The study also selects debates and characters that already appear in scholarly discussions of Anglicanism, Puritanism, and the identity of the Church of England, but not in ways that reflect the significance of perseverance. While these samples will not exhaust every detail of how the readings of Augustine on the doctrine of perseverance shaped the identity of the Church of England, a close analysis of the samples provides a good starting place to assess the critical role played by perseverance. Chapter 2 examines the debates at Cambridge University that set the context for the famous Lambeth Articles of 1595. While scholars frequently reference these articles for their importance regarding the doctrine of predestination, this chapter shows that the doctrine of perseverance played much more significantly into the debates that brought about the articles. Furthermore, it looks specifically at the way perseverance was handled in the construction of the Lambeth Articles and how variant readings and receptions of Augustine factored into the version of the articles that were finally approved. Thus, it shows that readings of Augustine influenced the way bishops made policies and strictures for the University of Cambridge. This reevaluation of the Lambeth Articles has added value in that it assesses thoughts on perseverance on the front edge of the seventeenth century, before perseverance of the saints was explicitly confessed as a mark of the international Reformed community. It suggests the existence of a strong Reformed influence in England that was broad enough to admit diversity on perseverance due to its regard for the early church. That is, it discovers the existence of a minority opinion within the Reformed tradition that took advantage of confessional latitude and dissented from the majority opinion regarding the perseverance of every saint. Chapter  3 crosses the English Channel to the Synod of Dort and analyzes the British delegation’s participation in that famous international conference of Reformed churches. The significance of Dort’s codification of perseverance of the saints as a Reformed distinctive has already been mentioned. Yet it is also important to understand the way

16

17

c h u r c h o f e n g l a n d , i d e n t i t y, a n d d i s t i n c t i v e s

British theologians handled the issue in dialogue with other Reformed churches. This chapter uncovers a consistent English strategy of conciliatory confessionalism, even when it was painfully inconvenient. Even though the delegates agreed theologically with the rest of the Synod on perseverance, their sensitivity to readings of Augustine prepared them to advocate unity among the Reformed churches in a way that would avoid unnecessary offense to those rejecting the prevailing view on the doctrine. And while the British delegation’s request was not granted, this episode demonstrates yet another attempt by Englishmen to use readings of Augustine to shape doctrinal standards within a Reformed context. Chapter 4 returns to England in order to survey a significant debate that Richard Montagu stirred in the aftermath of Dort. This debate has been largely classified, both then and now, as one between Arminians and Calvinists. However, this reanalysis of the debate suggests that Montagu better fits the profile of a previously permitted minority opinion within the Reformed tradition that followed a different reading of Augustine on perseverance. The chapter argues that Montagu was not a genuine Arminian and that his repudiation of an irrespective divine decree did not propose a view of election caused by foreseen faith. By better understanding Montagu’s context and arguments, one can see that Montagu’s denial of perseverance of all saints was not presented on semi-​Pelagian grounds. The chapter also demonstrates the way Dort’s narrowing tendencies created difficulties for the Church of England’s broad-​church approach to being Reformed. Chapter  5 continues to sample the English soil of the Montagu affair with a view to surveying adjacent doctrines related to the perseverance debate. For instance, Dort’s more narrow definition of perseverance caused difficulties for those holding a more traditionalist view of baptism and regeneration. After looking at Montagu’s baptismal argument against perseverance of the saints, the chapter evaluates published responses to Montagu’s advocacy of baptismal regeneration as well as more private debates where John Davenant and Samuel Ward tried to reconcile a form of baptismal regeneration with Dort’s determination on perseverance. This survey shows

17

18

debating perseverance

division on the efficacy of baptism even within the pro-​Dortian party, with readings and receptions of Augustine factoring in. It also reveals further evidence of how a broad-​church approach to being Reformed set the Church of England at odds with the international trends of the Reformed churches. Chapter 6 collects samples from a debate on perseverance that arose among the Puritans after England’s civil war. The debate was started by the avowed Arminian John Goodwin, who appealed to Augustine and the early church for a denial of the perseverance of the saints. The chapter focuses on the Reformed responses among his Puritan counterparts, like John Owen and George Kendall, and how they challenged Goodwin’s reading of Augustine and defended the importance of perseverance for confessing the Reformed faith. It also focuses on Richard Baxter’s alternate perspective, which affirmed the doctrine on perseverance of the saints but questioned whether it should be a confessional issue based on his reading of Augustine and the witness of church history. This chapter has the value of tracking England’s struggle with perseverance in a time when the pro-​Dortian party had gained ascendancy. Given the fact that the Westminster Assembly sought to bring the Church of England into closer alignment with mainstream Reformed thought, one might easily assume that the temporary triumph of the Puritan cause would have settled the issues related to perseverance. Nevertheless, this chapter reveals how competing readings of Augustine on perseverance persisted among Reformed Englishmen and also how these readings influenced the way Puritans developed and used confessions so as to handle concerns of catholicity. Again, this is not a complete history of readings of Augustine on perseverance among English churchmen. This project neither is strictly limited to an analysis of readings of Augustine on the point nor does it treat every book and debate on perseverance. Instead, this limited study demonstrates that churchmen in various stages of post-​ Reformation England relied on readings and receptions of Augustine on perseverance to influence the way confessional statements were used. In doing so, this study follows recent trends in Reformation-​and post-​Reformation-​era studies that recognize the diversity that existed

18

19

c h u r c h o f e n g l a n d , i d e n t i t y, a n d d i s t i n c t i v e s

within the pursuit of a unified Protestant front.30 It also uncovers competing readings of Augustine on the doctrine of perseverance, which in turn led to variant understandings of the doctrine within the Reformed community. By evaluating these debates, this study sets up a better approach to framing the identity of the Church of England. Rather than identifying the Church as either part of a Calvinist consensus or an adherent to the ancient Christian faith, this study grants the possibility of seeing both the Reformed churches and the early church fathers as confluent sources of identity for the Church of England. It witnesses a broad approach to being Reformed that respected traditionalist elements in its midst—​a Reformed catholicity derived from great sensitivity to the early church. It also helps make sense of the struggle the Church of England faced in maintaining its Reformed identity after Dort, recognizing how the international Reformed community demanded tighter confessional definitions that alienated England’s traditional, broad-​ church approach to being Reformed. Surely the doctrine of perseverance was not the sole issue behind England’s faltering Reformed identity. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged as a significant factor in that demise and even as emblematic of other issues. Debating perseverance, the Church of England witnessed the importance of that doctrine for maintaining both an ancient and a Reformed identity.

30.  For instance, some studies have argued for various Reformations over against “the Reformation,” showing various approaches and circumstances that allowed for different developments. This is reflected in the titles of James D. Tracy, Europe’s Reformations, 1450–​1650: Doctrine, Politics, and Community, 2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006); Carter Lindberg, The European Reformations, 2nd ed. (Malden, MA:  Wiley-​ Blackwell, 2010); and Alec Ryrie, ed., Palgrave Advances in the European Reformations (Basingstoke:  Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). Studies have also given more recognition to levels of diversity within the boundaries of Reformed orthodoxy, demonstrating how even the Puritan tradition in England was not as monolithic in its theological makeup as some may think it to be. See Michael A.  G. Haykin and Mark Jones, eds., Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011).

19

20

chapter two

cambridge aflame with controversy Reassessing the Lambeth Articles

On November 20, 1595, Archbishop John Whitgift authorized nine propositions, now known as the Lambeth Articles. These articles were forged in the context of a theological controversy that broke out at Cambridge University, and though they were created to subdue unrest at Cambridge, the propositions became a source of contention in the Church of England for years to come. Accordingly, historians are faced with the problem of understanding the significance of this document so as to identify the nature and character of the Church of England in the late sixteenth century. In hopes of determining the theological identity of the Elizabethan Church, great attention has been given to the birth of Puritanism and its interaction with the reigning establishment. Within those discussions, a predominant concern among scholars has been to determine where the church stood on matters of divine sovereignty and human responsibility in matters of salvation. Debates have largely concentrated on whether there was a Calvinist consensus to the Church of England during the second half of the sixteenth century.1 Playing into 1.  For examples of those denying a Calvinist consensus, see H. C. Porter, Reformation and Reaction in Tudor Cambridge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958); Peter White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic:  Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Peter White, “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” Past

20

21

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy

this grander debate, treatments of the Lambeth Articles tend to run in two different lines of scholarship. Some maintain that the Lambeth Articles were instigated by Calvinists but ended up being less than a Calvinist document.2 Others argue that the nine propositions are essentially Calvinistic.3 In either case, the result is that the Lambeth Artlicles are mainly understood within a Calvinist versus anti-​Calvinist framework. Consequently, the predominant concern related to these discussions is predestination, and the way the Lambeth Articles are described depends a lot on one’s definition of Calvinism and its relation to Calvin’s own thought.4 While the doctrine of predestination was certainly a part of the Lambeth Articles and contributed to the circumstances that demanded and Present 101 (November 1983): 34–​54; Peter White, “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered:  A  Rejoinder,” Past and Present 115 (May 1987):  217–​229. For examples of those arguing for a Calvinist consensus, see Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-​ Calvinists:  The Rise of Arminianism c.  1590–​1640 (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1987); Nicholas Tyacke, “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” Past and Present 115 (May 1987):  201–​216; Peter Lake, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982); Peter Lake, “Calvinism and the English Church 1570–​1635,” Past and Present 114 (February 1987): 32–​76. 2.  W. D. Sargeaunt, “The Lambeth Articles, II,” Journal of Theological Studies 12, no. 3 (April 1911): 436; H. C. Porter, “The Anglicanism of Archbishop Whitgift,” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 31, no. 2 (June 1962): 129, 140; White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, 101. 3.   Betsy Halpern Amaru, “Arminianism in England 1595–​ 1629” (PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, 1969), 106–​107; Lake, Moderate Puritans, 226; Lake, “Calvinism and the English Church 1570–​1635,” 46; Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, 30; Victoria C. Miller, The Lambeth Articles (Oxford: Latimer House, 1994), 90–​91. J. V. Fesko goes so far as to say that they “reflect Supralapsarianism,” in Diversity within the Reformed Tradition: Supra-​and Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort, and Westminster (Jackson, MS: Reformed Academic Press, 2001), 243–​245. Similarly, John William Perkins considers them “definitive high predestinarianism,” in “The 1595 Lambeth Articles and the So-​called ‘Calvinist Consensus’ (2),” British Reformed Journal 46 (Winter 2007): 19. 4.   On problems created in historical studies by the term “Calvinism,” see Richard A. Muller’s essay “Was Calvin a Calvinist?” in Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012), 51–​69.

21

22

debating perseverance

their formulation, it was arguably not the most significant influence. This chapter will give a brief review of the controversy at Cambridge that led to the Lambeth Articles in order to show the significance of the doctrine of perseverance for that debate. It will also examine the development of Lambeth Article 5, which is on perseverance, and the theological significance it held. Bringing attention to how perseverance was treated at Lambeth may shed some light on the identity and character of the Church of England during the late sixteenth century. The reconsideration of Article 5 suggests the inadequacy of the Calvinist versus anti-​Calvinist framework for portraying a diversely Reformed identity for the Church of England that was highly influenced by the conflicting readings and reception of Augustine.

C o n t r ov e r s y

at   C a m b r i d g e

The early 1590s saw a quieting of the disciplinarian controversies of the Puritans with the rise of a “new Contention” at Cambridge University “concerning some Points of Doctrine:  As, whether true Faith might fail; and whether every Believer was sure of his Salvation, &c.”5 This controversy appears largely due to lectures given by William Whitaker and Peter Baro, where they reportedly took opposing positions. By 1595, the dispute had become such a concern that the vice chancellor and heads of the colleges petitioned Archbishop John Whitgift on how to handle the matters. Whitaker met with Whitgift and returned to Cambridge with the archbishop’s advice that they should use the governing channels of the university to settle down the disruptions, but this was to provide little hope. Whitaker quickly wrote back to Whitgift that a determination had been held at the university, claiming “That Justifying Grace and Faith might not only be lost, in some finally, but even in the Elect, for a Time totaliter.”6 Interestingly enough, Whitaker 5.  John Strype, The Life and Acts of the Most Reverend Father in God, John Whitgift (London, 1718), bk. 4, ch. 14, p. 434. Note: due to irregular pagination, book and chapter references are also given for this book. 6.  Whitaker to Whitgift, June 13, 1595, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 14, p. 434.

22

23

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy

complained that the culprit had the audacity to claim Calvin as support for such a position.7 The flames of this controversy rose to new heights when William Barrett, a fellow of Gonvillle and Caius College, delivered his sermon ad clerum at St. Mary’s church on April 29, 1595. Barrett stirred considerable trouble by vilifying men like John Calvin, Peter Martyr, Theodore Beza, and Francis Junius as he challenged God’s sovereignty in reprobation. Yet the larger part of the sermon that caused such disruption discussed issues related in some fashion to the defectibility of faith. Within a couple of weeks, Barrett had undergone meetings with Vice Chancellor John Duport and with a consistory court made of heads of colleges at Cambridge, and he was ordered to read a public statement of retraction.8 Barrett’s retraction is informative in that it reveals what the heads of the colleges found objectionable in the troublesome sermon and what they accepted as Reformed doctrine. Barrett first confessed that he had denied man’s ability of being certain of salvation without receiving revelation from God, and thus he professed that those who have been justified by faith also “stand in that grace by faith” and therefore should be “certain and secure” of their own salvation.9 His second point retracted his statement that only Peter’s faith could not fail, since Christ had 7.  Whitaker to Whitgift, June 13, 1595, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 14, p. 434. 8.  Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 14, pp. 435–​436. 9.  “Mr. Barrets Retractions of some Points,” in Strype, John Whitgift, app.  22, p. 185. “per fidem in illo gratiâ stare . . . certos esse & securos.” Thomas Fuller’s English translation of Barrett’s retractions obscures a further debate in England concerning the difference between “certainty” and “security” by translating securus here as “assured,” and even as “certainty” in a subsequent paragraph. See Thomas Fuller, The History of the University of Cambridge, since the Conquest, 150, as appended with separate pagination to his Church-​History of Britain; from the Birth of Jesus Christ, until the Year M. DC. XLVII. (London, 1655). During the 1590s, certainty of salvation was accepted as possible by Reformed writers. However, use of the term “security” had historically been associated with presumption, which made its acceptance among the Reformed much more debatable. Strype announced his doubts about the reliability of Fuller’s translation of Barrett’s retractions in John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 14, p. 436.

23

24

debating perseverance

only prayed for Peter’s faith to be sustained. In turn he acknowledged that John 17:20 records Jesus praying for every true believer, making it to where “their faith cannot fail.”10 The third retraction denounced his view that it is arrogant and wicked to affirm such perseverance of faith that would foster security of salvation, agreeing that “true and justifying faith” could never be “plucked out by the roots” from those who once have it but will increase due to the believer’s union with Christ and last to the end due to God’s gift of constancy.11 Barrett’s fourth point retracted his denial of distinctions between kinds of faith, affirming instead a distinction between saving faith and a feigned, temporary faith.12 This distinction proved important for those advocating certain perseverance in faith because it allows for an explanation of apostasy among professing Christians while maintaining indefectibility of those who are genuinely justified by faith. The fifth retraction concerned Barrett’s denial of man’s ability to know if his sins were forgiven, turning to embrace the idea that every true believer is obligated to “believe his own particular sins are freely forgiven him.”13 The sixth point retracted his claim that sin was the cause of reprobation and affirmed that God’s mere knowledge of sin was not enough to explain reprobation and election. The seventh retraction was a petition for pardon of Barrett’s rash and bitter remarks directed to respectable Reformed leaders, which included “calling them that odious name of Calvinists.”14 What may have looked like a tidy end to the controversy quickly proved inflammatory. Barrett’s retraction came off as less than sincere, which irritated numerous masters and fellows in the university. Having

10.  “Mr. Barrets Retractions of some Points,” app. 22, p. 185. “eorum fides nequeat deficere.” 11.  “Mr. Barrets Retractions of some Points,” app.  22, p.  185. “fidem veram & justificantem . . . nunquam possit . . . radicitus evelli.” 12.  “Mr. Barrets Retractions of some Points,” app. 22, p. 185. 13.  “Mr. Barrets Retractions of some Points,” app. 22, p. 186. “credere, peccata sua esse sibi remissa.” 14.  “Mr. Barrets Retractions of some Points,” app. 22, p. 186. “Eos odiose nomine appellans Calvinistas.”

24

25

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy

read the retractions, he is reported to have concluded by effectively saying, “There, I  read it,” clearly conveying that he had simply gone through the motions.15 The next several months of the controversy confirmed that those retractions were not genuinely offered. Tension grew between Barrett and the college heads, resulting in further confrontations and a series of letters written to Archbishop Whitgift. Letters from both Barrett and the offended members of the university reveal a fair measure of political positioning in order to gain Whitgift’s support. For instance, Barrett framed the controversy as a conspiracy by Robert Some, the master of Peterhouse College, and “Puritans” in Cambridge.16 And while Barrett was careful to qualify his previous comments regarding Calvin, he took the opportunity to say that Calvin held some rash opinions.17 No doubt such posturing caught the attention of Whitgift, who had opposed Puritans during the disciplinarian controversies and the Genevan-​style church polity they were hoping to establish in England. Alternately, letters to Whitgift from those offended by Barrett’s sermon did not construe the dispute as Puritans against the church establishment, or as the Calvinists versus the anti-​ Calvinists. Rather, numerous fellows from several colleges found Barrett’s position “savouring of Popish Doctrine in the whole Course and Tenor thereof.”18 The vice chancellor and college heads were greatly concerned by his “taking upon him to answer those Places, which were alleged of Protestants for the Certainty of Faith; and alledging those Places and Speeches which were used in the Tridentine Council and Popish Writers, to prove Popish Doubtfulness; and that we cannot assure ourselves of our salvation.”19 Barrett’s “Familiarity and 15.  Fuller, History of the University of Cambridge, 151. “Haec dixi.” 16.  Barrett to Whitgift, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 14, pp. 438–​439. 17.  Barrett to Whitgift, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 14, p. 439. 18.  Cambridge fellows to Whitgift, May 26, 1595, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 14, p. 437. Strype reports of the signers, “Here were 15 Names of Trinity College, 18 of S. Johns, (among those Henry Alvey B. D. was one) five of Christs College, (where of Geo. Downame was one) and some of other Colleges; but of Kings College no one.” 19.  Vice chancellor and heads to Whitgift, June 12, 1595, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 14, pp.  437–​438. Strype records that this report was “Subscribed by

25

26

debating perseverance

Conversation with Recusants and Papists” only added to their suspicions.20 This accusation against Barrett came with a concern about the spread of Jesuit and other Roman Catholic books at the university.21 The threat of Roman Catholicism weighed heavily on Whitgift, and no doubt its association with the Barrett case caused him great concern. Barrett and the Cambridge heads portrayed each other as enemies of the Church of England, while claiming to uphold the doctrines of the Church of England themselves. Beyond all the political posturing, it remains clear that the major theological concerns of the dispute revolved largely around the issues of assurance and perseverance of faith, along with the additional issue of the cause of reprobation. For Barrett’s part, in correspondence with Whitgift, he limited his theological defense to a clarification on assurance of salvation. He swore that his position was “That Believers were certain of Salvation:  But to be secure, that they ought not to be.”22 Since “security” had historically been associated with presumption, it carried a negative connotation even among some of the Reformed. And to be sure, the consistory court had required Barrett to affirm security of salvation. Yet the distinction between certainty and security was not lost on the Cambridge dons. Writing to Whitgift, the heads of colleges clarified their position on certainty as a “Spiritual Security,” arguing that such a kind of security was held “not only by some late Writers and Preachers, but by ancient and Catholic Doctors of the Church.”23 Spiritual security, as distinct from carnal security, was their concern and they surmised that Barrett meant to deny more than just presumption. In further support of assurance of salvation, they reiterated their Jo. Duport, Vice-​Chancellor, and signed also by Goad, Some, Tyndal, Barwel, Whitaker, Nevyl, Jegon, Chaderton.” 20.  Vice chancellor and heads to Whitgift, June 12, 1595, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 14, p. 438. 21.  Vice chancellor and heads to Whitgift, June 12, 1595, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 14, p. 43. 22.  Barrett to Whitgift, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 14, p. 439. 23.  Vice chancellor and heads to Whitgift, July 7, 1595, “True Doctrine in Six Points,” in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 15, p. 446.

26

27

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy

position that all true believers can affirm the remission of their own sins. As to perseverance, they restated that Christ prayed to uphold the faith of all believers in Christ, that true justifying faith cannot be extinguished or utterly lost, and that distinctions must be made between different kinds of faith and the one true justifying faith. They also took the opportunity to clarify their position on the nonelect, distinguishing between damnation and reprobation, where sin is the cause of the former and God’s good pleasure is the cause of latter.24 So while the fine points of election and reprobation were part of the discussion, they were second to issues of the perseverance of faith and assurance of salvation. At the same time that concerns about Barrett were being addressed, Barrett’s opponents kept up similar disagreements with Baro. Baro took Barrett’s side against the consistory and challenged the idea of the indefectibility of faith, so Robert Some delivered a sermon “to prove that Faith were it is once, never faileth.”25 The consistory deliberated on whether to grant Baro the opportunity to present a written refutation to Some, but decided to simply hear his opinion instead.26 All the while, Whitgift grew more and more dissatisfied with the mounting unrest the matter was causing at Cambridge, and he was particularly disturbed at the manner in which the consistory was handling it. In order to intervene more directly in the matter, Whitgift drafted eight questions related to the original seven points of Barrett’s retraction, directing Whitaker and the consistory to reexamine Barrett under the Archbishop’s orders.27 Whitaker found Barrett’s response to the questionnaire rather evasive and inadequate. He was not happy that Barrett avoided answering whether Christ prayed for all the elect so as to make certain that their faith would not fail either totally or finally. Whitaker was also disturbed by Barrett’s response 24.  Vice chancellor and heads to Whitgift, July 7, 1595, “True Doctrine in Six Points,” in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 15, p. 4. 25.  Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 15, p. 448. 26.  Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 15, pp. 448–​449. 27.  These eight questions are recorded in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 16, pp. 452–​453.

27

28

debating perseverance

concerning the distinction between justifying faith and hypocritical faith; Barrett employed a distinction between fides formata and fides informis that Whitaker thought threatened to subvert the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone.28 Whitaker was not alone in his disappointment, for Archbishop Whitgift was equally disappointed in Barrett’s use of the distinction between formed and unformed faith.29 Furthermore, Whitaker and Whitgift were both frustrated by Barrett’s evasive response concerning whether believers should believe in the remissions of their personal sins.30 There was some disagreement between Whitaker and Whitgift as to whether Barrett was actually denying assurance of salvation by certainty of faith and whether the question about how Paul gained his assurance was open to various opinions without reproof.31 Interestingly enough, Barrett actually satisfied both Whitaker and Whitgift on the doctrine of predestination. Barrett affirmed that God from all eternity predestined and reprobated certain men, and this because He willed to.32 Controversy continued to burn at Cambridge, so Whitaker sought to extinguish it as best as he could. In what was to be his last sermon ever, on October 9, 1595, he preached on the topics of predestination, perseverance, and certainty of salvation. Whitaker sent a copy of this sermon to Whitgift, informing him of how the controversy persisted.33 The

28.  Whitaker to Whitgift, September 12, 1595, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 16, p. 453. 29.  Whitgift to heads of colleges, September 30, 1595, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 16, p. 455. 30.  Whitaker to Whitgift, September 12, 1595, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 16, p.  454; Whitgift to heads of colleges, September 30, 1595, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 16, p. 456. 31.  Whitaker to Whitgift, September 12, 1595, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 16, p.  454; Whitgift to heads of colleges, September 30, 1595, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 16, p. 456. 32.  “Barrett’s answers,” in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 16, p. 453; Whitaker to Whitgift, September 12, 1595, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 16, p. 454; Whitgift to heads of colleges, September 30, 1595, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 16, p. 456. 33.  Whitaker to Whitgift, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 17, p. 460.

28

29

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy

archbishop requested that some university officials accompany Barrett to Lambeth palace in order to put the controversy to rest, and the vice chancellor appointed Whitaker and Humphrey Tyndall. In November, they met at Lambeth, Barrett was examined, and another retraction was ordered to be given by Barrett at Cambridge. That retraction promised that he would neither profess nor defend the errors he had espoused in his sermon. And though Whitgift felt confident that Barrett would be willing to make a genuine retraction, it never came about.34 More significantly, the conference generated the Lambeth Articles. Considering the ongoing turmoil at Cambridge and the apparent rise of semi-​Pelagianism, Whitaker submitted nine propositions for Whitgift’s consideration. Articles 1–​4 concern predestination, defining it as eternally established, divinely determined, particular and unchanging in its scope, and exclusive of those reprobated. Article 5 concerns perseverance in saving grace. Article 6 concerns assurance of salvation through faith. Articles 7–​9 concern effectual calling, clarifying the particularity of saving grace and inability of the human will. The archbishop, eager to see an end of controversies on these matters, made a few adjustments to the propositions and affirmed them as “universally professed in this church of England, and agreeable to the Articles of Religion established by authority.”35 Whitaker and Tyndall were sent back to Cambridge with the Lambeth Articles in hand, and the college heads were to make sure that those doctrines were not attacked at the university.36 One thing that stands out about the Lambeth Articles, especially in relation to the Barrett controversy that preceded them, is that they give greater attention to unconditional predestination and effectual calling than to perseverance and assurance. This shift of emphasis suggests that the college heads were taking the opportunity to address their fuller concerns about the rise of semi-​Pelagianism. And such a shift

34.  Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 16, pp. 457–​458, 460–​461. 35.  John Whitgift, “A Brief Touching Mr. Barrett,” in The Works of John Whitgift, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1851–​1853), 3:615. 36.  Whitgift to Dr.  Nevile, Dec. 8, 1595, in The Works of John Whitgift, 3:616; Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 17, pp. 462–​464.

29

30

debating perseverance

of emphasis seems validated by subsequent interactions with Baro. Shortly after the Lambeth Articles were brought back to Cambridge, Baro raised questions about the meaning of the nine propositions and even preached a sermon that, among other things, was taken to affirm conditional election and universal grace.37 The predominance of predestination and effectual calling in the Lambeth Articles has led to the unfortunate shortcoming in modern scholarship to overlook the significance of perseverance in the Cambridge debates. To be sure, modern scholarship rightly takes note of the significance of the role of reprobation and irresistible grace and how semi-​Pelagianism was a mounting concern in the Church of England. To overlook that would be an error for sure. Yet it seems that it has allowed discussion on Barrett and the Lambeth Articles to revolve around predestination, which in turn facilitates a conditional-​ versus-​unconditional-​predestination debate couched as Calvinism versus anti-​Calvinism. Thus a reminder is needed that the issues regarding perseverance and assurance were a much larger part of the debate than is reflected in current scholarship. Perhaps if the thread of perseverance is investigated, it will give us further insight into the debate and the differences and concerns that were involved.

T h e L a m b e t h A r t ic l e s , P r o p o s e d

and

A pp r ov e d

In neglecting to emphasize the importance of perseverance in the Barrett controversy, scholarship has overlooked some of the finer nuances of the debate and obscured some of the deeper concerns that lay behind the approval of the Lambeth Articles. Thus, it is important to investigate the significance of the proposition from the Lambeth Conference that related to perseverance in order to uncover some of these concerns. Two different versions of the Lambeth Articles exist: the one originally submitted for discussion at the Lambeth Conference and the one finally approved by Whitgift. On the whole, when one compares the two lists of articles, there does not appear to be a lot of difference 37.  Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 17, pp. 465–​469.

30

31

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy

between them. Only four of the articles received changes (Arts. 2, 5, 6, 7), consisting of only a few shifts in wording each. Yet in spite of the low percentage of changes to the propositions, changes there are. And the alterations in propositions have been noticed by modern scholarship, though with differing judgments. Some contend that the changes were insignificant and were mostly instances of Whitgift asserting his authority in the controversy.38 Others have placed greater significance on the changes, saying that Whitgift sought to chart a middle course between the Calvinists and the anti-​Calvinists.39 It is beyond the scope of this chapter to conduct a careful analysis of every alteration to the Lambeth Articles. Suffice it to say that none of the revisions made by Whitgift detracts from the solid Reformed convictions of unconditional election and effectual calling. For that matter, the document clearly favored the Cambridge heads in their dispute against Baro and Barrett. Yet the fact that there were changes should give us pause, for some of the alterations reveal subtleties of the intramural issues being debated among the Reformed in England. As will become apparent, the slight shift made to the article concerning the doctrine of perseverance reveals an often overlooked breadth within the Reformed tradition and the important place Augustine held among its theologians. The Lambeth Articles discuss the issue of perseverance in Article 5. The articles as they were originally proposed and then finally approved read thus:

38.  Lake, Moderate Puritans, 224–​225; Lake, “Calvinism and the English Church 1570–​ 1635,” 46; Elizabeth Gilliam and William J.  Tighe, “To ‘Run with the Time’: Archbishop Whitgift, the Lambeth Articles, and the Politics of Theological Ambiguity in Late Elizabethan England,” Sixteenth Century Journal 23, no. 2 (June 1992): 326; John William Perkins, “The 1595 Lambeth Articles and the so-​called ‘Calvinist Consensus’ (1),” British Reformed Journal 46 (Winter 2007): 19. 39.  Porter, “The Anglicanism of Archbishop Whitgift,” 140; Porter, Reformation and Reaction, 367; White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, 101; Keith D. Stanglin, “ ‘Arminius avant la lettre’: Peter Baro, Jacob Arminius, and the Bond of Predestinarian Polemics,” Westminster Theological Journal 67, no.  1 (Spring 2005): 55; Miller, The Lambeth Articles, 53.

31

32

debating perseverance Proposed Article 5: A true, lively, and justifying faith, and the sanctifying Spirit of God, is neither extinguished nor lost, nor does it depart from those that have once been partakers of it, either totally or finally.40 Approved Article 5: A true, lively, and justifying faith, and the sanctifying Spirit of God, is neither extinguished nor lost, nor does it depart from the elect, either totally or finally.41

The change is subtle, but it is substantial. Whereas the proposed article says the benefits of salvation are indefectible in “those that have once been partakers of it,” the revised article designates total and final perseverance to “the elect.” This may not seem significant if one assumes that only the elect can have saving faith, for that would make the two versions of Article 5 synonymous. But if one assumes that some nonelect were able to have saving faith—​for the Lambeth Articles never assert that only the elect will be drawn to faith—​then the consequence of the change in Article 5 becomes more apparent.42 The significance of the change is that it allows for, without explicitly stating or requiring, the conviction that some people might actually partake of justification and sanctification without being saved in the end. By specifying the elect as the ones unable to lose saving grace, it leaves open the possibility of claiming that some reprobates may genuinely participate in saving grace yet lose it. It does maintain the safety

40.  Articuli Lambethani (London, 1651), 10, 15. “Vere, viva & justificans fides, & spiritus Dei sanctificans non exstinguitur, non excidit, non evanescit in iis qui semel ejus participes fuerunt, aut totaliiter aut finaliter.” 41.  Articuli Lambethani, 15. “Vere, viva & justificans fides & spiritus Dei sanctificans non exstinguitur, non excidit, non evanescit, in electis aut totaliiter aut finaliter.” 42.  John Jefferson Davis wrongly claims the approved Lambeth Articles as affirming perseverance of the saints in his “The Perseverance of the Saints:  A  History of the Doctrine,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34, no.  2 (June 1991): 220.

32

33

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy

of the elect, but technically it does not deny that some people can lose their salvation. Given the state of scholarship and how the literature has tried to understand the Lambeth Articles within the framework of Calvinists versus anti-​Calvinists, one could be tempted to see this change in the article as a move to tolerate semi-​Pelagianism. To be sure, the possibility of falling from saving faith was often affirmed by adherents of conditional predestination, as seen in the case of Barrett and Baro. But that is not a sufficient reason to frame the allowance made in Article 5 as a concession to semi-​Pelagianism. It is important to consider this article in the context of the Lambeth Articles as a whole and the debate that made the Cambridge heads demand some guidelines for what was allowable for public debate at the university. It is true that, taken by itself, the approved form of Article 5 could be endorsed by advocates of conditional predestination. After all, the point of the debate was not whether the elect are the ones who make it to heaven. Semi-​Pelagians could easily admit that all the elect are saved in the end; they simply differed with Reformed theologians as to how it was that one gains the status of being the elect. Yet one should not see the significance of this change as a compromise to a basic Reformed approach to divine sovereignty. While Article 5 itself does not stipulate the doctrine of unconditional election that would keep someone from interpreting it in a manner favorable to those embracing conditional election, other articles in the document do. Furthermore, the Cambridge heads seemed pleased with the final statement as a means to defend unconditional election against those that they deemed as troublemakers around their colleges. Therefore, the changes in Article 5 should not be understood as a concession to semi-​Pelagians or a weakening of the Reformed stance on unconditional election. While maintaining the Reformed stance on unconditional predestination and effectual calling, Whitgift’s alteration of Article 5 severed a theological bond that Whitaker and others preferred to maintain. Whitaker’s proposed version of Article 5 consolidates the divine gift of conversion with perseverance by stipulating that the benefits of saving faith can never be lost in those who have it, but Whitgift’s revision

33

34

debating perseverance

leaves that matter an open question. In a sense, it was no loss for Whitaker since advocates of the proposed articles could still affirm the revised article in good conscience; their conviction about the indefectibility of everyone experiencing saving faith was not denied by the change. However, someone believing that the nonelect could be sovereignly converted by God and yet sovereignly allowed to not persevere would not be able to affirm the article as it was initially proposed. This latter group, equally faithful to a Reformed understanding of unconditional predestination and divine sovereignty, would only be able to affirm the revised article—​and Whitgift knew it.

A Search

f o r   R e s p e c ta b l e   M e n

If Whitgift’s alterations of Article 5 was not meant to be a concession to Barrett, Baro, or some rising group of proponents of conditional election, what could have motivated him to make it? Who were some of the people that he was making room for under Article 5, and what was it about their positions that helped persuade him to leave it as an acceptable expression of Reformed theology in England? To better answer these questions, it is helpful to take note of some of Whitgift’s responses to the Cambridge heads in the midst of the Barrett case. From his earliest correspondence with the Cambridge heads on the matter, Whitgift voiced concern that they made Barrett “affirm that which was contrary to the Doctrine, holden and expressed by many sound and learned Divines in the Church of England, and in other Churches likewise, Men of best Account.”43 He wanted them to be sensitive to disputable matters “wherein learned Men did, and might dissent without Impiety.”44 Whitgift even expressed concern to Chancellor Burghley that “some of the Points wherewith they had charged [Barrett], and which they had caused him to recant . . . were such as the best learned Protestants, then Living, varied in Judgment upon.”45 43.  Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 14, p. 441. 44.  Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 14, p. 441. 45.  Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 14, p. 450.

34

35

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy

Given Whitgift’s care to evaluate matters with regard to learned and pious men of the church, looking at some respected leaders on the issue of perseverance and the Lambeth Articles may shed light on the reason for Whitgift’s revision of Article 5. So who were these respectable men that Whitgift consulted?

Lancelot Andrewes

One obvious figure to investigate as a possible influence on Whitgift to revise the Lambeth Article on perseverance is Lancelot Andrewes. Andrewes held the academic post of master of Pembroke College at Cambridge, and he had the honor of being a chaplain to Queen Elizabeth. Not only did he have respectable appointments to both the school and the royal court, he also served as a chaplain to Whitgift himself. Furthermore, Andrewes’s reputation over the years has been associated with anti-​Calvinist and proto-​Laudian sympathies. Thus, Andrewes seems to be a good start for such an investigation. Although Andrewes was not directly involved in the development of the Lambeth Articles, he was asked to give his judgment of the approved version of the articles. Concerning Article 5, Andrewes responded by saying, “Certainly, I suppose, no one would ever say, ‘Faith finally fails in the elect,’ for truly it does not fail. But that it does not fail, I think it has this by the nature of its subject and not its own, from the privilege of the person and not of the thing—​and this on account of apostates, who should not be faulted for falling from that faith which was never true and lively.”46 Beyond recognizing the fact that the final perseverance of the elect was an uncontested proposition, Andrewes reveals that his understanding of perseverance was not driven by semi-​Pelagianism. 46.  Lancelot Andrewes, “Bishop Andrewes’ Judgment of the Lambeth Articles,” in A Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, and Other Minor Works (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1846), 299. “Certe nemo unquam dixerit (credo) ‘fidem in electis finaliter excidere:’ illa vero non excidit; sed quod non excidat, hoc habere existimo a natura subjecti sui, non sua; ex privilegio personae, non rei. Atque hoc propter apostatas, quibus vitio dari non debet quod excidant a fide, quae vera et viva nunquam fuit.” Andrewes’s response to Article 5 can also be found in Articuli Lambethani, 29–​30.

35

36

debating perseverance

His qualifying statement about apostates not really having saving faith suggests that he would have been comfortable with the assertion in Whitaker’s submitted articles that no person who was truly justified could fall away in the end. One theological implication of this is that, so it appears, Andrewes restricted the gift of regenerating grace to the elect alone. Therefore, he was not comfortable asserting that some reprobates may be genuinely converted, and thus would not have been a reason for the change given to Article 5. There is another reason to see that Andrewes was not one of the respectable men who stood behind Whitgift’s alteration of Article 5. Although he could agree with Whitaker’s more narrow affirmation about the final indefectibitlity of saving faith, he questioned the idea of total perseverance in faith. He continued his response to Article 5 saying, “But whether the Holy Spirit can be temporarily removed or extinguished, I think it can still be questioned; I admit to hesitate myself.”47 The primary reason for his hesitation was the presence of exhortation and warning in Scripture. Andrewes argued: Concerning faith—​“You stand by faith; do not be high-​minded, but fear . . . otherwise you also will be cut off.” How is this not a mocker’s precept if it is not possible to fall off? 1. “Beware lest you are also, being led away with error, fall from your own steadfastness,” etc. 2. “See that no man fails of the grace of God; for you are fallen from grace who are under the law,” Gal. 5:4. 3. “Do not take Your Holy Spirit from me,” Ps. 51:13. 4. “Do not quench the Spirit.” How are these not ridiculous precepts and speeches if we are in no way able to fall off from the steadfastness of faith or defect from grace, if there is no way the Holy Spirit can be removed or extinguished?48

47.  Andrewes, “Bishop Andrewes’ Judgment,” 299. “An vero Spiritus Sanctus ad tempus auferri aut extingui possit, existimo quaeri adhuc posse; fateor haerere me.” 48.  Andrewes, “Bishop Andrewes’ Judgment,” 299.

36

37

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy

For Andrewes, warnings against falling away implied the ability to fall away. And if the ability to fall away was there, he was open to the idea of a temporary apostasy in the faithful. Interestingly enough, Andrewes tried to argue that his openness to a temporary defection from grace was compatible with the Lambeth Articles. Having made his query about the ability to lose faith, he closed his response to Article 5 saying, “Even so, I am not unaware of this very thing, that ‘faith cannot be totally lost’ may be so explained as, though all is lost, it is unable to be completely lost on the whole; that is, not such a loss that they find themselves in a place where they fail to return.”49 Andrewes sought to give an etymological defense for how he could entertain a temporary defection under the article’s clear denial of total apostasy. In effect, he submitted the possibility of reading “totally” as it relates to time and thus as synonymous with the term “finally.” This appears to be a clever diversion in order to avoid contradicting the Lambeth Articles; however, the debate shows that these terms were not typically understood as synonymous and that Andrewes’s sentiments on perseverance were not fully in accord with the Lambeth Articles. Perhaps Whitgift had Andrewes in mind when he responded to Barrett’s initial retractions, saying, “To say also, the Credentium Fides, or Electorum Fides, potest desicere Totaliter, sed non finaliter . . . . Against De fide;–​“Tu stas fide, noli altum sapere, sed time:alioquin excideris et tu;” quomodo non irrisorium praeceptum, si non possit excidere? 1.  “Cavete ne errore abducti excidatis propria firmitate,” &c. 2.  “Videte ne quis deficiat a gratia Dei; excidistis gratia, qui in lege,” Gal. v. 4. 3.  “Spiritum Sanctun tuum ne auferas a me,” Ps. li. 13. 4.  “Spiritum nolite extinguere.” Quomodo non irrisoriae praeceptiones et orations hae, si nullo modo excidere a firmitate aut deficere a gratia possimus, si nullo modo Spiritus auferri aut extingui possit?” 49.  Andrewes, “Bishop Andrewes’ Judgment,” 299. “Esti non sum nescius et hoc ipsum [“non posse amitti totaliter”] exponi posse sic, ut in totum prorsus vel penitus amitti nequeat etsi tota amittatur, id est, ita amitti ut non sit locus revertendi unde exciderunt.”

37

38

debating perseverance

what Article of Religion established in this Church was it? That it was a Matter disputable, and wherein learned Men did, and might dissent without Impiety.”50 And why Whitgift initially showed respect to total apostasy of the elect, only to ban it at Cambridge through the Lambeth Articles, one cannot be entirely sure. While Andrewes was a highly respected chaplain for Whitgift, one can hardly say that Whitgift altered the reading of Lambeth’s fifth proposition for his sake. After all, Andrewes was able to affirm that only the elect could have true saving faith, which was the very point Whitgift set out to change. And while Whitgift’s revision still affirmed the faith of the elect as safe from being totally lost, Andrewes wanted to entertain the possibility of the elect temporarily losing their faith. So it appears that Whitgift actually changed the parts Andrewes was already comfortable with, and he retained the parts that made him most uncomfortable. Therefore, the conclusion is that Whitgift’s change of Article 5 was not made as a concession to Andrewes.

Richard Hooker

Another prominent figure who has received a reputation as a foe to Puritans and Calvinists is Richard Hooker. From his conflict with Walter Traverse to the publication of his multivolume Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie, Hooker has been recognized as a prime supporter of Conformist sympathies and the bane of English Puritanism. Since he is often viewed as a key spokesman for an Anglican middle way, it seems appropriate to see if his reputation could have had any influence on Whitgift’s alteration of Article 5.51 50.  Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 14, p. 441. 51.  A  reassessment of Hooker is underway, challenging this “Anglican” interpretation and situating him more properly within the Reformed tradition. See Nigel Atkinson, Richard Hooker and the Authority of Scripture, Tradition and Reason:  Reformed Theologian of the Church of England? (Carlisle:  Paternoster, 1997); W. J. Torrance Kirby, Richard Hooker’s Doctrine of the Royal Supremacy (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990); W. J. Torrance Kirby, “Richard Hooker as an Apologist of the Magisterial Reformation in England,” in Richard Hooker and the Construction

38

39

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy

Ten years before the conference at Lambeth, Hooker preached a pastorally sensitive treatment of assurance and perseverance titled “A Learned and Comfortable Sermon of the Certaintie and Perpetuitie of Faith in the Elect.” While the sermon title modestly ascribes perseverance to the elect, the content of the sermon makes a bolder claim. He confidently proclaims that “the fayth wherby ye are sanctified cannot faile.”52 In asserting this, he was not talking only about the sanctifying faith of the elect. Showing the difference between believers and unbelievers, and having described the seed of God as the initial grace that incorporates one into Christ, he says, “Yeat they which are borne of god do not sinne ether in this or in any other thing any such sinne as doth quit extinguish grace, clean cut them from Christ Jesus, because the seed of god abideth in them and doth shield them from receyving any irremediable wound. Their fayth when it is at the strongest is but weake, yeat even then when it is at the weakest so strong that utterly it never faileth, it never perisheth altogether no not in them who think it extinguished in them selves.”53 He is clear that believers cannot become devoid of grace, and they can neither totally nor finally lose their faith: “The faith therfore of true beleevers though it have many great and grevous dounfals, yeat doth it still continew invincible, it conquereth and recovereth it selfe in the end.”54

of Christian Community, ed. Arthur Stephen McGrade (Tempe, AZ: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1997), 219–​236; W.  J. Torrance Kirby, “Richard Hooker’s Theory of Natural Law in the Context of Reformation Theology,” Sixteenth Century Journal 30, no. 3 (Autumn 1999): 681–​703; W. J. Torrance Kirby, The Theology of Richard Hooker in the Context of the Magisterial Reformation (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton Theological Seminary, 2000); W.  J. Torrance Kirby, Richard Hooker, Reformer and Platonist (Aldershot:  Ashgate, 2005); Diarmaid MacCulloch, “Richard Hooker’s Reputation,” English Historical Review 117, no. 473 (September 2002): 773–​812. 52.  Richard Hooker, “A Learned and Comfortable Sermon of the Certaintie and Perpetuitie of Faith in the Elect,” in The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker, vol. 5, ed. Laetitia Yeandle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 73. 53.  Hooker, “Certaintie and Perpetuitie of Faith,” 73–​74. 54.  Hooker, “Certaintie and Perpetuitie of Faith,” 76.

39

40

debating perseverance

Although Hooker was not personally involved in the Barrett controversy or the Lambeth Conference, it is clear that he was aware of the Lambeth Articles. In an unpublished group of essays that has become known as the “Dublin Fragments,” Hooker affirms a set of points that are clearly reflective of the Lambeth Articles. Aligning with Article 5 of Lambeth, Hooker asserts, “That to Gods foreknowne elect, finall continuance of grace is given.”55 By limiting claims of perseverance here to the elect, Hooker appears to have the approved version of the Lambeth Articles in mind rather than the proposed version. And it is also interesting to note that this simple statement speaks only of final perseverance, leaving out any claim to total perseverance. Nevertheless, a look at Hooker’s full position explained within the “Dublin Fragments” reveals that he maintained his earlier position of the total and final perseverance of true faith.56 To be sure, Hooker’s presentation of perseverance in the “Dublin Fragments” is more carefully developed and qualified than the statements he made years earlier in his sermon. Addressing the difference between the elect and those whom God casts away, he says it is not simply the case that “the one have grace always, the other, never: butt in this that the one have grace that abideth, the other, eyther not grace att all, or else grace which abideth not.”57 So Hooker clearly believed that some kind of grace could be lost, and that this phenomenon must be taken into account when discussing apostasy. Yet due to Hooker’s own teachings on grace in the earlier pages of the “Dublin Fragments,” one must assess the matter of what sort of grace Hooker thinks apostates lose. Hooker outlined “three kinds of Grace”: (1) Divine inclination of benevolence toward man, which he explains as “the well spring of all good”; (2) “outward instruction,” which acts as “the instrument thereof to our good”; and (3)  “inward sanctification,” which makes 55.  Richard Hooker, “The Dublin Fragments: Grace and Free Will, the Sacraments, and Predestination,” in The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker, vol. 4, ed. John E. Booty (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 167. 56.  Amaru unconvincingly depicts Hooker as an anti-​Calvinist in “Arminianism in England 1595–​1629,” 47–​49, 110–​118. 57.  Hooker, “Dublin Fragments,” 163.

40

41

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy

effectual the other two kinds of grace and “is the gratious and blessed guift of his Holy Spiritt.”58 Hooker’s first kind of grace is related to the general disposition of God, and as such, he was not speaking of losing that when he spoke of the reprobates losing grace. However, the second and third kinds of grace take up residence in men, making them both categories of grace that Hooker could have potentially meant people lose. If Hooker meant to say that the third kind of grace is losable, it would have been a change of position from his earlier sermon on perseverance. But if he only meant that the second kind of grace was losable, then he maintained his conviction on the indefectiblity of faith. While Hooker’s treatment of grace and perseverance in the “Dublin Fragments” is complex and finely nuanced, there is enough evidence to conclude that the sort of grace that he spoke of as losable was this second kind of grace, which was merely the external means of grace. Directly after his corrective about a “grace which abideth not,” Hooker made a similar distinction with election that parallels his second and third kinds of grace: “There is a visible election of people which the world seeth, according whereunto of old the Jewes, and now all the Nations of the world are elect. Butt besides this externall election, there are out of the body of these elect, others invisible and eternallie chosen in Christ before the foundations of the world were laid.”59 The framework he sets up is that the visible/​external church established by the first kind of election facilitates the outward/​instrumental means associated with the second kind of grace. Likewise, the invisible/​eternal church established by the second kind of election participates in the inward/​effectual work of the Holy Spirit associated with the third kind of grace. The invisible group of elect are chosen in Christ and given to Him “with purpose of custodie and safetie for ever.”60 Hooker never attributes justification and glorification to the visible church but reserves that for the invisible: “Men thus predestinated in his secret purpos, have their actual vocation and adoption likewise 58.  Hooker, “Dublin Fragments,” 112. 59.  Hooker, “Dublin Fragments,” 165. 60.  Hooker, “Dublin Fragments,” 165.

41

42

debating perseverance

intended into that fellowship or societie which is invisible, and reallie his true Catholique Church through the grace of the Spiritt of Christ given them. Whome his will is effectuallie to gather unto the Societie of Saincts by the Spiritt of Christ, them he hath purposed as effectuallie to justifye through Christs righteousness, whom to justifye, them to glorifye both here with that bewtie of holines which the Law of Christ prescribeth, and hereafter as well in body as in soule.”61 For Hooker, members of the invisible church can neither totally nor finally fall away: “Their temptations God will not suffer to exceed the strength of measure of that grace which himself hath given. That they should be finallie seduced, and clean drawne away from God, is a thing impossible. Such as utterly depart from them, were never of them.”62 And it is not simply the case that Hooker neglected to attribute true saving grace to reprobates. He positively excluded it by saying that only the eternally elect receive an effectual call, justification, and glorification: “neyther is it possible that any other should be glorified, or can be justified and called, or were predestinated besides them which in that manner foreknowne, whereupon wee finde in Scripture the principall effects of Gods perpetuallie during favour applied only unto them.”63 If reprobates cannot receive justifying faith, they cannot rightly be said to fall away from it. Even with all of his qualifications, Hooker’s position in the “Dublin Fragments” substantially agrees with the position he took in his sermon on perseverance. And it seems clear that he could have affirmed Whitaker’s proposed Article 5, for his consistent position was that all those with true and justifying faith could not lose it either totally or finally. Therefore, as much of a moderating figure as Hooker is made out to be, Whitgift’s change to Article 5 must not have been on his account.

61.  Hooker, “Dublin Fragments,” 166. 62.  Hooker, “Dublin Fragments,” 166. 63.  Hooker, “Dublin Fragments,” 166.

42

43

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy Matthew Hutton

Having looked at a couple of the usual suspects and come up empty, the search for Whitgift’s respectable men must proceed to influential men of the day that have not received as much recognition over the years. One such man was Matthew Hutton. Hutton and Whitgift held a friendship that went back to their younger days at Cambridge, where Whitgift followed in Hutton’s footsteps through various levels of academic preferment. During the 1560s, Hutton held distinct honors as Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity, master of Pembroke Hall, and Regius Professor of Divinity, and in each of these positions he was succeeded by Whitgift. Over the years, the two shared concerns with Puritanism and theological matters of the church, and the Whitgift often inquired on Hutton’s opinions in these matters. Whitgift certainly availed himself of the counsel of Hutton in the disputed matters at Cambridge. In a letter dated August 19, 1595, Whitgift wrote to Hutton requesting his opinion on Barrett’s recantation. Whitgift also asked Hutton to give his thoughts concerning the cause of reprobation, the distinction between one’s certainty and security of salvation, and whether “the elect can fall totally from faith for a time, but not finaly.”64 It is difficult to know just how much correspondence the two men had on these matters, but it is clear that opinions were exchanged. In a letter written on the first of October, Hutton acknowledged Whitgift’s request and, deciding not to give a detailed response to every point, satisfied himself with expressing his general concurrence with Whitgift’s thoughts.65 Although Hutton was not present at the Lambeth Conference, he did give a response to the nine propositions approved there. Responding specifically to Article 5’s statement on perseverance, Hutton wrote that it was “no less true.”66 Seeing as Hutton was responding to Whitgift’s 64.  “quod electi possunt cadere totaliter a fide ad tempus, sed non finaliter.” John Whitgift, “Letter XLVII. A Letter from the Archbyshop of Canterbury to My Lord’s Grace of York. 19 Aug. 1595,” in The Correspondence of Dr.  Matthew Hutton (London: J. B. Nichols and Son, 1843), 104–​105. 65.  Hutton, in Fuller, The Church-​History of Britain, bk. 9, sec. 8, pp. 230–​231. 66.  “Non minus verum.” Whitgift, The Works of John Whitgift, 3:613.

43

44

debating perseverance

revision of the articles, his response to Article 5 sheds no light on his opinion of Whitaker’s original proposal. That is, it was clear that he affirmed the perseverance of the elect, but it reveals nothing about his thoughts on Whitaker’s claim on the perseverance of all true believers. However, Hutton’s response to Article 6 reveals more about his understanding of perseverance than it does of the doctrine of assurance, which that article actually addresses. Here is what he says on Article 6: Augustine, The Gift of Perseverance, ch. 8: Some reprobates are called, justified, and renewed by the laver of regeneration; and yet they go out because they were not called according to His purpose. Therefore, it is good to add “called according to His Purpose.”67

Two things stand out in this response that shed great light on the debated matter of perseverance. First, Hutton is sensitive to the idea that some believers can lose saving faith because they are reprobates. Second, he appeals to Augustine as an authority on the matter. Granted, as this is attached to Article 6 on assurance, Hutton’s main point is that he thinks it wise to remember that those justified who are also elect are the ones who can truly be assured of their salvation. Yet in spite of his aim to address a matter of assurance, his counsel clearly rests on his reading of Augustine on perseverance. Hutton’s reading of Augustine is that some reprobates may genuinely participate in some of the blessings of salvation but not persevere to the end. He sees Augustine distinguishing between those merely called and those being called according to God’s purpose. And the implication is fairly clear. Hutton was reminding Whitgift of the importance of not unnecessarily excluding Augustine from his theological determinations. Hutton’s reading and reception of Augustine was not uncritical. That is, he was not afraid to voice disagreement with Augustine and even

67.  “August. cap.  8 de Bono Perseverant. Reprobi quidam vocati, justificati, per lavarcrum regenerationis renovati sunt; et tamen exeunt, quia non erant secundum propositum vocati. Bonum est ergo ut addatur ‘secundum propositum vocatus.’ ” Whitgift, The Works of John Whitgift, 3:613.

44

45

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy

charge him with error. For example, Whitgift had solicited Hutton’s opinion on several questions related to the Puritan concerns that were to be addressed at the Hampton Court Conference. In giving his advice on matters of appropriations, church government, laymen performing baptism, the sign of the cross in baptism, and prayers for deliverance from sudden death in the litany, Hutton made continual appeal to Augustine for support of his opinions. Nevertheless, in voicing his disapproval of laymen performing baptisms, Hutton took his stand against the tradition of the church. Recognizing that the ancient fathers of the church and the medieval schoolmen allowed for lay baptism in difficult circumstances, he says, “This erroneous Custom and Abuse of the Holy Sacrament did grow from another Error, urged especially by that good Father, St. Augustine, (Quandòque bonus dor itat Homerus) that Children dying without baptism, could not be saved.”68 While Hutton’s reference to this as a Homeric nod signifies a good measure of respect, it does not remove the fact that he charged Augustine with a serious error of which the Church of England would do well to avoid. All this to say, Hutton was not uncritically bound to so great an authority as Augustine. Yet even with this disclaimer about Hutton’s ability to disagree with Augustine, it does not negate the fact that he made frequent appeals to Augustine and is most often found concurring with the Bishop of Hippo’s judgment. In fact, in relation to the Lambeth Articles, one notices that Hutton responds to four of the nine articles (Articles 3, 4, 6, and 7) with references to Augustine. Furthermore, he concludes the letter stating, “These theses can either be clearly gathered or deduced by necessary consequence from sacred Scriptures and from the writings of Augustine.”69 Though not infallible, Augustine was certainly a prized authority.

68.   Matthew Hutton, “The Opinions of Matthew Hutton,” in Strype, John Whitgift, app. 44, p. 233. 69.  “Hae theses ex sacris literis vel aperte colligi, vel necessaria consecutione deduci possunt, et ex scriptis Augustini.” Whitgift, The Works of John Whitgift, 3:613.

45

46

debating perseverance

Hutton’s correspondence with Whitgift brings a certain measure of clarity to change in Article 5.  He approved of the Lambeth Articles, which indicates his adherence to the Reformed tradition. Yet Hutton’s views on perseverance would not have been acceptable under Whitaker’s proposed version of Article 5. Considering the fact that Whitgift had been seeking Hutton’s consultation throughout the Barrett controversy, it seems most probable that Hutton was one of those pious and respectable men that Whitgift was so concerned not to marginalize. Furthermore, Hutton’s appeal to Augustine reveals how readings and receptions of Augustine played a significant part in these matters. Hutton was clearly influenced by Augustine, and it is also obvious that he used Augustine as leverage in trying to influence Whitgift’s opinion. Whitgift valued the opinions of both Hutton and Augustine, and it is hard to believe that they were not significant factors behind the change to Article 5.

Adrianus Saravia

Another important figure that is often overlooked is Adrianus Saravia. Before his stay in England, Saravia developed respectable Reformed credentials in The Netherlands. There, he was instrumental in promoting the Belgic Confession among the Dutch nobles and defended the orthodoxy of the Heidelberg Catechism against Dirk Volckertszoon Coornhert. After teaching some years at Leiden University, he moved to England in the 1580s, where he quickly showed his support of episcopal church government and royal supremacy over the church, making him a staunch defender of the established church in England. He rapidly gained the respect of Whitgift, who utilized him in defense against Puritan and Separatist causes. He was also honored during the reign of King James I, becoming one of the translators of the 1611 Authorized Version of the Bible.70 70.  For more on the life and thought of Saravia, see Willem Nijenhuis, Adrianus Saravia (c.1532–​1613): Dutch Calvinist, First Reformed Defender of the English Episcopal Church Order on the Basis of the Jus Divinum (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980).

46

47

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy

During the Barrett controversy, Whitgift sought counsel from Saravia. As he had requested of Hutton, Whitgift also assigned Saravia to review the initial set of retractions that the Cambridge heads made Barrett read. Saravia was clearly unhappy with Barrett’s disparaging remarks against learned men of the church. However, Saravia was also disturbed by some of the retractions that Barrett was ordered to make. Most particularly, Saravia judged that Barrett was wrongly ordered to retract that he “disapproved of security of salvation and asserted that temporary faith in some differs nothing from justifying faith.”71 Thus, Saravia’s big disagreements with the retractions were related to assurance and perseverance. Related to assurance of salvation, Saravia was troubled with the rising use of the term “security.” That term had associations with carelessness, which could hardly be counted a Christian virtue. He was quick to assert:  “There is a great difference between certainty of salvation and security. Faith brings forth certainty; presumption and arrogance bring forth security.”72 Whereas the disagreement over the use of security proved to be largely semantic, Saravia’s concern about temporary and justifying faith was substantially at odds with Whitaker’s understanding of perseverance. In defending Barrett on the idea of temporary faith, Saravia was careful to qualify himself by affirming that not all temporary faith is true. Nevertheless, he was ready to advocate that some kinds of temporary faith were only distinguished from true faith by duration.73 Again, Saravia said, “There is only one true faith, which is inserted

71.  Adrianus Saravia, “Opinion of Barret’s Recantation,” in Nijenhuis, Adrianus Saravia, 330. “Certum quod salutis securitatem improbavit, et temporariam fidem qourundam nihil differre a fide iustificante adseruit.” 72.  Saravia, “Opinion of Barret’s Recantation,” 330. “Magnum discrimen est inter certitudinem de salutis et securitatem. Certitudinem parit fides, securitatem presumptio et arrogantia.” 73.  Saravia, “Opinion of Barret’s Recantation,” 331. “Quaedam est temporaria fides quae tamen vera et minime simulata est eosdemque operatur in homine effectus quos perpetua fides et ab eodem authore proficiscitur. Et sola duratione haec ab illa differt.”

47

48

debating perseverance

into Christ and renewed by the Holy Spirit. But the temporary faith of some so inserts them into Christ and makes them participate in the Spirit of Holiness that if they persevere they will obtain eternal life. Therefore that is true faith.”74 In essence, Saravia was supporting the idea that some reprobates temporarily had saving faith. Thus, when commenting on Barrett’s second retraction that addressed Jesus’ prayer of perseverance for His people, Saravia said, “for ‘every single believer’s faith,’ I would have put ‘every single elect’s faith,’ because not all true believers are elect and the faith of some true believers can fail—​though not of the elect.”75 It should be noted that Saravia held this position on the possibility of losing true faith while also affirming unconditional predestination, saying, “it has always been beyond controversy among all the orthodox that there is no cause of predestination and election besides God’s gracious mercy.”76 Therefore, he must not be seen as supporting a semi-​ Pelagian use of temporary faith. God ordains all that comes to pass, regulating even the faith and apostasy of a believing reprobate. As he says, “It is believable that some of the sons of perdition not having the gift to persevere to until the end begin to live in faith working by love, live faithfully and justly for some time, and fall after a while—​neither shall they be taken away from this life before these things happen.”77 74.  Saravia, “Opinion of Barret’s Recantation,” 333. “Una tantam est vera fides qua Christo inserimur et Spiritu renovamur. At temporaria fides quorundam eos Christo ita inserit et Spiritus sanctificationis facit participes, ut si perseverarent vitam consequerentur aeternam. Ergo illa fides vera est.” 75.  Saravia, “Opinion of Barret’s Recantation,” 330. “In secundo articulo pro ‘singulorum credentium fide’ positum vellum ‘singulorum electorum fide’; quia non omnes vere credentes sunt electi, et vere credentium quorundam fides deficere potest, non electorum.” 76.  Saravia, “Opinion of Barret’s Recantation,” 338. “Electionis et praedestinationis nullam esse causam praeter Dei gratuitam misericordiam, extra controversiam apud omnes orthodoxos semper fuit.” 77.  Saravia, “Opinion of Barret’s Recantation,” 338. “Propter huius ergo utilitatem secreti credendum est quosdam de filiis perditionis, non accepto dono perseverandi usque in finem, in fide quae per dilectionem operator incipere vivere et aliquamdiu fideliter et iuste vivere et postea cadere; neque de hac vita priusquam haec eis contingat auferri.”

48

49

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy

In developing an argument for temporary saving faith, Saravia appealed to an assortment of biblical passages. For instance, he pointed to Hebrews 6 to show how some temporary faith has attributes of true saving faith. He argued that the declaration “he who perservers to the end shall be saved” in Matt. 10:22 and Matt. 24:13, and the exhortation “you stand by faith, do not be high minded” in Rom. 11:20, would be absurd if perseverance was certain. He even went to Jesus’ analogy of the vine and branches in John 15 to show that some people united to Christ could be cut off and damned in the end.78 While he held his position for biblical reasons, Saravia was proud to proclaim that his exposition was “confirmed in the opinions of the fathers and especially in Augustine,”79 and that Augustine taught a “temporary justifying faith.”80 He quotes from Augustine’s On the Gift of Perseverance 8, 19 to show how “God judges it better to mingle a certain number of some who would not persevere with His saints.”81 Likewise, he appeals to Augustine’s work On Rebuke and Grace 6, 9 to argue that some regenerated and justified people can lose that same grace.82 While the Cambridge heads were, over the course of the debate, able to qualify their understanding of “security” as spiritual and distinct from a presumptive, arrogant, and carnal security—​and, moreover, 78.  Saravia, “Opinion of Barret’s Recantation,” 333–​334. 79.  Saravia, “Opinion of Barret’s Recantation,” 336. “Haec et quae a me superius disputata sunt, patrum sententiis et in primis Augustini confirmanda sunt.” 80.  Saravia, “Opinion of Barret’s Recantation,” 338. “Et Haec ex Augustino pro temporaria fides iustificante et dono perseverantiae adlegata sufficient.” 81.  Saravia, “Opinion of Barret’s Recantation,” 336. “Et in tractatu De dono perseverantiae: Deus autem melius iudicavit miscere quosdam non perseveraturos certo numero sanctorum suorum.” 82.  Saravia, “Opinion of Barret’s Recantation,” 337. “Finem autem dico quo vita ista finitur, in qua tantum modo periculum est, ne cadatur. Itaque utrum quisquam hoc munus acceperit quamdiu hanc vitam ducit, incertum est. Et De correptione et gratia: Si autem iam regeneratus et justificatus, in malam vitam sua voluntate reliabitur, certe iste non potest dicere:  non accepi, quia acceptam gratiam Dei suo in malum libero amisit arbitrio, etc. An adhunc et iste nolens concipi potest decere:quid ego feci qui non accepi; quem constat accepisse, et sua culpa quod acceperat amisisse?”

49

50

debating perseverance

were able to make a concession on the use of the word and satisfied themselves with the claim of certainty—​the statement on perseverance in the fifth article proposed at Lambeth would not have sat well with Saravia. Saravia was yet another Reformed theologian committed to the doctrine of unconditional election and effectual calling who nevertheless questioned the notion that everyone with true saving faith persevered with it to the end. His rejection of the perseverance of all saints had no link to semi-​Pelagian sympathies but was grounded in an Augustinian view of divine sovereignty. He was not only a respectable man among the Reformed but also a close confidant of Whitgift. When looking at reasons for Whitgift’s change of Article 5, Saravia must not be overlooked. Whitgift asked for Saravia’s opinion on the Cambridge debates, and Saravia marshaled an Augustinian argument for denying the perseverance of every true believer. Furthermore, the very change that Whitgift made to the Lambeth Articles was to limit references of perseverance to the elect, so that the view that some reprobates have saving faith and lose it was not denied. Once again, one can see respectable divines in the English church and their readings of Augustine making a significant impression on Whitgift.

John Overall

Another significant figure in the church at the end of the sixteenth century was John Overall. Following the death of Whitaker, Overall became the Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. He became a significant figure at the Hampton Court Conference, was favored by King James, and served as a translator of the Authorized Version of the Bible. Overall is a very interesting character in that he was at Cambridge during the Barrett and Baro debates, was well aware of the Lambeth Articles, proved himself opposed to the Cambridge heads, and became an influential man in the Church of England. In spite of his proximity to the situation, it is most unlikely that Whitgift had Overall in mind when he made the change to Article 5. On December 8, 1595, Whitgift wrote a letter to Thomas Nevile, who was master of Trinity. He mentioned his grief over Whitaker’s death, and

50

51

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy

briefly addressed Nevile’s nomination of Overall as Whitaker’s successor. Whitgift wrote: “I have received your letters touching Mr Overall, and I  very much rely upon your judgment in that case. Nevertheless I am informed by some others that Mr Overall is something factious and inclined to that sect, that loveth to pick quarrels to the present state and government of the church; which I hope not to be true because of your commendation.”83 Whitgift’s response suggests that he was not personally familiar with Overall and expresses concerns about him being a troublemaker. Therefore, it would be too much to claim that Whitgift changed Article 5 in order to protect Overall. While Overall may not have had a direct bearing on Whitgift’s decision to alter the Lambeth Articles, a review of Overall’s opinion on perseverance is nonetheless instructive. At the time of the Synod of Dort, Overall shared his opinions on the debated five points of debate raised by the Arminian controversy. Reflecting on the doctrine of perseverance, Overall catalogs three basic perspectives on perseverance. The first is the semi-​Pelagian view that perseverance and apostasy are both possible, being up to the will of man and dependent upon what one may do with faith and grace. The second represents the view taken by Whitaker at Lambeth and the Synod of Dort, which is the certain perseverance of all who truly believe. But the opinion that Overall favors is his final category:  “The third, with St. Augustine, makes Believers, through the infirmities of the flesh, and temptations, to be able to depart from Faith and Grace, or Likewise to fall away; but it adds, those Believers who are call’d according to purpose, and who are firmly rooted in a lively Faith, cannot either totally or finally fall away, or perish, but by special and effectuall grace, so to persevere in a true and lively Faith, that at length they may bee brought to eternal life.”84 Overall saw an 83.  Whitgift, The Works of John Whitgift, 3:615. 84.  A Latin edition with an English summary of John Overall, “On the Five Articles Disputed in the Low Countries,” is found in The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–​1619), ed. Anthony Milton (Woodbridge, Suffolk:  Boydell Press, 2005), 64–​70. Milton has pointed out and collated various printings and manuscripts. The English translation quoted here is taken from John Plaifere, Appello Evangelium (London, 1651), 31.

51

52

debating perseverance

option for perseverance that avoided semi-​Pelagianism, affirmed the Reformed conviction of unconditional election and effectual grace, and aligned itself with what he saw as the tradition of Augustine and the ancient church. This reading and reception was extremely important to Overall and other English divines as they sought to frame the character of the English church. Overall did not just have a preference for his third category but was decidedly against the Reformed churches taking a stand on perseverance that contradicted the Augustinian tradition. In a piece where he expounds what he sees as the position of the Church of England on predestination, he gives these rather confident remarks concerning perseverance: “Without doubt that Opinion, so much debated; of the certain Perseverance of All those, who did once believe and were regenerated, was never approved of by any of the Fathers of the Primitive Church; but was rejected by all Antiquity; and has been too much confuted by the constant Experience of all Times. It had its Birth in this last Age, and was then brought into the Church from a Quarrel that Zuinglius and his Associates had with Luther.”85 Overall considered indefectibility of true faith as a novel doctrine within the Reformed churches, which he obviously would have liked to see uprooted. Over the course of time, Overall made his opinion on perseverance well known. And that he was not content with Whitaker’s position continuing in the Church of England is reflected in his post-​Lambeth debates with Roger Goad, Laurence Chaderton, and Robert Some, as well as his involvement at the Hampton Court Conference.86 While Whitgift did not particularly have Overall in mind when he changed Article 5, it is safe to say that Overall promoted the very same 85.  A Latin edition with an English summary of John Overall, “The Judgement of the Church of England concerning Divine Predestination,” is found in The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–​1619), ed. Anthony Milton (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2005), 71–​84. Milton points out and collates various printings and manuscripts. The English translation quoted here is taken from John Ellis, A Defence of the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England (London, 1700), 139. 86.  Porter, Reformation and Reaction, 397–​407.

52

53

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy

position that Whitgift intended to leave open. Thus, it gives evidence that this position was not secluded to just one or two of Whitgift’s confidants. Rather, it appears that it had a wider reception among English divines and that Whitgift was discerning enough to take this into consideration. Furthermore, it is observable that this position was supported with a particular reading of Augustine and a concern to have him and the early church on one’s side.

The Cambridge Dons

and

Augustine

While the authority of Augustine was a major factor in the position taken by men like Hutton and Saravia, and subsequently instrumental in the alteration of Lambeth’s fifth article, readings and receptions of Augustine were also important for the heads of Cambridge who were arguing for the perseverance of all with true faith. That is, even within the debates that set the context for Lambeth, there was not a singular reading of Augustine regarding the sovereign gift of perseverance. Although there were those that believed Augustine taught that reprobates could have saving faith, and thus some with saving faith could fall from grace, others took a different reading and claimed Augustine in support of the perseverance of all possessing saving faith. The year after the Lambeth Conference, Robert Some was still engaging in debates and published a defense of three propositions, the first being that those having justifying faith cannot lose it.87 While it is not surprising that Some continued to argue for the perseverance of all true believers, it is interesting that he thought he had Augustine on his side. Some gave eleven reasons why the truly regenerate could not lose justifying faith. Each of his reasons was developed from biblical texts, yet he also interacted with Augustine at a couple of points for added confirmation. For instance, in defense of Peter’s denial of Christ as something other than a loss of faith, he appealed to Augustine in 87.  Robert Some, Propositiones Tres, Piè, Perspicuè, & Breviter Tractatae (Cambridge:  John Legat, 1596); English translation as Robert Some, Three Questions, Godly, Plainly, and Briefly Handled (Cambridge: John Legat, 1596).

53

54

debating perseverance

Of Rebuke and Grace to support his contention that “Peters faith was soone shaken, but it was not ouerthrown.”88 And concerning David’s fall into sin, Some wrote: “S. Augustine, whose iudgement I willingly embrace, writing vpon psal. 51. saith, that Dauid the prophet by sinne did wrest and turne aside the right spirit within him. The reuerend father doth not say that the right spirit was vtterly lost in Dauid.” 89 Whitaker was also of the mind that Augustine supported their cause. In his final public discourse at Cambridge, Whitaker addressed the debated topics of reprobation, perseverance, and assurance.90Aware of the danger of appeals to authority other than Scripture, he firmly declares: “The authority of no man whatever ought to be of so much weight with us, that we should believe this or that to be true, because he thinks it is so. It is madness for you to believe so or so, because another believes so, without better reasons for such belief. It is not sufficient to warrant our faith, that we have been instructed, informed, or commanded to believe so and so.”91 Yet with this warning against misplaced authority, Whitaker was not suggesting that the doctrines of the church and teaching of respectable theologians are not important. Instead of disposing of nonbiblical authorities, he examines them in light of Scripture and uses them in so far as they agree with it. And thus, throughout the sermon, Whitaker makes constant reference to schoolmen, early church fathers, and most of all Augustine. In defending his position that saving grace cannot be lost, Whitaker argues that those who fall from their Christian profession never really had saving grace. His goal is to close the gap between the gifts of regeneration and perseverance, and whereas men like Hutton and Saravia appealed to Augustine to say that some reprobates temporarily participated in saving grace, Whitaker asserts Augustinian authority to the 88.  Some, Propositiones Tres, 5–​6; Some, Three Questions, 6–​8. 89.  Some, Propositiones Tres, 7; Some, Three Questions, 9. 90.  William Whitaker, “Cygnea Cantio Guilielmi Whitakeri” (Cambridge:  John Legat, 1599), which is appended to Praelectiones Docissimi viri Guilielmi Whitakeri (Cambridge: John Legat, 1599). English translation is Cygnea Cantio: or, the Swan-​ Song (1772). 91.  Whitaker, “Cygnea Cantio,” 2; Whitaker, Swan-​Song, 3.

54

55

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy

contrary: “But our adversaries urge the testimonies of the fathers; and we too can produce them on our side. For a specimen: Augustine says, ‘God makes those to persevere in doing good whom he has made good. The love which can be forsaken, was never true.”92 Arguing from John 6:56 that abiding in Christ means perseverance to the end, Whitaker appeals to Augustine for help. “Thus there is a mutual and perpetual communion between Christ and his people, as between the head and the members. From this head no member perished, which the Spirit hath once firmly united to it. Augustine says ‘The reprobate does not believe in him whom he hath not eaten, and so hath not the faith of Christians, by which alone sins are forgiven.’ Christ is eaten by faith; reprobates have it not: therefore they neither eat Christ, nor are their sins forgiven them.”93 He also quotes Augustine as saying “none of those who are drawn by the Father, perishes: That none are called with a calling according to his purpose, but the predestinated.”94 Whitaker stood confident in his position that “this grace comes to none but those predestined and elected: for it is the effect of predestination, as all allow, and as Augustine most clearly proved in opposition to the Pelagians; and therefore belongs to none but the predestinated children of God.”95 Although Whitaker acknowledged that his opponents appealed to Augustine, he did not directly respond to their particular reading of Augustine. That is to say, he did not refute their claims on particular passages in Augustine or give a counterargument to prove how they misunderstood. Nevertheless, Whitaker did read Augustine as making a distinction between true and false faith, and that may be a clue to how he rationalized his opponent’s claims. Whitaker remarked,

92.  Whitaker, “Cygnea Cantio,” 23; Whitaker, Swan-​Song, 38–​39. Whitaker references “De correp & Grat. c. 12,” and “De Poenit. dist. 2. cap. Charitas.” 93.  Whitaker, “Cygnea Cantio,” 20; Whitaker, Swan-​Song, 34. Whitaker references “De Poenit. dist. 2. cap. Charitas est aqua.” This work was widely read and attributed to Augustine in the medieval church, though it is now understood as apocryphal. 94.  Whitaker, “Cygnea Cantio,” 14; Whitaker, Swan-​Song, 23. Whitaker references “De Praedeset. S. cap . . . . 16 &. 17.” 95.  Whitaker, “Cygnea Cantio,” 17; Whitaker, Swan-​Song, 29.

55

56

debating perseverance

“Wherefore Augustine says ‘Others think, but the godly believe.’ Again, ‘He believes in Christ, who hopes in Christ, and loves him. He who has faith without hope and love, believes only that there is a Christ.’ But true faith believes in Christ, and not simply that there is one.”96 Whitaker, therefore, seems to have understood Augustine’s use of “faith working by love” as true saving faith. Perhaps Whitaker read Augustine’s controversial passages that depict some reprobates with faith as descriptions of a faith without love, and thus as something substantially different from saving faith. Regardless of how he understood opposing treatments of Augustine, Whitaker’s personal position is clear: “True faith therefore is not found in a reprobate, or one not predestinated.”97 And in this, he was confident that Augustine was on his side.98

Conclusion As has been shown, the Lambeth Articles are not just significant for what they say about predestination and how the Elizabethan Church dealt with it. Although predestination played a big part, the doctrine of perseverance stood at the heart of the controversy that gave rise to the articles. It was also demonstrated that the change Whitgift made to the article on perseverance is theologically significant. In analyzing the significance of this change to Article 5, several things stand out as a challenge to the conventional Calvinist versus anti-​ Calvinist framework for understanding the Lambeth Articles. While

96.  Whitaker, “Cygnea Cantio,” 18; Whitaker, Swan-​Song, 29. Whitaker references “De Praedest. Sanct. c. 2,” and “Serm. 61 in Evang.” 97.  Whitaker, “Cygnea Cantio,” 18; Whitaker, Swan-​Song, 30. 98.   Jean-​ Louis Quantin rightly recognizes appeals to Augustine by Hutton, Saravia, Andrewes, and Overall. However, by neglecting to point out Some and Whitaker’s appeal to Augustine, Quantin gives the impression that there was only one reading of Augustine on perseverance and that the “Calvinists” in the debate had little regard for antiquity. See Jean-​Louis Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 171–​173.

56

57

c a m b r i d g e a f l a m e w i t h c o n t r ov e r sy

“Calvinists” was a term associated with the debate, it was polemically used and proved to be unhelpful for anything other than stirring up a fight. As far as modern scholarship goes, the term does not seem to be any more helpful for analyzing the data. Perhaps the more general term “Reformed” is better suited for the task. Barrett and Baro were obviously pushing things beyond the acceptable limits of the Reformed tradition. However, men like Hutton, Saravia, and Overall were able to hold to the doctrine of genuine apostasy of some true believers within a Reformed framework of unconditional election and effectual calling. Furthermore, the change to Article 5 was not so much a softening of Reformed theology as it was a concern to not lop off existing Augustinian options within the Reformed church. What should be understood is that there was broadness to the Reformed consensus. Although perseverance of the saints was the predominant view among Reformed churches, a minority opinion existed that satisfied itself with the perseverance of the elect. Prominent Reformed theologians had rejected the perseverance of the saints before. Wolfgang Musculus, for instance, could not embrace it.99 So Whitgift’s change to Article 5 suggests that this minority opinion found haven within the Church of England. Given that the Synod of Dort had not yet occurred—​definitively endorsing the certain perseverance of all true believers as the accepted view among the international Reformed community—​there was no reason for the Church of England to think that an alternative view on perseverance should be eliminated. Key to this whole debate on perseverance is that there were different readings of Augustine, even among the Reformed. More significant than identifying diversity within the Reformed tradition, these divergent readings of Augustine on perseverance affected policy making within the Church of England. Due to the readings and receptions of Augustine

99.  See the end of his discussion on mortal and venial sins in Wolfgang Musculus, Loci Communes Sacrae Theologiae (Basil, 1564), 32. Note that in later editions, he added a statement recognizing that some differ from him and that he offers his opinion without insult to them.

57

58

debating perseverance

among respectable leaders in the Church of England, Whitgift modified Article 5 in such a way that allowed for differing positions on perseverance to go unchallenged at Cambridge. And though the authority of the Lambeth Articles at Cambridge was short-​lived, an examination of its composition and theology opens a valuable window into the identity of the Church of England at that time.

58

59

chapter three

dilemmas at the synod of dort The Conciliatory British Delegation

The Synod of Dort, which met from November 13, 1618 to May 9, 1619, stands as one of the most celebrated international assemblies of Reformed theologians ever convened. Its judgments on the five disputed points of theology have become known as the standard statement on sovereign grace for Reformed churches worldwide. Granted, the Canons of Dort were not formally subscribed to by Reformed churches in every country, nor did the Synod have ecclesiastic authority outside of The Netherlands. Nevertheless, the consensus reached at Dort became a general marker for the Reformed faith around the globe. Seeing as this famed assembly arose primarily from Remonstrant and Contra-​Remonstrant debates over the sovereignty of God in salvation, it is no wonder that the Synod of Dort is characteristically regarded as the epicenter of debate between “Arminian” and “Calvinist” contentions. Accordingly, it would be easy to focus all one’s attention on the elements that divided these two groups. What is more easily overlooked is the internal tension felt within the international Reformed movement that also had to be carefully negotiated at this synod.1 From 1.  For treatment of the differences among the Reformed at Dort on the issue of Christ’s vicarious satisfaction, see William Robert Godfrey, “Tensions within International Calvinism:  The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618–​1619” (PhD diss., Stanford University, 1974). For a treatment of differences on reprobation at Dort, see Donald W.  Sinnema, “The Issue of Reprobation at

59

60

debating perseverance

the current vantage point in history, scholars have the luxury of knowing the outcome of Dort, and that tends to color the way they think of the Reformed faith before that event. Surely the Canons’ Fifth Head of Doctrine clarifies that everyone experiencing saving faith sustains it to the end. Articles 3, 6, and 8 clearly state that God graciously gives the gift of perseverance to the converted both totally and finally. Likewise, Rejection of Errors 3 condemns the view that some true believers totally or finally lose their salvation, and Rejection of Errors 7 condemns the view that mere temporary faith is justifying. Yet these were conclusions of the Synod and not necessarily assumptions that all the Reformed wanted elevated to confessional status. It would be wrong to think that the delegates to the Synod of Dort knew going into it that perseverance would be so carefully defined. From their vantage point, the Reformed definition of perseverance quite possibly could have had a different outcome. In light of the previous chapter, it is clear that some theologians within the Reformed community accepted justifying faith among the reprobates, thus allowing for the apostasy of some genuine, though temporary, saints. Yet it is equally clear that the Canons of Dort, which denied this position, received unanimous approval of the various delegations—​including the British. This incongruity should give great pause, causing further investigation into the British delegation’s handling of the doctrine of perseverance.2 the Synod of Dort (1618–​19) in Light of the History of this Doctrine” (PhD diss., University of St. Michael’s, 1985). On differences concerning the object of election, see J. V. Fesko, “Lapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dort,” in Drawn into Controversies: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​ Century British Puritanism, ed. Michael A.  G. Haykin and Mark Jones (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 99–​123. 2.  The four initial British delegates to arrive at Dort were Englishmen:  George Carleton, Joseph Hall, John Davenant, and Samuel Ward. Walter Balcanqual, understood to be the Scottish representative of the group, arrived shortly after the Synod began. Hall had to return to England due to an illness, and was replaced by Thomas Goad. Thus, the delegates giving their formal suffrage on the five points and signing the final version of the Canons of Dort were Carleton, Davenant, Ward, Goad, and Balcanqual.

60

61

d i l e m m a s a t t h e sy n o d o f   d o r t

This chapter will look at the British delegation’s participation in the Synod of Dort, particularly regarding its input on the total and final perseverance of all saints. In examining the position they take on these matters and the careful manner in which they articulate it, one will see that readings and receptions of Augustine remained an integral part in the English strategy of developing the doctrine. This chapter also shows how variant readings and receptions of Augustine on perseverance made the British delegation’s approval of the Canons of Dort come rather uneasily. Furthermore, given that perseverance became the most distinctive head of Reformed doctrine confessed at Dort, this chapter highlights the problem that Dort created for continuing a Reformed identity back in England.

I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r   C o n ci l i at o ry Confessionalism Sending delegates to Dort held both theological and political significance for Great Britain. Being primarily convened to settle the disputed doctrine between the Remonstrants and Contra-​Remonstrants, it would be difficult to overestimate the importance of the theological dimension of the Synod of Dort. Nevertheless, the fact that the States General called the conference and requested magistrates from other nations to send delegates admits that there was also much at stake politically. After all, it was a dispute, one that rose to the level of disturbing the peace, not only in The Netherlands but also throughout the Protestant nations of Europe. It was well within the interest of King James to see matters resolved within the Republic of the United Provinces. Given the unsettled nature of Europe in the wake of the Reformation, Protestant countries were in desperate need of working together to form a united front. Yet such cohesion would be unlikely if these countries were to be torn apart by religious differences. Peace needed to be achieved, and it could only be done with careful attention to matters of theology. When sending delegates to Dort, King James gave specific instructions to guide them in making decisions at the Synod. His instructions

61

62

debating perseverance

set a tone and general strategy for the British delegates to implement in their discussions. As representatives of Great Britain, they were to deliver judgments “agreeable to Scripture and the doctrine of the Church of England.” They were also to encourage the Dutch to avoid “innovation in doctrine,” teach according to “their owne Confessions,” and “conforme themselves to the publick Confessions of the Neighbor reformed Churches.” Within these confessional bounds, the delegates were to suppress contentions by seeing that “certaine positions be moderately layde down, which may tend to the mitigation of heat on both sides.” The king’s instructions acknowledge an association of Reformed communities identified by their confessions, which themselves allowed for a fair share of diversity.3 Throughout the course of the Synod of Dort, the British delegates demonstrated their commitment to the king’s instructions. For instance, before the Synod had formally begun, George Carleton gave a speech in The Hague to the Prince of Orange and the States General that echoed these themes.4 In the early weeks of the Synod, Joseph Hall delivered a sermon encouraging a humble pursuit of righteousness and wisdom in which he explicitly encouraged the whole Synod to follow these instructions given by the wise King James.5 And for the conclusion of their Collegiat Suffrage, the formal written position on the five disputed points that they submitted to the Synod, the British delegation gave an exposition of the king’s instructions.6 From start to finish, 3.  King James I, “Instructions of King James I  to the Delegates,” in The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–​1619), ed. Anthony Milton (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2005), 93–​94. 4.  George Carleton, “Speech of Bishop Carleton to the State General, 27 October/​ 6 November 1618,” in Milton, The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort, 119–​122. 5.  Joseph Hall, “Sermon of Joseph Hall to the Synod, 19/​29 November 1618,” in Milton, The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort, 123–​133 (esp. 132). 6.  The Collegiat Suffrage of the Divines of Great Britaine, concerning the Five Articles Controverted in the Low Countries (London: Robert Milbourne, 1629), 171–​178. Also found in Milton, The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort, 226–​293. The Latin version was published as Suffragium Collegiale Theologorum Magnae Britanniae de Quinque Controverssis Remonstrantium Articulis (London: Robert Milbourne, 1626).

62

63

d i l e m m a s a t t h e sy n o d o f   d o r t

the British delegation announced to the Synod its commitment to their monarch’s counsel. The delegation’s commitment to the king’s instructions to be conciliatory within confessional bounds was not only something they verbally reiterated but also evidenced even within the way they treated theological issues. This can be seen in their various contributions to the development of the Canons of Dort. In order to compose the canons, the Synod called for all delegations to submit their opinions on the five controverted points of theology. These doctrinal deliverances were presented to the Synod, a committee was formed, and a set of draft canons was developed. The Synod then distributed the draft canons to the various delegations in order for them to express concerns and make suggested changes. In the end, a final copy of the canons was presented to the Synod, which was unanimously accepted.7 The remainder of this chapter looks specifically at how the British delegation addressed the topic of perseverance and how the tone set by their king’s instructions led them to pursue a stance of Reformed catholicity.

T h e B r i t i s h C o l l e g i at S u f f r a g e The overall structure of the Collegiat Suffrage follows the pattern established by the original five articles given by the Remonstrants in 1610 and repeated in their Sententia delivered to the Synod in December 1618. Thus, the Collegiat Suffrage walks through the topics of predestination, the death of Christ, free will, regenerating grace, and perseverance, treating the third and fourth articles together as was done in the Remonstrants’ Sententia. For each controverted article, the British delegates pursued a fairly methodical pattern of presenting a series of orthodox theses followed by several heterodox theses that they felt the

7.  For a more detailed narrative of the process of developing the Canons of Dort, see Donald Sinnema, “The Drafting of the Canons of Dordt: A Preliminary Survey of the Early Drafts and Related Documents,” in Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–​1619), ed. Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden:  Brill, 2011), 291–​311.

63

64

debating perseverance

Synod should reject. Appended to each thesis statement, they typically gave an explanation of their position from Scripture and some sort of confirmation from respected authorities from the Christian tradition. In looking for confirmation, they drew largely from the early church fathers, most often from Augustine. When one looks at the Collegiat Suffrage, it is evident that the British delegates gave substantially more space to their discussion of perseverance than they did to the other four articles. Not only did they contribute more theses and greater space to the fifth article, they also worked important connections to perseverance into their discussions of the first four articles. This is not to say that their contribution to the other articles is insignificant. Rather, it is to point out the curious fact that modern scholarship has focused more on the other points when the British delegation actually had the most to say about perseverance.8 Concerning Article 5, the British delegates point out two questions that usually arise regarding perseverance: (1) “whether they, who are not Elect, may ever come to the state of sanctification and justification, wherby they may be reckoned among the number of the Saints”; and (2)  “whether the Elect, who are justified and sanctified, doe at any time wholly fall off from this estate.”9 The first examines whether election and true conversion are coextensive, while the second addresses whether the gift of perseverance is not only final but also total.

Final Perseverance of Saints

In stating the first question, the British delegates aligned the state of salvation (i.e., justification and sanctification) with being a saint. By asking whether any reprobates temporarily partake of sainthood as they framed their discourse on perseverance, the British delegates effectively distinguished between two positions: the perseverance of the elect and

8.  One exception is Peter White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic:  Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 195–​199. 9.  Collegiat Suffrage, 104.

64

65

d i l e m m a s a t t h e sy n o d o f   d o r t

the larger claim of perseverance of the saints. Whereas the previous chapter showed how this distinction lay under the surface of debates encircling the Lambeth Articles, here one sees the British delegation plainly laying it on the table at Dort. In order to address the question properly, the Collegiat Suffrage contains four theses for investigating how far the nonelect can proceed toward salvation. The first thesis on perseverance concedes the point that some reprobates have spiritual work done in their souls: “There is a certain supernaturall enlightening granted to some of them, who are not elect, by the power whereof they understand those things to be true, which are revealed in the Word of God, and yield an unfaigned assent unto them.”10 For support, the delegation presented passages like Heb. 6:4 and Heb. 10:26 as examples of this supernatural work that can be lost. Mention of a supernatural grant suggests that some kind of grace is received by these reprobates. Furthermore, this grace produces an understanding of and assent to God’s Word, which they describe as “dogmaticall faith.”11 They pressed the point further to say, “Out of the said illumination and assent of faith, there doth arise in such as are not elect, some kind of mutation of their affections, as also amendment of their lives.”12 Thus, according to the British delegation, at least some reprobates participate in a sort of grace and faith that results in deep emotional and behavioral reformation. So where did the delegation stand on the nonelect becoming saints? The British delegation was careful not to call the faith of all reprobates hypocritical, as if the person was not sincere in their acceptance of the truth and in trying to reform their lives. They were quite adamant in ascribing a category of unfeigned faith among the nonelect:  “In these, as the enlightning and assent, yeelded to the truth revealed from above, was not fained, but true in its owne kind and degree; so likewise was the change of their affections and manners.”13 In fact, the

10.  Collegiat Suffrage, 104–​105. 11.  Collegiat Suffrage, 107. 12.  Collegiat Suffrage, 108. 13.  Collegiat Suffrage, 110.

65

66

debating perseverance

delegates contended that such nonelect people are often and rightly accounted among the children of God by means of “charitable construction”: “They, who of these inward gifts of the holy Ghost, have added the outward profession of a Christian faith, together with the amendment of their lives, ought of right to be reckoned by us (who cannot finde out or search into the inward secrets of mens hearts) in the number of the faithfull, of the justified, and sanctified.”14 Nevertheless, for all of the concessions made regarding the progress of grace in the life of a reprobate, the British colleagues stopped short of granting any reprobate the status of a true saint. As their fourth thesis on perseverance clearly states, “They, who are not elect (although they thus far proceed) yet they never attaine unto the state of adoption and justification: and therefore by the Apostasie of these men, the Apostasie of the Saints is very erroneously concluded.”15 In affirming unfeigned faith in some reprobates and yet denying their status as saints, the British delegation was not being duplicitous. At the same time that they were upholding the sincerity of some nonelect’s faith and a genuine fall from grace, they also carefully distinguished between different kinds of faith and different kinds of grace. The key to understanding their position on apostasy is to comprehend the different categories they give to faith and grace. Concerning distinctions in faith, it has already been shown how the delegates qualified the reprobate’s faith as dogmatic and limited to understanding and assent. In a transitional thesis describing the greater progress of the elect, the Collegiat Suffrage juxtaposes this sort of faith with one of a different kind: “Besides that dogmaticall faith and some kinde of amendment in affections and manners, there is in due time given to the Elect justifying faith, regenerating grace, and all other gifts, by which they are translated from the state of wrath unto the state of adoption and salvation.”16 Here, the merely dogmatic faith of the reprobate is contrasted with the justifying faith of the elect. Whereas the 14.  Collegiat Suffrage, 111. 15.  Collegiat Suffrage, 112. 16.  Collegiat Suffrage, 117–​118.

66

67

d i l e m m a s a t t h e sy n o d o f   d o r t

elect are endued with a “lively faith,” the nonelect “never attaine to that unfaigned lively faith which justifieth a sinner,” being “peculiar of the Elect, and is not afforded to the not elected.”17 Concerning distinctions in grace, as just seen, the delegates reserved regenerating grace to the elect, making it clear that the nonelect receive something short of that. One clue to understanding the kind of grace present in the nonelect is found in their use of the concept of “preparatives.” In explaining the very thesis that declared the apostasy of the nonelect as a bad reason to conclude the apostasy of the saints, they described reprobates as being influenced by “preparatives tending in some sort to justification, yet are they not thereupon placed in the state of justification or adoption.”18 Likewise, in dealing with the elect, they stated, “When God dealeth with his Elect, hee stayeth not in certain preparatives, and initiall operations, but always finisheth his worke.”19 The idea is that God does a work commonly among both the reprobate and the elect that prepares the soul for a work of regeneration yet is distinct from that regeneration. This is a reference to preparatory grace, which was heavily developed in post-​Reformation times and was discussed extensively by the British delegates earlier in the Collegiat Suffrage.20 In their discussion regarding Articles 3 and 4, the British delegates delivered a set of seven theses concerning “those things that goe before Conversion.”21 Having just given two theses on the radical sinfulness of men, these preconversion workings are described as “divers degrees of foregoing actions taming and preparing them.”22 This preconversion work of the Holy Spirit is also described as the “many actions of grace which must goe before, doe we come to the spirituall nativity.”23 17.  Collegiat Suffrage, 118, 115. 18.  Collegiat Suffrage, 112–​113. 19.  Collegiat Suffrage, 118. 20.  For an analysis of this concept among the Puritans, see Joel R. Beeke and Paul M. Smalley, Prepared by Grace, for Grace: The Puritans on God’s Ordinary Way of Leading Sinners to Christ (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2013). 21.  Collegiat Suffrage, 68–​79. 22.  Collegiat Suffrage, 69. 23.  Collegiat Suffrage, 70.

67

68

debating perseverance

Although they never brought these words together so conveniently as to explicitly term it “preparatory grace,” they continually referred to the concept as both preparative and a grace. Thus, it is quite fitting to refer to the British delegation’s doctrine of preparatory grace. The Collegiat Suffrage describes preparatory grace with this thesis:  “There are certaine inward effects going before conversion, or regeneration, which by the power of the word and Spirit are stirred up in the hearts of men not yet justified; As are, a knowledge of Gods will, a sense of sinne, a feare of punishment, a bethinking of freedome, and some hope of pardon.”24 And just as the delegates referred to Heb. 6:4 as evidence that reprobates can receive a supernatural work that can be lost when they discussed perseverance, they used it here as well to show how preparatory grace can be rejected and extinguished.25 The connection is clear. The British delegates put preparatory grace in a category distinct from regenerating grace. While “spiritual birth presupposes a mind moved by the spirit,” it is specified that “by regeneration we understand not every act of the holy Spirit, which goes before or tends to regeneration.”26 On the one hand, preparatory grace is “enlightening & exciting grace” that is resistible; on the other hand, regenerating grace is given to “soften and mollifie,” being a “special grace, which no hard heart doth resist.”27 Whereas preparatory grace enlightens the mind, regenerating grace “doth convey it selfe in the most inward closset of the heart, and frame the mind anew.”28 Preparatory grace may stir the affections, but regenerating grace works by “curing the sinfull inclinations therof.”29 Preparatory grace may generate a dogmatic faith that leads to a Christian confession and behavioral reform, but regenerating grace touches the soul in a saving way, “infusing into it a formall original cause or active power” from which “commeth our ability

24.  Collegiat Suffrage, 69. 25.  Collegiat Suffrage, 75. 26.  Collegiat Suffrage, 80. 27.  Collegiat Suffrage, 79. 28.  Collegiat Suffrage, 80. 29.  Collegiat Suffrage, 80.

68

69

d i l e m m a s a t t h e sy n o d o f   d o r t

of performing spiritual actions leading to salvation,” namely “the act of believing, . . . of loving, . . . [and] all works of piety.”30 Not only does the Collegiat Suffrage develop a distinction between preparatory grace and regenerating grace in Articles 3 and 4, it gives further descriptions of such a nonredemptive grace in its treatment of Article 1. The third thesis related to election states, “Faith, Perseverance, and all the gifts of grace leading home unto salvation, are the fruits and effects of Election.”31 In explaining this thesis, the delegates were distinguishing between “gifts of grace which are to be reduced to the common supernaturall providence of God” and those “which have an infallible connexion with glory,” which are specifically related to “justifying faith and persevering.”32 Added to that, “Filliall adoption is the proper, natural, and unseparable fruit of Election.”33 So where this common grace may be a fruit of providence, it is not the effectual grace born of election, which includes justifying faith, perseverance, and adoption. When they came to treating reprobation, the British delegates stated, “To some of those, to whom the Gospel hath shined, although they bee indued with many gifts of grace, yet of their owne accord, and withal infallibly, they, by Gods permission, fall into those sinnes in which being forsaken and so remaining till death, they make themselves liable to just damnation.”34 This is similar language as discussed in the article on perseverance, and it is clear that the reprobate’s grace is not the redemptive grace grounded in election. Again, they wrote, “We doe not deny but these though being not elected, yet receive many effects of grace, such as reckoned up, Heb. 6.4.”35 These reprobates may fall from grace, but it is a grace that is “not founded upon Christ according to the decree of election.”36 This last remark ties the fruit of election with 30.  Collegiat Suffrage, 80–​81. 31.  Collegiat Suffrage, 7. 32.  Collegiat Suffrage, 7–​8. 33.  Collegiat Suffrage, 22. 34.  Collegiat Suffrage, 36–​37. 35.  Collegiat Suffrage, 37. 36.  Collegiat Suffrage, 37.

69

70

debating perseverance

the death of Christ, which they brought up again in discussing Article 2: “For that grace, which is given unto the Elect for the death of Christ, is the grace of effectuall redemption.”37 Regenerating grace is the fruit of election, founded in the death of Christ, and necessarily leads to justifying faith, adoption, perseverance, and eternal glory. Common, preparatory grace may be true grace, but it is clearly not redemptive. The upshot of all of this is that the British delegation’s distinction between preparatory grace and regenerating grace allowed them to conclude that though the nonelect can be supernaturally affected by grace, they do not properly belong to the category of saints. It was a carefully argued position that allowed the delegation to accept biblical passages of apostasy and affirm that people really do fall from grace. Yet it also allowed them to give a charitable reading to people making a credible profession, explaining how some reprobates could be spoken of as among the justified saints while they might not have actually been justified. Furthermore, it allowed them to formally embrace the doctrine of the perseverance of all saints. Not only had the British delegation developed a highly nuanced understanding of the perseverance of the saints, they were also convinced that Augustine was on their side. In order to present their position as Augustinian, they marshaled a number of quotes where Augustine seems to exclude reprobates from participating in true adoption and justification but perhaps obliquely allows for a preparatory yet nonredemptive grace. For instance, when confirming the thesis that the sort of grace reprobates receive never really gets them to sainthood, the Collegiat Suffrage reads, “To this purpose, is that of Saint Augustine, who speaking of the reprobate, saith, ‘God bringeth none of them to that wholesome and spirituall repentance, by which a man is reconciled to God in Christ.’ ”38 One important way of arguing that reprobates cannot be saints was to show that justifying faith and the other graces of salvation were fruits that could only flow from election. Following this line of argument, the 37.  Collegiat Suffrage, 45. 38.  Collegiat Suffrage, 114. Citing “Contra Julian. lib. 5 cap. 3.” [actually, cap. 4.]

70

71

d i l e m m a s a t t h e sy n o d o f   d o r t

Collegiat Suffrage states, “Furthermore, that onley the Elect are justified, it is plain by that golden chaine of the Apostle, Rom. 8.30. ‘Whom he did predestinate, them he also called, and whome he called them he also justified.’ Those only, and no other, as out of S. Augustine we have shewne at the first Article.”39 As to their mention of proving it from the first article, the delegates referred to their third thesis on election from their treatment of Article 1, where they advanced the idea that saving faith and perseverance are fruits of election by distinguishing between a common grace flowing from providence and a redemptive grace infallibly connected to glory. There, they gave several citations of Augustine in support of thinking saving grace is the “very effect of predestination.”40 Among the arguments there, they referred to ­chapter 17 of Augustine’s On the Predestination of the Saints, wherein Augustine has a discussion on Rom. 8:30 and starkly contrasts calling, justification, and glorification as given to the elect and “no others.” The delegates pressed the point that the grace of justification was only given to the elect, calling again on their beloved patriarch: “Againe the same Saint Augustine, ‘God doth not forgive the sinnes of all men, but of those whome he foreknew and predestinated.’ ”41 They did the same with the doctrine of adoption: “Hence is that of Saint Augustine. ‘They were not in the number of sonnes, no not when they were in the faith of sonnes.’ Againe, ‘As they were not the true Disciples of Christ, so neither were they the true Sonnes of God, yea even when they seemed to be and were so called.’ ”42 The Collegiat Suffrage displays a confident case for Augustine standing on the side of the perseverance of all saints. In treating Augustine and the doctrine of perseverance, the British delegates did not shy away from those passages in Augustine that were often read as true believers falling from saving grace. Rather, they

39.  Collegiat Suffrage, 115. Citing “De praedest. Sanct. cap. 17.” 40.  Collegiat Suffrage, 8–​9. Citing “Aug. de praedest. Sanct. c.  10,” as well as “cap. 16,” and two from “cap. 17.” 41.  Collegiat Suffrage, 115. Citing “Cont. advers. Leg & prophet. Lib. 2 cap. 11.” 42.  Collegiat Suffrage, 116. Citing “De corr. & grat. cap. 9.”

71

72

debating perseverance

presented those passages within the development of their understanding of a common or preparatory grace. In this manner, they quoted Augustine as saying, “Some receive the grace of God, but for a time, they persevere not, they forsake God, and are forsaken of him: for they are left to their owne freewill” as a confirmation of their reading of Heb. 6:4 as an account of falling from a nonredemptive grace.43 Building on this, they enlisted Augustine for support of their understanding of nonjustifying faith that is nevertheless unfeigned. When arguing that some reprobates may gain a dogmatic faith that sincerely stirs their affections and makes some changes in behavior to where their life is more rightly ordered, the British delegation quoted Augustine as saying, “They were not sonnes then when they were in the profession, and had the name of sonnes, not because they fained their righteousnesse, but because they remained not in that righteousnesse.”44 They even appealed to Augustine with their construction of giving people a charitable read. When they argued that reprobates can and should be judged among the saints if they have a credible profession, they remarked, “Adde we to these the note of Saint Augustine speaking of those, who were not elect. ‘These, because they live godly, are called the sons of God.’ And afterwards againe; ‘There are some who are called of us the sons of God, because of the grace received by them for a time, but yet they are not the sons of God.’ ”45 So rather than ignore those places in Augustine that were often taken as a denial of the perseverance of the saints, they incorporated them into the Collegiat Suffrage in such a way that supported a well-​nuanced presentation of the perseverance of the saints.

Total Perseverance of Saints

In addressing the question of whether the elect’s perseverance in faith is total as well as final, the British delegates responded with a finely 43.  Collegiat Suffrage, 37–​38. Citing “Aug. de correp. et grat. cap. 13.” 44.  Collegiat Suffrage, 110–​111. Citing “Aug de corr. et grat. cap 9.” 45.  Collegiat Suffrage, 112. Citing “De Corr. et grat. cap 9.”

72

73

d i l e m m a s a t t h e sy n o d o f   d o r t

nuanced answer of “yes.” They clearly stated that in spite of remaining sin and daily infractions, “neither from thence is the state of justification shaken, nor the benefit of their claime to the inheritance of the Kingdome of heaven thereby interrupted.”46 Yet as clearly as they affirmed the abiding stability of one’s state of sainthood, they were quick to acknowledge that sin can have some serious consequences in the life of the elect. Reflecting concerns raised in the controversy surrounding the Lambeth Articles and even the Hampton Court Conference, the British delegates balanced their position of perseverance with concerns over the necessity of repentance and faith in the maintenance of Christian life. Total perseverance does not mean that saints cannot fall into heinous sins.47 In fact, the British delegates suggested that saints can fall into such sin that “they incurre the fatherly anger of God, they draw upon themselves a damnable guiltiness, and lose their present fitness to the kingdom of heaven.”48 These three consequences correlate with some of the primary theological aspects of what the delegates described as the state of being a saint. Fatherly anger relates to adoption as sons, damnable guiltiness relates to justification, and present fitness for heaven relates to one’s holiness and progressive sanctification on the way to eternal glorification. Therefore, holding to total perseverance with these consequences of sin required a certain number of distinctions on behalf of the British delegates, which they were well equipped to make. Concerning the first-​mentioned consequence of heinous sin, it is important to note that the anger saints incur from God is nonetheless fatherly. That is, God’s fatherly displeasure does not displace His fatherly love. Rather, God’s special love toward the elect is characteristic of His being a Father, which puts some restraints on how God relates

46.  Collegiat Suffrage, 119. 47.  While they typically avoided the categories of mortal and venial sins, Reformed discussions of heinous sins and how they relate to one’s perseverance took up the very issues involved in those medieval distinctions. 48.  Collegiat Suffrage, 121.

73

74

debating perseverance

to His children. The Collegiat Suffrage distinguishes between “fatherly indignation” and a “hostile hatred, such as carieth with it a purpose of condemnation.”49 Such a distinction showed how one could maintain the status of adopted sons without negating God’s anger against sin. Maintaining justification in the face of fresh measures of damnable guilt needed its own set of distinctions. Speaking of the wayward saint, the British delegates declared that “they are bound in the chaine of a capitall crime, by the desert whereof, according to Gods ordinance, they are subject to death, although they are not as yet given over to death, nor about to be given.”50 Distinguishing between what one is subject to by desert and what God gives according to mercy explains the difference between the elect and the reprobate, but it does not remove the more difficult dilemma of a justified person’s need of daily forgiveness. Therefore, the British delegates made another distinction between being “acquitted” on the basis of Christ’s merit and God’s sovereign purposes and being “actually absolved.”51 They associated acquittal with the universal declaration of justification over a person and the general pardon they receive from that. However, they associated actual absolution with forgiveness of guilt from particular sins that continue to occur over the course of one’s life. This led the delegates to make a further distinction between “the effects of justification,” which are suspended during the time a person needs forgiveness of a particular sin, and the indissolvable “state of justification” that has been declared over a person.52 While saints persevere in their justification, they must continue to pray for forgiveness of sins. Concerning the third consequence of heinous sin, the Collegiat Suffrage contrasts the saint’s loss of fitness for heaven with their abiding “right to the Kingdome of Heaven.”53 Fitness deals with the “present condition” of the saint, which can be gained and lost in accordance with

49.  Collegiat Suffrage, 127–​128. 50.  Collegiat Suffrage, 122. 51.  Collegiat Suffrage, 127. 52.  Collegiat Suffrage, 131. 53.  Collegiat Suffrage, 129.

74

75

d i l e m m a s a t t h e sy n o d o f   d o r t

the holiness of one’s life.54 But “the right to the Kingdome of Heaven is not founded on our actions, but on the free gift of adoption, and on our union with Christ. And consequently the right to the Kingdome of Heaven, is not taken away, unlesse that be first taken away, upon which it is founded.”55 To illustrate this, the British delegates related the unfit saint to a Jewish leper in the Old Testament: “For as he, which fell into a leprosie, was debarred from his own house until hee was clensed, and yet in the meane space lost not his right to his owne house: So the adopted sonne of God taken with the Leprosie of adultery or murder, or any other grievous sinne, cannot indeed enter into the Kingdome of Heaven, unlesse he first be purged from this contagion, by renewed faith and repentance; yet all this while his hereditary right is not quite lost.”56 So by distinguishing between fitness and rights, the British delegates maintained a conviction of the necessity of holiness for heaven without denying one’s status as a saint. The point of dealing with these three major consequences of sin in the Collegiat Suffrage was to highlight the necessity of a “renewed performance of faith and repentance.”57 Steering a course between the dangerous errors of presumption and semi-​ Pelagianism, the British delegates argued that God predestines both the end and the means of salvation. “Therefore, if anyone walke in a way contrarie to Gods ordinance, namely, that broad way of uncleannesse and impenitencie, (which leads directly downe to hell) he can never come by this meanes to the kingdome of heaven.”58 They even expressed their discomfort with anyone who would overstate the case of perseverance, stating, “They are deceived therefore that thinke the elect wallowing in such crimes, and so dying, must notwithstanding needs be saved throgh the force of election. For the salvation of the Elect is sure indeed, God so decreeing: but withall (by the decree of the same our God) not otherwise

54.  Collegiat Suffrage, 122. 55.  Collegiat Suffrage, 129. 56.  Collegiat Suffrage, 130. 57.  Collegiat Suffrage, 123. 58.  Collegiat Suffrage, 124.

75

76

debating perseverance

sure, then through the way of faith, repentance, and holinesse.”59 They were sure that it is impossible for the elect to perish. Yet they were also convinced that it is impossible for someone dying in impenitence to see heaven—​a rule that applies irrespective of election. Thus, the British delegates found comfort in the fact that “Gods providence and mercy doth easily loose this knot, by taking care that none of the elect dye in such estate, by which, according to some ordinance of Gods will, he must be excluded from eternall life.”60 These deliberations on the totality of perseverance did not arise in a vacuum. It is worth noting that this issue was specifically discussed at the Hampton Court Conference of 1604 with remarkable similarity. John Rainolds, the chief representative of the Puritans there, made several motions before the newly crowned King James I to propose ways that religion in the country could be reformed. His first motion was that “the Book of Articles of Religion concluded on in 1562. may be explained where obscure, enlarged where defective.”61 Rainolds then proceeded to give this example of where the confession needed to be amended: “Whereas it is said, Article 16. ‘After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace.’ Those words may be explained with this or the like addition, ‘Yet neither totally, nor finally.’ To which end it would do very well if the nine orthodoxall Assertions, concluded on at Lambeth, might be inserted into the Book of Articles.”62 Over the course of discussion, the idea of adding the Lambeth Articles to the Thirty-​Nine Articles was easily dismissed by the king as cumbersome and unnecessary. However, the substance of Rainolds’s concern with Article 16 of the Church of England’s confession stirred an important discussion. Bishop Richard Bancroft raised a concern about Rainolds’s motion against the unqualified language of falling from grace, appealing to

59.  Collegiat Suffrage, 124–​125. 60.  Collegiat Suffrage, 126. 61.  Thomas Fuller, The Church-​History of Britain; from the Birth of Jesus Christ, until the Year M. DC. XLVII (London, 1655), bk. 10, p. 10. 62.  Fuller, The Church-​History of Britain, bk. 10, pp. 10–​11.

76

77

d i l e m m a s a t t h e sy n o d o f   d o r t

the king to “consider how many in these dayes neglect holinesse of Life, presuming on persisting in Grace upon Predestination.”63 King James, having correctly assessed the concerns of both Rainolds and Bancroft, expressed a desire to handle the matter with care, saying, “I wish that the Doctrine of Predestination may be tenderly handled, lest on the one side Gods Omnipotency be questioned by impeaching the Doctrine of his eternall Predestination, or on the other side a desperate presumption arreared, by inferring the necessary certainty of persisting in grace.”64 John Overall shed more light on the matter by discussing his own experience debating the topic. He appealed to the king, saying: May it please your Majesty, I am neerely concerned in this matter, by reason of a Controversie betwixt me and some others in Cambridge, upon a Proposition, which I there delivered, namely, that whosoever (though before justified) did commit any grievous sinne, as Adultery, Murder, &c. do become ipso facto, subject to God’s wrath, and guilty of Damnation, quoad praesentum statum, untill they repent. Yet, so that those who are justified according to the purpose of Gods Election (though they might fall into grievous sin, and thereby into a present Estate of Damnation) yet never totally nor finally from Justification; but were in time renewed by God’s Spirit unto a lively Faith and Repentance. Against this Doctrine some did oppose, teaching that persons once truly justified, though falling into grievous sinnes, remained still in the state of justification, before they actually repented of these sinnes; yea, and though they never repented of them through forgetfulnesse or sudden death, they nevertheless were justified and saved.65

Responding to Overall’s opponents, King James announced, “I dislike this Doctrine.”66 Taking sympathy with Overall’s stance, the king saw “a necessity of conjoyining repentance and holinesse of Life with

63.  Fuller, The Church-​History of Britain, bk. 10, p. 11. 64.  Fuller, The Church-​History of Britain, bk. 10, p. 11. 65.  Fuller, The Church-​History of Britain, bk. 10, p. 13. 66.  Fuller, The Church-​History of Britain, bk. 10, p. 13.

77

78

debating perseverance

true Faith,” and that to sever them “is Hypocisie, and not justifying Faith.”67 Drawing the discussion on perseverance to a close, the king declared:  “For although Predestination and Election depend not on any qualities, actions, or works of Man which are mutable, but on Gods eternall Decree. Yet such is the necessity of Repentance after known sines committed, that without it no reconciliation with God, or Remission of Sins.”68 Reflecting on the way the discussion on perseverance ran at the Hampton Court Conference provides some insight into the way the British delegates handled total perseverance in their Collegiat Suffrage. It is difficult to say whether the British delegates crafted their suffrage on perseverance with Hampton Court explicitly on their mind. Yet, at the very least, their treatment of total perseverance in their suffrage demonstrates a sensitivity to concerns voiced by English divines during the previous decades. The Hampton Court Conference clearly showed a concern among theologians and even the king over the delicate balance between total perseverance and an ongoing need to repent and to be forgiven. It is also evident that these same concerns were carefully treated by British delegates to Dort, even using some of the same language and examples seen at Hampton Court. As King James’s representatives at the Synod of Dort, the British delegates were able to address the errors of the Remonstrants in a way that appealed to the prevailing Reformed notion of total perseverance while presenting a conciliatory position on the concerns held by some of their countrymen. The British delegation did not merely show sensitivity to concerns back home. While pressing for a consensus on total perseverance, they also sought to demonstrate a continuity between this Reformed position and the early church. Among the witnesses of church history that they presented, they were sure to include this quote from Augustine: “Wee 67.  Fuller, The Church-​History of Britain, bk. 10, p. 13. 68.  Fuller, The Church-​History of Britain, bk. 10, pp.  13–​14. Amaru overlooks the concern about the necessity of repentance for perseverance and considers King James’s statement as contradictory and nonsensical. See Betsy Halpern Amaru, “Arminianism in England 1595–​1629” (PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, 1969), 140–​141.

78

79

d i l e m m a s a t t h e sy n o d o f   d o r t

affirme that perseverance is the gift of God, by which wee abide in Christ constantly unto the end.”69

Draft Canons, British Response, and Final Canons The written suffrage was not the only input the British delegation had on the development of the Canons of Dort. After a committee reviewed the suffrages from several delegations, a set of draft canons were prepared and distributed to the delegations for their approval. The delegations were able to voice concerns about the draft and propose suggested changes and corrections. A look at the British delegation’s responses to the draft canons reveal that they continued to push for their nuanced view of total and final perseverance in a manner reflective of their mission of conciliatory confessionalism and high regard for Augustine.70 For the purpose of this investigation, it is not important to review in detail every single response the British delegation made to the to the draft canons of the Fifth Head. Passing by responses addressing the doctrine of assurance and other matters that are beside the point, attention will be given here to aspects of their response that reinforce the approach they took in addressing the two questions they raised at the start of their treatment of perseverance in their Collegiat Suffrage—​that is, whether the nonelect ever become saints and whether the perseverance of the elect is always total. From the very title of the Fifth Head, the British delegation began to suggest changes. The title given in the draft canons was “Of the Perseverance of the Faithful.”71 The British delegates suggested an addition of “called according to purpose and justified,” mentioning their

69.  Collegiat Suffrage, 138. Citing “De persev. c. 10.” 70.  “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae de Canonibus Formandis Aliisque in Synodo Dordacena Proposita,” Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, Samuel Ward MS L2, fol. 53r–​58r. 71.  “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae,” 53r. “De Perseverantia Fidelium.”

79

80

debating perseverance

reason would become evident in responses that would follow.72 The next suggested change concerned Article 4, which spoke of God “who confirms and conserves believers in grace.”73 The British delegates thought it would be better to speak more specifically of “these believers who are called and justified according to His purpose.”74 Although the qualifier “according to purpose” was already established in Article 1,75 they felt it important to continue the qualification along the way. Also in Article 4, the British delegation thought it best to specify the word “converted” as “justified.”76 A similar appeal was made in relation to the draft canons’ Rejection of Errors 4, which referred to those who taught that true believers could commit the sin leading to death. The British delegates thought it best to substitute “true believers” with “true believers who have been called according to purpose.”77 These suggested changes reflect the ongoing care and precision they showed in their Collegiat Suffrage, namely, the need to distinguish between how far the elect and reprobate may progress toward salvation. As discussed earlier, the Collegiat Suffrage attributed kinds of faith and grace to the reprobate. Although they were different from the special kinds of faith and grace given to the elect, they could still be referred to as having faith and grace in a general sense. These suggested changes to the draft canons clarified the recipients of the gift of perseverance as those who are saints, while allowing them to maintain a category for unfeigned

72.  “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae,” 57r. “Addendum putamus [vocatorum secundum propositum et justificatorum] huius rei rationem infra reddemus.” 73.  “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae,” 53r. “Credentes in gratia confirmantis et conservantis.” 74.  “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae,” 57r. “Hosce credentes secundum propositum suum vocatos et justificatos.” 75.  Contra White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, 197, who claims that “they persuaded the provincials to add the words ‘according to purpose’ to canon V, §1.” 76.  “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae,” 57r. “Conversi] Hi justificati.” 77.  “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae,” 57v. “Qui docent vere fideles ac regenitos] substituendum [qui docent vere credentes, secundum propositum, vocatos, et regeneratos post mortum posse peccare etc] nobis enim videtur satis, si obtineamur electos nunquam posse deficere, ac posse insuper habere huius futuram perseverantiae in speciali favore Dei erga illos fundatae, specialem persuasionem.”

80

81

d i l e m m a s a t t h e sy n o d o f   d o r t

dogmatic faith. It seems to have been their way of expressing sensitivity to other perspectives within a carefully nuanced understanding of the perseverance of all saints.78 While the Synod did not grant the exact wording of the British delegation’s suggestions, it partially awarded the substance of their request. For instance, the title for the Fifth Head was renamed “Of the Perseverance of the Saints.” And while the Synod did not add “called according to purpose” to either Article 4 or Rejection of Errors 4, they did qualify Article 4 as speaking of “true believers.” It seems that the Synod’s decision to maintain “true believers” in Rejection of Errors 4, and to add it as a qualifier in Article 4, was a way of addressing the concern of the British delegation with the assumption that this language was sufficient for referring to those with saving faith. British responses to the draft canons also demonstrated their ongoing concern to address total perseverance in a manner sensitive to those Reformed believers who struggled with it. One place this comes out clearly is in relation to Article 5. In describing the effects of sin in the lives of believers, the draft canon spoke of sins that leave God “enormously offended.”79 The British delegation requested a shift in language to specify “enormous sins” as leaving God “seriously offended.”80 On one level, the request seems like a minor rhetorical alteration. However, the effect of this small change would qualify the discussion of the effects of sin in Article 5 by linking it specifically to the heinous sins 78.  White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, 197, says these requested changes were meant to “suggest that perhaps there are some who are called, and (in respect of iv) some who believe, perhaps even some who are justified not according to purpose.” However, this is to claim that the British delegates were advocating that some reprobates reach the status of saints, a position they consistently judge to be wrong. It is odd for White to imply that they were pushing for the more modest position of perseverance of the elect, considering how they effectively asked for tighter language reflective of the position of perseverance of the saints. 79.  “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae,” 53r. “Talibus autem peccatis Deus enormiter offenditur.” 80.  “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae,” 57r. “Enormiter offenditur] nihil enorme Deo tribuendum:  aptius dicatur [Talibus enormibus peccatis Deus gravissime offenditur.]”

81

82

debating perseverance

mentioned in Article 4, which it declared the converted are able to fall into. Qualifying Article 5 as addressing heinous sins also paved the way to suggest other changes that reflected the delegation’s concerns about total perseverance. Following the same rationale expressed in the Collegiat Suffrage, they desired to add to the effects of heinous sins the contraction of damnable guilt and a lack of fitness for the kingdom of heaven until absolved by returning in faith and repentance.81 The Synod granted no change to deny fitness for heaven, but it did qualify the article as addressing enormous sins and added that offending believers “incur deadly guilt” until they return in repentance.82 Another area where the British delegation pressed for changes related to total perseverance was in Article 6.  The draft canon said that sin cannot cause God’s people to lose their adoption or justification. The British delegation asked that it be specified that the “state of justification” is what cannot be lost, in spite of one being bound by the guilt of particular sins.83 This qualification reflects their concern expressed in the Collegiat Suffrage to balance the need of ongoing forgiveness of sin with total perseverance by distinguishing between the state and effect of justification. The Synod granted this request by simply qualifying the reference to justification as addressing its state.

81.  “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae,” 57r. “Sensus gratiae intercipitur, atque ad tempus amittur]. Opportunum erit hisce adjungere [Damnabilis reatus contrahitur, neque ad regno coelorum ingrediendum apti judicantur, donec per excitatum fidei et poenitentiam actum in viam redeant, et ab hoc reatu absoluantur] videtur nobis necessarium huius rei mentionem facere, ne quis soment talibus peccatis indulgentes, non constringi interim damnabili reatus quod a Scripturis, et ipso sensu pioriom abhoriet.” 82.  Canons of Dort, 5.5. “Talibus autem enormibus peccatis Deum valde offendunt, reatum mortis incurrunt, Spiritum S.  contristant, fidei exercitium interrumpunt, conscientiam gravissime vulnerant, sensum gratiæ nonnunquam ad tempus amittunt: donec per seriam resipiscentiam in vitam revertentibus paternus Dei vultus rursum affulgeat.” 83.  “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae,” 57r. “Nec eousque eos prolabi sinit, ut gratia adoptionis ac justificationis excidant] Maioris perspicuitatis causa addatur [Ac justificationis statu prorsus excidant, quamvis particularis peccati etiam valde atrocis, particulari reatu constringantur].”

82

83

d i l e m m a s a t t h e sy n o d o f   d o r t

Some of the British delegation’s most remarkable responses to the draft canons are the ones meant to temper the rejections of errors on perseverance. For instance, in response to Rejection of Errors 3, they actually raised concerns about condemning the position that some regenerate and true believers can and do fall away:  “We judge this opinion as foreign to Holy Scripture, but whether it is expedient to condemn it in these canonical sanctions requires great deliberation.”84 Whereas they were willing to positively affirm the perseverance of all saints in the document, they were hesitant to place falling from redeeming grace in a list of errors to reject. This hesitance to list the apostasy of some saints among errors to be rejected may seem odd on the surface. After all, not only do they clearly state their disagreement with the position but also their affirmation of the perseverance of the saints elsewhere in the canons seems to categorically exclude apostasy of the saints from being a valid theological option. Nevertheless, there is no reason to think of this as a contradiction on their part. Rather, it is better to see this as part of their conciliatory strategy that was articulated in King James’s original instructions to the delegation. They employed the same approach earlier in the Synod when they issued their Collegiat Suffrage. There too, they boldly advocated the doctrine of total and final perseverance of all saints. Yet when they listed their heterodox theses to be rejected in the Collegiat Suffrage, no reference to apostasy of saints was given. The truth of the matter is that this was not a point clearly and unanimously defined across the various Reformed confessions, and certainly not so in England’s Thirty-​Nine Articles. While the delegates may have been able to argue that their rendering of the perseverance of all saints was compatible with their own church’s confession, they could not honestly say that the Thirty-​ Nine Articles excluded the option of apostasy among saints.

84.  “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae,” 57v. “Qui docent vere credentes et regenitos non tantum posse a fide justificante etc.] nos hanc opinione a sacris scripturis alienam judicamus, verum an expediat in hisce canonicis sanctionibus illud damnare, eget magna deliberatione.”

83

84

debating perseverance

In order to argue for this strategy, the British delegates offered four reasons for withholding condemnation on this doctrine of apostasy. The first reason they gave was “That Augustine, Prosper, and the other fathers who contend for absolute predestination and contend against the Pelagians seem to have conceded that certain of the non-​predestined can arrive at a state of regeneration and justification; indeed, this argument itself very much illustrated that hidden mystery of predestination. That cannot be unknown to those who are moderately versed in their writings.”85 This cautionary appeal is curious in that it invoked a different reading of Augustine than they themselves used in their Collegiat Suffrage. As was already demonstrated, the British delegation’s suffrage on the point of perseverance presents several quotes from Augustine in order to confirm their position on the certain perseverance of everyone with a true justifying faith. How does one explain this? It is not necessary to understand the delegates’ appeal to Augustine as a change of mind on their part or as an admission that Augustine really would have disagreed with Dort.86 Given the delegation’s conciliatory approach, it seems more likely that they were acknowledging a different reading of Augustine that had gained prominence, and it would cause more trouble than good to lop off a position that was taken by many to be affirmed by the early church. Yet however one reconciles these apparently contradictory appeals to Augustine, the fact remains that the British delegation asked for a formal change in the Canons of Dort based on readings and receptions of Augustine. The 85.  “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae,” 57v. “Quod Augustinus, Prosper, reliquique Patres, qui absolutam predestinatione propugnabant, et Pelagianos oppugnabant, videntur concessisse quosdam non-​predestinatos, ad statum regenerationis et justificationis posse pervenire: Imo hoc ipso argumento, vel maxime illustrabant arcanum illud praedestinationis mysterium; quod ignotum esse non potest illis, qui in illorum scriptis mediocriter versati sunt.” 86.  Years later, in correspondence with James Ussher, Ward still believed that Dort was consistent with Augustine on perseverance: “According to St. Augustine, the non-​elect never are by the bond mystically united to Christ as their head, nor ever attain unto true repentance, &c.” Ward to Ussher, May 25, 1630, “Letter CLXX,” in The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, D. D. (Dublin: Hodges and Smith, 1847–​1864), 15:501.

84

85

d i l e m m a s a t t h e sy n o d o f   d o r t

significance of this is that readings and receptions of Augustine posed a problem for the catholicity of the Reformed churches in the development of what became a nonnegotiable Reformed distinctive at Dort. The second reason the British delegation gave for not wanting to condemn this view of apostasy was “because we must not exasperate the Lutherans without serious cause, who it is clear think otherwise about this dogma.”87 Mention of the Lutheran opposition on the point demonstrated the fact that they were quite aware of the distinctive nature of the doctrine of perseverance among the Reformed.88 Yet this argument also manifested the political expedience of maintaining as much of a unified front among Protestants as possible in the face of an ever-​ threatening Roman Catholicism of the seventeenth century. In fact, this was not the only time that the British delegation argued for sensitivity toward the Lutherans during the proceedings of the Synod. One prime example came in relation to the debate over the extent of redemption in Article 2, wherein the king had instructed them to use ancient language over modern, make it compatible with the Thirty-​Nine Articles and other Reformed confessions, and cause the least amount of offense to the Lutherans as possible.89 A similar sentiment arose in session 138 87.   “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae,” 57v. “Quia non debemus sine gravi causa Lutheranoram ecclesias exasperare, quas de hoc dogmate aliter sentire manifestum est.” 88.  The 1592 Saxon Visitation Articles express a number of Lutheran concerns about the Reformed tradition, one of which targeted perseverance. 89.  See “The British Divines at Dort, March 11. 1618. To the Arch-​Bishop of Canterbury,” in Golden Remains, of the Ever Memorable, Mr. John Hales, of Eaton-​Colledge (London: for Robert Pawlet, 1673), ii, 184–​185 [note: pagination restarts in this book after 291, with the beginning of the letters, which is noted by the Roman numeral ii]. Writing to Archbishop George Abbot, the delegation said: “Our tenderness herein hitherto used is the more awaked by late intimation given us by my Lord Embassadour of His Majesties strict charge; ‘That before the Synodical resolution concerning Christ’s death, and the application of it to us, we stand upon it, to have those conclusions couched, in manner, and terms, as near as possibly may be, to those which were used in the Primitive Church by the Fathers of that time against the Pelagians, and Semi-​pelagians, and not in any new phrase of the Modern age: and that the same may be as agreeable to the Confessions of the Church of England, and other Reformed Churches, and with as little distast and umbrage to the Lutheran Churches as may be.’ ” This same caution, without

85

86

debating perseverance

of the Synod when the British delegation requested the conclusion of the Canons of Dort to speak of “our Reformed churches” so as not to offend the Lutherans, who after all started the Reformation.90 There seems to be some connection here between the king’s initial instructions to respect the confessions of the neighboring Reformed churches and the sensitivity they wanted to show to the Lutherans. Granted, even the Lutherans saw themselves as distinct from, and sometimes hostile to, the Reformed. However, considering the Bohemian Revolt in 1618 and the onset of what would become known as the Thirty-​Years War, King James’s strategy of appeasing the Lutherans is more understandable. The third reason the delegates gave against flatly condemning the apostasy of saints was an explicit appeal to gaining a Reformed consensus: “Because (which is of more importance) even in the Reformed churches, several most learned and holy men have been observed who defend absolute predestination together with us; however, they think certain truly regenerated and justified individuals can fall away from this state and perish, and that this ultimately happens to all whom God by no means ordained in the decree of election to infallibly obtain everlasting life.”91 As was made evident in the previous chapter, there explicitly stating the Lutherans, was relayed to the Synod in the conclusion of the Collegiat Sugffrage, 177. 90.  Balcanqual’s notes record it as session 137 in Hales, Golden Remains, ii, 155–​156. “Theologi Britanni monebant in hac censura dici Synodicos Articulos conclusos esse secundum sententiam omnium Reformatarum Ecclesiarum, quo dicto innuebatur Ecclesias Lutheranas, quae aliter sentirent, non habendas esse pro Reformatis, quod ipsis durum admodum videbatur; D. Scultetus, & Polyander reponebant, ipso Lutheranos nomen hoc deprecari, & nostris Ecclesiis ex hoc nomine (Reformatarum) solere invidiam conflare, & Praeses addebat hic in Belgio solere nostra Ecclesias per illud nomen (Reformatas) non solum a Pontificiis verum etiam a Lutheranis distingui; Britanni respondebant in suis Ecclesiis Lutheranos haberi pro Reformatis, ut pote a quibus Religionis Reformatio primum tentata est, habereque se porro in mandatis a serenissimo D.  Rege ut quantum fieri possent despicerent ne offenderentur Ecclesiae Lutheranae, ita que addita est ist haec vox Nostrarum.” 91.  “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae,” 57v. “(quod maioris momenti est) quia in ipsis ecclesiis Reformatis, nonnulli doctissimi et sanctissimi visi, qui una nobiscum absolutam praedestinationem defendunt, tamen sentiunt quosdam vere

86

87

d i l e m m a s a t t h e sy n o d o f   d o r t

were respectable men within the Reformed churches who advocated a Reformed and Augustinian version of the apostasy of some saints. Throughout their Collegiat Suffrage, the British delegates expressed sensitivity to this strand within the tradition, and here they voiced explicit concern not to alienate it. And while their written response spoke at the general level of men within Reformed churches, they were personally aware of bishops in England that fit this description. The balancing act of stating the popularly Reformed position on perseverance of the saints while maintaining a conciliatory approach within the Reformed tradition was becoming more difficult, and categorically rejecting apostasy of the saints would make it near impossible. Such instances must have made the king’s mandate of conciliatory confessionalism difficult to bear, especially knowing that they would have to explain to their colleagues back in England how they consented to a document that condemned the views of some of the English bishops. The final reason the British delegates gave was an appeal to Scripture:  “Lastly, we cannot deny there are certain places in Holy Scripture that in appearance seem to strongly favor this opinion, and which led learned and pious men in this thought were it not without great likelihood.”92 Although they prefaced their response to Rejection of Errors 3 saying they personally thought Scripture teaches the perseverance of all saints, they could nevertheless understand why some people came to different conclusions on perseverance due to a few controversial texts. If a godly man interpreted Scripture as saying some people lose saving faith and justification in a way that did not deny unconditional election, they saw no need of singling out that individual for public reproach.

regeneratos et justificatos, posse ab hoc statu excidere et perire, atque hoc illis omnibus tandem euenire, quos Deus in decreto electionis ad vitam aeternam infallibiliter consequendam minime ordinavit.” 92.  “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae,” 57v. “Denique non possumus diffiteri esse loca quaedam in scripturis sacris, quae in speciem valde favere videntur huic opinioni, quaeque viros doctos et pios non absque magna probabilitate in hanc sententiam pertraxerunt.”

87

88

debating perseverance

Considering it inappropriate to define this at the synodical level, the British delegates preferred to either omit the article or change the first words to “Who teach that those called according to purpose, given true faith, and regenerated not only etc.,” and they held that the better response would be to say that the erroneous opinion is contrary to “the special grace of election” instead of the “grace of justification and regeneration.”93 These changes would have shifted the condemnation against only those who advocated an apostasy of saints in a way that violated the Reformed view of predestination. Yet in the end, the Synod granted no change, and Rejection of Errors 3 stood as a condemnation against anyone who would teach that some could lose saving grace, even those holding to unconditional election.94 A similar failed attempt to temper the Synod occurred in relation to Rejection of Errors 7. The British delegation cautioned against condemning the view that temporary faith could not be justifying, seeing that many “learned and pious men, even within the Reformed church,” have believed that. They tried to emphasize that this minority position affirmed temporary faith on Reformed grounds, noting that those men placed the difference not merely on the duration of faith but also in the way that it was rooted in election. Although the British delegation did not hold that view themselves, they advised that the Synod leave it to the provinces to determine, since the issue had not yet been defined by public authority.95 As with Rejection of Errors 3, the Synod made no 93.  “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae,” 57v. “Ob hasce rationes nos putamus consultius (si hoc tanti momenti vobis videatur) ut classium vestrarum authoritate sanciatis, ne quis in Belgio praedictam ausit promulgare, quam ut ea de re, huius synodi authoritate aliquid definiatur.” “Ut itaque ad ipsum articulum redeamus, aut omittendus videtur, aut verba illa prima sic mutanda, [qui docent vocatos secundum propositum, vera fide donatos, et regeneratos non tantum etc.] Illa item verba [Haec opinio ipsam Justificationis et regenerationis gratiam, etc.] sic mutandae sunt [Haec opinio specialem gratiam electionis, ac specialem Christi custodiam.” 94.  Contra White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, 198, who erroneously describes it as a “successful request” and that “those powerful arguments were effective, and the canon was dropped.” 95.  “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae,” 57v. “Qui docent fidem etc] utcunque nos in contraria sententia sumus constituti, tamen (quod antea monuimus) certum est

88

89

d i l e m m a s a t t h e sy n o d o f   d o r t

changes to Rejection of Errors 7, defining away all views of temporary faith as non-​Reformed. In the end, the British delegates found themselves in a difficult position. They had tried hard to present a case for the perseverance of all saints that would simultaneously show sensitivity to alternate Reformed positions on the topic. And they certainly did not want to single out these Reformed variants as heterodox, especially knowing that some holding to this minority position were colleagues back home. By denying their requests to change Rejection of Errors 3 and 7, the Synod expected the British delegation to consent to a document that would alienate certain English bishops and divines. One has to think that this, along with other things no doubt, accounted for some of the angst behind the concern raised by the delegates in session 134. In a discussion about the wording of the conclusion and addressing errors, the British delegation challenged the judgment that the doctrine of all Reformed churches was contained in the Canons of Dort. They explained how they received their assignments as delegates from the king, and not directly from the church; therefore, their consent to Dort comprised their private opinions that they thought were agreeable to the Thirty-​Nine Articles, though they may not speak for all in the Church.96 Thus, they sought to justify their full consent to the Canons

multos doctos et pios viros etiam in ecclesiis Reformatis semper fuisse et etiam esse, qui sentiunt illam fidem temporaneam posse esse etiam Justificantem, agnoscunt tamen non sola duratione, sed alio etiam modo, radicatione nempe et solidatione a fide electorum, quae numquam excidit differre. Huius itaque rei definitionem malumus Provincialibus relinquere, quam quaestionem publica authoritate nondum definitam, determinare.” 96.  Balcanqual’s notes record it as session 133 in Hales, Golden Remains, ii, 152–​ 153. “Monentes tamen illud omnino mutandum esse quod habetur in Epilogo; doctrinam Reformatarum Ecclesiarum censendam esse Eam quae hisce canonibus continetur, se enim profitebantur deputatos a serenissima Regia majestate non ab Ecclesiis suis, nullam sibi commissam authoritatem qua possent Ecclesiarum suarum confessiones explicare, tulisse se tantum private sua judicia quae ipsi putarent vera esse; multa se in canonibus tanquam vera conclusisse, de quibus ne verbum quidem habetur in Ecclesiarum suarum confessionibus, verum quod sciant nihil in illis contineri quod istis confessionibus repugnaret.”

89

90

debating perseverance

of Dort when they knew that gaining the full consent of the Church of England would be a much more difficult task.

Conclusion Dilemmas, dilemmas, dilemmas. From start to finish, the Synod of Dort posed difficult choices for the British delegation on the issue of perseverance. They found themselves faced with the delicate task of arguing a position for the perseverance of the saints that they personally advocated without closing a door on esteemed colleagues back home. Sharing the interest of King James to maintain a conciliatory position of things within confessional bounds of the Thirty-​Nine Articles and other Reformed confessions, the British delegation split their commitments between what they would affirm and what they would deny. Concerning affirmations, they vigorously argued for the more popular position of the perseverance of all saints. Concerning denials, they fought the popular temptation to add the apostasy of some saints to the list of errors to be rejected. And having lost the battle for respecting the minority position on apostasy, the British delegation had to face the problem that Dort had condemned a respectable line of colleagues back in England. Beyond bringing to light a little-​discussed controversy on perseverance and how it encountered one of the most definitive councils of the Reformed tradition, this chapter helps us see the influence of different readings and receptions of Augustine in the development of a Reformed distinctive. Throughout the Synod, the British delegation demonstrated a strong confidence in a particular reading of Augustine while simultaneously showing sensitivity to the alternative reading of Augustine on the matter. Especially in the Collegiat Suffrage, they confidently marshaled passages from Augustine on the side of saying reprobates never attain the state of saints and therefore all saints persevere to the end. Yet even though they favored that particular reading of Augustine and received it as their own, they also showed considerable caution in the way they handled the competing readings of Augustine on perseverance. They understood that respectable men within the Reformed

90

91

d i l e m m a s a t t h e sy n o d o f   d o r t

tradition read Augustine as teaching that some nonelect could obtain saving faith and had received that position as their own. Because they respected this Augustinian alternative, the British delegation not only avoided rejecting it as an error in their Collegiat Suffrage but also made a formal appeal to the Synod to remove such a condemnation from the Canons of Dort. While the Synod dismissed their concerns and categorically rejected the apostasy of saints, the whole affair demonstrated a particular strategy in the seventeenth century to present a form of Reformed catholicity. The British delegation’s use of Augustine and other church fathers in defining doctrine shows an interest in displaying the catholicity of the Reformed tradition. It gives evidence that they did not see themselves as something novel in church history but that they could align themselves with an ancient tradition within the universal church. So by appealing to Augustine in their treatment of the perseverance of all saints, the delegation set forth the singular doctrine that was beginning to distinguish the Reformed from all other Christian traditions as still within the greater catholic tradition. Such a strategy for pursuing a Reformed argument for catholicity—​striving to align Augustine and the early church fathers with the attitude of being conciliatory within the Reformed confession—​sought to develop a statement on perseverance that was acknowledged by Reformed Christians everywhere and by the church in all times. While the strategy of using Augustine and the church fathers to help regulate doctrinal standards and to protect various constituents within the church proved effective at the Lambeth Conference of 1595, it did not work so well for the British delegation sent to Dort. Certainly it helped confirm the majority position within Reformed churches regarding the perseverance of the saints and encouraged them with the idea that Augustine was on their side. Yet their cautionary appeal to the alternate reading of Augustine on perseverance proved woefully unsuccessful in overturning Rejection of Errors 3 and 7.  For whatever reason, the international Reformed conference as a whole felt enough confidence in the majority position on perseverance that they unapologetically denied the conciliatory approach on perseverance

91

92

debating perseverance

advocated by the British delegation. And by denying the British delegation’s Augustinian appeal for moderation, the Synod left them with yet another set of dilemmas. Given that they were meant to represent in some measure the Church of England, the British delegation was left to explain how they could finally sign on to the Canons of Dort when they knew full well that it excluded a segment of bishops and divines well within the bounds of the Thirty-​Nine Articles. Although the British delegation could appeal to their status as the king’s deputies and make use of the argument of private opinion, this had only pushed the dilemma back one step. Although they could satisfy their consciences in signing on to Dort, there still remained the question of whether the Church of England would make the same concessions. From this point forward, maintaining a Reformed identity for the Church of England was like fighting an uphill battle. The Synod of Dort effectively disenfranchised a strand within the Reformed tradition that could affirm the perseverance of the elect by solidifying the more narrow doctrine of the perseverance of the saints as the Reformed distinctive.

92

93

chapter four

troubles after dort The Case of the “Arminian” Richard Montagu

Although the Synod of Dort was designed to stabilize the theological and political landscape by providing an international consensus among the Reformed churches, it actually generated a fair share of turmoil for England in the years that followed. This is somewhat ironic, seeing that King James was so supportive of and influential in the Synod being convened on the grounds of unity and peace. Yet turmoil came to England due to the fact that a number of its churchmen were not fully satisfied with the determinations of the Synod. A prime example of the commotion caused in England is the so-​called Arminian debate that revolved around Richard Montagu in the mid-​to late 1620s. Due to no desire of his own, and despite his own bungled attempts to relieve himself of the label, Montagu became the face of English Arminianism. Taking the accusations made against Montagu by his contemporaries at face value, many modern researchers on the topic have upheld the charge that he was an Arminian in his theology.1

1.  J.  S. Macauley, “Richard Montague, Caroline Bishop, 1575–​1641” (PhD thesis, Cambridge University, 1964); Betsy Halpern Amaru, “Arminianism in England 1595–​ 1629” (PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, 1969), 277–​ 388; Hillel Schwartz, “Arminianism and the English Parliament, 1624–​ 1629,” Journal of British Studies 12, no.  2 (May 1973):  41–​68; Conrad Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, 1618–​1629 (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1979), 231; Peter Lake,

93

94

debating perseverance

An exception to this trend in scholarship is the work of Peter White. White contends that the polarizing terms of “Calvinist” and “Arminian” obscure the spectrum of views that existed at the time and that it is not necessary to regard Montagu’s writings as Arminian. However, White does not make a close analysis of Montagu’s controversial claims to demonstrate that he was not really promoting Arminianism.2 This chapter reevaluates Montagu in order to state more positively where he fits on the soteriological spectrum. In doing so, it validates White’s assertion by demonstrating how Montagu avoided semi-​ Pelagianism and is better understood as representing one strand within a broader tradition of Reformed theology. It begins with a brief review of the debate, directing special attention to how the doctrine of perseverance played a key role in the accusation of Arminianism and how the heated polemics tended to cloud over the nuances of his position. It then analyzes Montagu’s writings on perseverance to demonstrate that his denial of the perseverance of all saints was not argued on semi-​ Pelagian grounds. And because Montagu’s denial of an irrespective “Calvinism and the English Church 1570–​1635,” Past and Present 114 (February 1987): 59–​76; Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism c.  1590–​1640 (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1987); Nicholas Tyacke, “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” Past and Present 115 (May 1987):  209–​ 210, 213–​215; Nicholas Tyacke, Aspects of English Protestantism, c.  1530–​ 1700 (Manchester:  Manchester University Press, 2001), 143–​144, 157–​158; Jonathan M.  Atkins, “Calvinist Bishops, Church Unity, and the Rise of Arminianism,” Albion 18, no. 3 (Autumn 1986): 411–​427; Sheila Lambert, “Richard Montagu, Arminianism and Censorship,” Past and Present 124 (August 1989):  36–​ 68; Michael Questier, “Arminianism, Catholicism, and Puritanism in England during the 1630s,” Historical Journal 49, no.  1 (March 2006):  53–​78; Jean-​Louis Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity:  The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2009), 159. 2.  Peter White, “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” Past and Present 101 (November 1983): 45–​51; Peter White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 203, 215–​255.

94

95

troubles after dort

decree in God was also a reason people charged him with Arminianism, this chapter looks at what his true concern was in advocating a respective decree and shows that it was not genuine semi-​Pelagianism either. To be clear, this chapter is not meant to present Montagu as a faithful defender of Reformed theology on all fronts. Nor does it mean to suggest that the Montagu affair can be merely reduced to the issue of perseverance. Nevertheless, what it does argue is that accusations of Arminianism against Montagu have been misguided, largely due to heated polemical rhetoric and negligence in recognizing the influence that readings and receptions of Augustine had on the doctrine of perseverance. Rather than seeing Montagu as an advocate of Arminianism, one should recognize him as someone who attempted to resonate with Reformed churchmen who saw themselves as, among other things, following the reading of Augustine that recognized the apostasy of some saints—​a group within the Church of England being marginalized by the Canons of Dort.

P o l e m ic s

a n d t h e   M o n ta g u   A f f a i r

Montagu’s association with Arminianism revolves largely around two particular books that he wrote. From a theological and stylistic perspective, both books present much the same thing. Both books were defenses of beliefs and practices that Montagu believed were acceptable within the Church of England. The main difference between the two books was the opponent Montagu faced in each book. One addressed Roman Catholic concerns with the Church of England, while the other interacted with fellow churchmen who wanted closer conformity to other Reformed churches on the international scene. Although there were other significant concerns in England during the 1620s, and there were certainly other churchmen accused of Arminianism, the Montagu affair is emblematic of the identity crises faced by the Church of England in the aftermath of Dort. While narratives of the affair have been discussed more extensively elsewhere, this brief survey serves to cut through some of the polemics in order to recognize

95

96

debating perseverance

Montagu’s intentions and to set the context for a reappraisal of his supposed Arminianism.3 In 1624, Montagu published a book commonly referred to as A New Gagg in response to an anonymously published pamphlet called A Gagge for the New Gospell.4 As Montagu related the story in his preface to the reader, Roman Catholic propagandists had been proselytizing his parishioners. A Gagge had been left with his neighbor, and having been made aware of it, Montagu picked up his pen in order to prepare an antidote. “The Gagger,” as Montagu referred to his anonymous opponent, had set out forty-​seven propositions meant to expose the errors of the Church of England, each of which Montagu responded to in A New Gagg. It is important to notice that Montagu’s participation in the controversy arose out of pastoral concerns about lingering segments of Roman Catholicism in England and the need for the Church of England to respond to it.5 In addressing this pastoral problem, Montagu adopted an accommodationist strategy built on a broad-​church platform. He thought that the Gagger failed to distinguish between the “publique Resolutions” of the English Church and the “private opinions” of individuals within it.6 Therefore, in answering the Gagger, Montagu sought to show how a 3.  For fuller coverage of the Montagu affair, see Schwartz, “Arminianism and the English Parliament, 1624–​1629,” 41–​68; Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, 125–​180; White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, 215–​255. 4.  Richard Montagu, A Gagg for the New Gospell? No: A New Gagg for an Old Goose (London: Matthew Lownes and William Barret, 1624). Hereafter A New Gagg. The pamphlet A Gagge for the New Gospel went through multiple editions, with varying titles. A  second and expanded edition was published as The Gagge of the Reformed Gospell (1623). A  fourth edition was published as The Touch-​Stone of the Reformed Ghospell (1634). The anonymous tract is now commonly attributed to John Heigham. See A. F. Allison, “John Heigham of S. Omer, c.  1568–​c.1632,” Recusant History 4 (October 1958):  226–​242. By referring to these books as gags, it was clear that the authors intended their arguments to stop up the mouths of their opponent. 5.  Montagu, A New Gagg, [iv]–​[ix]; Richard Montagu to John Cosin, December 12, [1623], in The Correspondence of John Cosin, 2 vols. (Durham: Andrews and Co., 1869–​1872), 1:32–​33. 6.  Montagu, A New Gagg, [xi].

96

97

troubles after dort

majority of the erroneous propositions attributed to the Church were at best opinions of individuals and factions within England and could not be taken for the actual doctrine of the Church. There were some propositions that he embraced as clear distinctions between Roman Catholics and Protestants.7 Yet he often brushed off his opponent’s accusations as touching extreme positions held by “Calvinists” and “Puritans,” which in certain cases may be allowable in the Church of England but could not be considered its official position. Such a strategy pictured the English Church as taking a moderate posture that avoided adopting extreme positions. Montagu portrayed a church that would allow theological diversity within the bounds of the Thirty-​ Nine Articles and a greater ceremonialism than most other Reformed churches had endorsed. Rather than set out a hard-​line opposition to his opponent, he recognized the draw his opponent had on religious traditionalists in England and sought to show that there was still room within Protestant England for some of these things. He wanted to protect religious traditionalists from feeling the need to leave the Church of England and possibly to even win back some of the Roman Catholic recusants into the Protestant fold.8 The fact that Montagu’s book instigated a significant debate within the Church of England reveals the lack of unanimity that existed on how to deal with the lingering problem of Roman Catholicism. While

7.  For instance, he defended worship services in the common language, justification by faith alone, and laity receiving both the bread and wine in the Eucharist, while denouncing indulgences, supererogation, praying to the saints, purgatory, and images of God. 8.  For a further look at Montagu’s strategy of dealing with Roman Catholic recusants and its relation to others within England, see “Richard Montagu: ‘Concerning Recusancie of Communion with the Church of England,’ ” ed. and intro. Anthony Milton and Alexandra Walsham, in From Cranmer to Davidson:  A  Church of England Miscellany (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1999), 69–​101. See also Anthony Milton, Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought, 1600–​1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 77–​92, 322–​373; and Alexandra Walsham, “The Parochial Roots of Laudianism Revisited:  Catholics, Anti-​ Calvinists and ‘Parish Anglicans’ in Early Stuart England,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 49, no. 4 (October 1998): 639.

97

98

debating perseverance

most churchmen shared Montagu’s basic pastoral concern, they did not all agree with his strategy of accommodation.9 Moreover, while his conciliatory approach may have been effective for a target audience of religious traditionalists, it proved antagonistic to those who wanted England to align itself more closely with the Reformed churches in places like The Netherlands and Geneva. That is, in describing the Church of England as holding a moderate position, Montagu had to make some of his colleagues with differing strategies look like extremists. And it did not help that he resorted to name-​calling, for the labels “Calvinists” and “Puritans” were still largely taken as inflammatory and offensive. It was not long before men like John Yates and Nathaniel Ward signed a petition against Montagu, and informants addressed Parliament with a list of his errors that promoted “Arminianism” and “Popery.”10 Fair or not, the charge of Popery was somewhat understandable due to differing strategies of handling the Roman Catholic problem; Montagu was seen as making too many concessions in his efforts to accommodate traditionalists and papal sympathizers. But the accusation of

9.  Montagu was not the only one to respond to A Gagge. For an example of a response that did not take an accommodationist strategy, see Richard Bernard, Rhemes against Rome: Or, the Remooving of the Gagg of the New Gospell, and Rightly Placing It in the Mouthes of the Romists, by the Rhemists; in Their English Translation of the Scripture (London: Robert Milbourne, 1626). Instead of answering each proposition set forth by the Gagger, Bernard took the offensive and issued a set of erroneous propositions that he attributed to Roman Catholics. His book shows no concern to comfort ceremonialist and religious traditionalists. 10.  “Errors Delivered by Mr Richard Mountagu in His Book Entituled, A  New Gagg for an Old Goose, and Published by Authority This Present Year 1624,” British Library, Harley MS 7608, fols. 48–​53. Montagu associated Yates and Ward with the Informants in Appello Caesarem. A Just Appeale from Two Unjust Informers (London: Matthew Lownes, 1625), 6, 319. Yates felt it necessary to set the record straight, insisting that he had nothing to do with the “Errors Delivered,” though he had signed the petition against Montagu that was presented to the House of Commons. See John Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem. Or a Submissive Appearance before Caesar; In Answer to Mr Mountagues Appeal, in the Points of Arminianisme and Popery, Maintained and Defended by Him, against the Doctrine of the Church of England (London, 1626), [xii], pt. 2, p. 6; pt. 2, pp. 45–​46.

98

99

troubles after dort

Arminianism added a new dimension. The chief error listed as proof of Arminianism was his treatment of the doctrine of final perseverance, followed by concerns about predestination and free will. Montagu was also suspected of pitting the Church of England against the Synod of Dort.11 From Montagu’s perspective, it seems that perseverance was likewise a chief concern of the debate, for it was the theological topic he worried about the most in his correspondence with John Cosin.12 As a response to the list of errors that had been leveled against him, Montagu wrote another book called Appello Caesarem. A Just Appeale from Two Unjust Informers, which was published in 1625. In it he answered point-​by-​point the errors that “the Informers,” as Montagu referred to them, attributed to A New Gagg. Here he defended his moderate perspective of the Church of England, and he continually accused his detractors of being extremists of the “Puritan” and “Calvinist” sort. With such a polemical tone, it was inevitable that the response to his book would be great. The debate continued to rage in 1626. Montagu’s opponents continued to prosecute him in Parliament, and the Duke of Buckingham chaired what has become known as the York House Conference as an attempt to resolve the political firestorm. In addition, a host of books published that year continued the charges of “Arminianism” and “Popery.”13 The polemical nature of the whole 11.  “Errors Delivered by Mr Richard Mountagu,” 48r–​49r. 12.  Montagu, The Correspondence of John Cosin, 1:29, 35, 44, 125. 13.  George Carleton, An Examination of Those Things wherein the Author of the Late Appeal Holdeth the Doctrines of the Pelagians and Arminians to Be the Doctrine of the Church of England (London, 1626); Daniel Featley, A Second Parallel, Together with a Writ of Error Sued against the Appealer (London, 1626); William Prynne, The Perpetuitie of a Regenerate Mans Estate (London, 1626); Anthony Wotton, A Dangerous Plot Discovered. By a Discourse, Wherein Is Proved, that, Mr:  Richard Mountague, in His Two Bookes; the One, Called A New Gagg; the Other, A Just Appeal: Laboureth to Bring in the Faith of Rome, and Arminius:  under the Name and Pretence of the Doctrine and Faith of the Church of England (London, 1626); Henry Burton, Plea to an Appeal, Traversed Dialogue Wise (London, 1626); Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem. Books against Montagu on the topic were not limited to that year. Anon., Anti-​Montacutum. An Appeale or Remonstrance of the Orthodox Ministers of the Church of England; against Richard Mountagu Clerke, Lately Made Byshop of Chichester (Edinburgh, 1629).

99

100

debating perseverance

affair is obvious, and people on both sides of the fence were all too quick to portray their opponents as extremists while presenting themselves as the true protectors of the faith and practice of the Church of England. Before moving on to an examination of Montagu’s writings in regard to the charges of Arminian theology, it is important to note that Montagu did not accept the Canons of Dort.14 This indeed was something that caused his opponents to suspect him of Arminianism. Yet it is not necessary to see Montagu’s aversion to Dort as wanting to distance himself from the Reformed tradition as a whole. In discussing the Synod of Dort, Montagu expressed great respect for the men and the churches involved. His point, however, was that decisions made by that foreign synod had no binding effect on him in the Church of England. And to be clear, he had no desire to make the Canons binding on England.15 There was a movement within England that wanted the Church to formally adopt the Canons, a position that proved popular among some of Montagu’s opponents.16 Yet this only serves to show the difference between Montagu’s broad-​church approach and efforts among his colleagues to tighten things in England so as to conform to recent international developments. As was shown in the previous chapter, the British delegates to Dort expressed concern about rejecting views of perseverance that were previously acceptable among Reformed churches. As Montagu claimed, his refusal to subscribe to the Canons of Dort was no proof of Arminianism.17 Rather, it was an 14.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 69–​70, 105–​108. 15.  “I feare nothing in the Convocation, except they obtrud the synod of Dort.” Montagu to Cosin, January 8 [1624/​25], The Correspondence of John Cosin, 1:42. 16.  For instance, Bishop Carleton entreated Archbishop George Abbot whether approval of the Canons of Dort in convocation would add to the peace of the Church. See Bishop Carleton to Sir Dudley Carleton, May 1624, in The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–​1619), ed. Anthony Milton (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2005), 383. Likewise, at the York House Conference, some of the Lords proposed receiving the Canons of Dort as the doctrine of the Church of England. See Thomas Ball, The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston (London: Parker and Co., 1885), 130. 17.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 108.

100

101

troubles after dort

attitude that saw a broader understanding of the Reformed tradition than his opponents were willing to acknowledge. Furthermore, it should also be remembered that Montagu did not recognize himself as an Arminian. He vehemently disavowed the title “Arminian” and said he had never even read Arminius.18 In fact, there were a couple of times during the affair that he mentioned privately to Cosin how he thought he ought to start reading Arminius since he was continually being charged as an Arminian.19 True enough, his repudiation of Arminianism has never satisfied his critics, for admitting to Arminianism during that time was not a popular thing to do. Moreover, they felt that he shared the same semi-​Pelagian sympathies as Arminius, and that was enough.20 Yet there seems little reason to take Montagu’s denial of Arminianism as disingenuous. After all, Montagu’s correspondence with Cosin is so frank and transparent that it is hard to believe that he chose to lie about some secret love for Arminian theology. And when John Preston pressed him at the York House Conference on his claim of a respective decree and how that seemed to deny unconditional election, Montagu was willing to reevaluate the way he voiced his concerns about the decree and even rectify the matter in print if necessary.21 This response suggests that Montagu, who remained determined to uphold his view on falling from grace and other positions in the face of intense scrutiny, was not intending to make foreseen faith the condition of election. Though his response seemed to satisfy Preston and others, Montagu’s reputation was associated with Arminianism ever after. By his own admission, Montagu had a catholic agenda—​as opposed to a Roman Catholic agenda—​for the Church of England. While committed to the Reformed protest against Rome, he was interested in maintaining that platform in a way that did not unnecessarily alienate

18.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 10–​11. 19.  Montagu, The Correspondence of John Cosin, 1:68, 90–​91. 20.  Featley, A Second Parallel, [vii–​viii], 94; Wotton, A Dangerous Plot Discovered, ch. 1, p. 2; Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem, [xiii]. 21.  Ball, The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston, 127–​130.

101

102

debating perseverance

it from the ancient Christian church and his contemporaries who felt drawn to old religious traditions. As his training and career demonstrated, Montagu focused his studies on the ancient church, gave little attention to ongoing formulations of Reformed scholastics, and preferred the early church fathers’ way of addressing matters to either Calvin or Arminius.22 And while his polemical rhetoric contributed to the simplistic divide of the Calvinists against the Arminians, he personally saw more than just those two options on issues like predestination and perseverance. Therefore, in the summer of 1627, he told Cosin: “I am nowe in the course of my Lectures come to the point of falling from Grace; which, when I have dispatched, I end, and give over the Lectures att Michaelmas. I shall not Calvinise it, nor yet Arminianise it, but with the Church of England, Augustin and Prosper, go the middle way.”23

M o n ta g u ’ s A u g u s t i n i a n A pp e a l on Perseverance The Gagger had accused Protestants in England of teaching that faith once had cannot be lost. Montagu conceded the fact that some within the Church of England held this view. It is held by some, I grant, that justifying Faith, that excellent gift of God, is not conferred unto any but the Elect and Predestined unto life. The wicked that perish eternally from God, as they never were in the state of grace, so never were they indued with true faith. Secondly, as consequent 22.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 11–​13. He had already published an edition of Gregory of Nazianzus, Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni In Iulianum inuectiuae duae. Cum scholiis Graecis nunc primùm editis, & ejusdem authoris nonnulis aliis quorum syllabum sequens pag. continent (1610). And during the controversy, he was waiting to hear from Paris whether his Latin translations and notes of Eusebius’s writings against Marcellus were being published. See Montagu to Cosin, St. Valentine’s Day [1624/​25], The Correspondence of John Cosin, 1:58; Eusebius, Eusebii Pamphili Caesareae Palaestinae episcopi, De demonstratione euangelica libri decem. Quibus accessere nondum hactenus editi nec visi contra Marcellum Ancyrae Episcopum libri duo: De ecclesiastica theologia tres (Paris, 1628). 23.  Montagu to Cosin, July 2 [1627], The Correspondence of John Cosin, 1:125.

102

103

troubles after dort hereunto, that Faith once had cannot be lost, or shaken out or off wholy from man, but continueth inextinguible, indefeisable. And therefore thirdly, those that once have been indowed with that Transcendent guift, are sure to be saved eternally; nor cease to be, and stand Justified before God.24

What Montagu was not willing to concede is that this position was the only Protestant doctrine, and he was certainly not willing to accept it as the authorized doctrine of the Church of England. He was quick to respond that this doctrine of the perseverance of all saints was just as much opposed by some as it was advocated by others. Rather than advocating a Protestant doctrine on the loss of faith, Montagu pointed out that people were divided on the issue. He said some hold that faith is lost “neither totally nor finally,” others affirm a loss of faith “totally, but not finally,” while another perspective advocated loss of faith “both totally and finally.” To further show the complexity of the issue, Montagu brought up the distinction between “the first and second causes of Faith and Justification,” where apostasy can be discussed in relation to either God’s decree or human ability. His point was to show that while there were various personal opinions on the topic, Protestants as a whole had not decided the matter, and the Church of England gave a measure of liberty as to how one could parse it.25 In order to prove that the perseverance of all saints was not strictly the Protestant doctrine, Montagu assembled a plausible case for a Protestant doctrine of apostasy. To begin with, he made recourse to a reading of antiquity, which was so important for building a case of the catholicity of the position. Given his interest, training, and ongoing work in the early church fathers, his turn to antiquity was quite natural, and he confidently argued for a reading of antiquity as advocating the possibility of total and final loss of faith.26 He declared

24.  Montagu, A New Gagg, 157. 25.  Montagu, A New Gagg, 158. 26.  Montagu, A New Gagg, 158.

103

104

debating perseverance

“a common and unanimous consent of the most learned and antient Fathers” on apostasy and claimed that “for the Tenet of Antiquity I  cannot bee challenged.”27 As could be expected, his chief proofs came from Augustine. For instance, he quoted Augustine from On Rebuke and Grace saying that some of the regenerate and justified relapse into an evil life by their own free choice, losing the grace of God.28 Montagu also quoted Augustine saying how some sons of perdition begin to live faithfully and righteously through a faith that works by love and fall away because they do not receive the gift of perseverance.29 Having laid out the case for falling from grace in Augustine and the early church fathers, Montagu claimed that the most learned in the Church of England follow antiquity.30 With this, one sees that paying reference to antiquity was more than personal preference for Montagu. It was a way to build a case for Christian catholicity. Against the Gagger, it was a way of showing that the Church of England stood with the church of all ages. Against his opponents within the Church of England, it was a way of leveraging the debate to suggest that those holding to the perseverance of all saints ran the risk of denying the Church’s catholicity on the point. Montagu was more than happy to erect a polemical boundary between Augustinians and Calvinists. For good measure, he reminded the Informers about the Canons set out in the Convocation of 1571.31 Along with ratifying the Thirty-​ Nine Articles, the sixth canon of that meeting of bishops declared of preachers, “But chiefly they shall take heed, that they teach nothing in their preaching, which they would have the people religiously to observe, and believe, but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the

27.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 36, 27. 28.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 27. Citing “Lib. De Bon. Persev. Ca. 6,” but actually quotes from De correptione et gratia, 6.9. 29.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 27. Citing “Lib. De Bon. Persev. . . . Ca. 13,” but actually quotes from De correptione et gratia, 13.40. 30.  Montagu, A New Gagg, 158; Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 28. 31.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 37.

104

105

troubles after dort

olde Testament, or the new, and that which the catholike fathers, and auncient Bishops have gathered out of that doctrine.”32 Montagu’s claim for antiquity did not go unchallenged. The fact is that the lines of debate did not fall so neatly as to be the Augustinians against the Calvinists; both sides wanted to claim Augustine for themselves, and Montagu’s supposedly unchallengeable reading of Augustine became a point of contention. For instance, Bishop George Carleton strung together quotes from Augustine on perseverance to make a whole chapter, giving this rationale:  “Which I  doe the more willingly, because I  am well assured, that the learned Bishops who were employed in the Reformation of our Church, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Raigne, or in King Edwards time, did so much honour S. Augustine, that in the collecting of the Articles and Homilyes, and other things in that Reformation, they had an especiall respect unto S.  Augustines Doctrines.”33 William Prynne’s comment about Augustine being “the most judicious Divine of al the Fathers” voiced the opinion of just about everyone.34 The difference was that those holding to the perseverance of all saints tended to interpret Augustine’s comments on losing faith in relation to Augustine’s statements about judging with charity and distinguishing between those seeming to be God’s children and those who actually are.35 Having claimed the importance of Augustine for the Church of England, Montagu presented a case for how the loss of faith could be affirmed by English Protestants. This he did by calling on Article 16, which speaks of the ability to “depart from grace given” after one has

32.  A Booke of Certaine Canons, concerning Some Parte of the Discipline of the Church of England (London: John Daye, 1571). 33.  George Carleton, An Examination of Those Things wherein the Author of the Late Appeal Holdeth the Doctrines of the Pelagians and Arminians to Be the Doctrine of the Church of England, 2nd ed. (London: William Turner, 1626), 79. 34.  William Prynne, The Perpetuitie of a Regenerate Mans Estate, 3rd ed. (London: Michael Sparke, 1627), 242. 35.  Prynne, The Perpetuitie of a Regenerate Mans Estate, 242–​244; Carleton, An Examination, 139–​140; Featley, A Second Parallel, pt. 1, pp. 80–​85; Burton, Plea to an Appeal, 16–​19; Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem, pt. 2, pp. 125–​132.

105

106

debating perseverance

“received the Holy Ghost.”36 He readily admitted that this statement could be taken in a different sense, but he also felt that it could be fairly interpreted as denying the perseverance of all saints “untill the Church it self expound otherwise.”37 He even reminded his opponents how the “Puritans” at the Hampton Court Conference pointed to Article 16 as needing revision, while Bancroft, Overall, and King James affirmed the need to uphold the idea that a justified man may sin and fall under the wrath of God until a time of renewal.38 He even argued that the sermon “Of Falling Away from God” in the Book of Homilies taught not only a total lapse of justifying faith in some for a time but also a final loss forever.39 Montagu did not want to present his view of the Church of England as at odds with the greater part of Protestantism. Rather, he argued the case that the Protestant Reformation as a whole left room for an Augustinian version of apostasy among true saints. Part of his argument reached back to the early Reformers for support, claiming that Bucer conceded the point at the Colloquy of Regensburg in 1541.40 Showing that this was not just an early concession of Protestantism but an ongoing thing, he reminded his critics that the Lutherans still held to falling from grace and losing faith.41 Furthermore, to make sure the Church of England was not found without other contemporary support among Reformed churches, Montagu told of a conversation he had with Giovanni Diodati where the latter claimed that the church in Geneva did not formally take on the private opinion of its principal pastors (i.e., Calvin and Beza) in this matter.42 Of course, as with his reading of Augustine, Montagu was challenged on his reading of Protestantism and the Reformed tradition on the matter.43 Yet 36.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 29. 37.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 29–​30. 38.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 30–​31. 39.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 32–​34. 40.  Montagu, A New Gagg, 159. 41.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 27. 42.  Montagu, A New Gagg, 171; compare Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 71. 43.  Carleton, An Examination, 211–​212, 230–​231; Wotton, A Dangerous Plot Discovered, ch. 20, pp. 154–​155, 167–​168.

106

107

troubles after dort

regardless of whose construal of the Protestant cause was most accurate, one clearly observes from Montagu’s approach that he aimed to situate the case for apostasy of some saints as a valid strand within the broader Protestant and even the Reformed traditions. Beyond looking at how Montagu actually argued the case for loss of justifying faith, it is also important to note the ways he did not argue. For all of the accusations of Arminianism leveled at his doctrine of apostasy, his consistent testimony was that he was not arguing an Arminian scheme. Furthermore, Montagu avoided key aspects of semi-​ Pelagian doctrine that were attached to the Arminian understanding of falling from grace. For instance, he never asserted perseverance in faith as the ground, moving cause, or condition of election. Furthermore, he never advocated that perseverance to the end occurs from anything other than a divine gift. Rather than asserting a semi-​Pelagian view of falling from grace, he appealed to an Augustinian tradition that had been respected within the Church of England and the wider Reformed tradition. When one examines Montagu’s arguments on perseverance, it becomes apparent that they demonstrate a striking similarity with other Reformed theologians treated earlier in this volume. Like Hutton, Saravia, and Overall, Montagu appealed to an Augustinian tradition on the loss of justifying faith and situated it within the greater Reformed tradition. And though Montagu gives no evidence of being aware of the British delegation’s response to the draft Canons at Dort, the way his arguments progressed from a particular reading of Augustine to a common Lutheran disdain, and rested with respectable men in Reformed churches, posed a striking similarity to what his colleagues warned against regarding Head 5, Rejection of Errors 3 in the Canons of Dort. Clearly Montagu’s approach to perseverance was nothing new in England. Oddly enough, although Montagu’s argument carried the characteristics of the British delegation’s warning, Carleton seems to have ignored it all as he charged Montagu with Arminianism. If the British delegation wanted the condemnation dropped from the Canons of Dort, why was Carleton now so insensitive to this position? Carleton

107

108

debating perseverance

did not even seem to acknowledge an alternative reading of Augustine on perseverance. In fact, he questioned whether any man “that had his right wits” could affirm the statement “that a regenerate and justified man may fall away” could be proved from Augustine.44 Perhaps Carleton had changed his mind about his reading of Augustine, or maybe he was not as fully convinced as his fellow British delegates of a respectable Augustinian tradition within the Reformed churches at this point. And maybe Carleton’s position could partly be answered by the polemical climate of the 1620s, so that he simply became unwilling to give up ground unnecessarily to his adversary. However, what also seems to be a factor is that Carleton thought he was dealing with a genuine semi-​Pelagian rather than an honest Augustinian advocate of apostasy of true saints. At one point, Carleton showed slight signs of sensitivity toward an Augustinian argument for loss of faith, but he suspected Montagu was not going that way due to the latter’s clear denial of the irrespective decree. Carleton said: If he would say plainly, that they that are called and justified according to Gods purpose, doe fall away totally and finally; then hee seeth that he should contract the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers, and of our Church; but holding himself in these genrall terms, that men may fall away from faith and grace, he understood that this might bee maintayned. Wee must therefore open this matter plainly. This is soone done, by calling to remembrance, what hath been sayd of the respective Decree, or irrespective.45

Indeed, a denial of God’s irrespective decree was all Carleton needed to confirm the swirling suspicions of Arminianism. Concerning Montagu’s advocacy of a respective Divine decree, Carleton pronounced it “the ground and roote of all this trouble, wherewith hee hath troubled himself and others.”46 44.  Carleton, An Examination, 137. 45.  Carleton, An Examination, 130. 46.  Carleton, An Examination, 132.

108

109

troubles after dort

M o n ta g u ’ s N o n - ​A r m i n i a n D e n i a l the Irrespective Decree

of

If people have misread Montagu’s position on perseverance as nothing more than advocating Arminianism, it seems possible that they have misread his arguments against the irrespective decree. Granted, the idea of God’s decree being respective of human actions certainly fits well within the scheme of the Dutch Remonstrants and semi-​Pelagians. Nevertheless, there were theologians who questioned the idea of an irrespective decree while at the same time disavowing semi-​Pelagianism. For instance, Johann Gerhard, the Lutheran dogmatician and contemporary of Montagu, gave a whole chapter to the topic on whether God’s consideration of faith is involved in the decree of election.47 While he affirmed that election regarded persevering faith, Gerhard was also quick to deny faith as the cause of election or the condition that salvation ultimately depends on.48 Considering the fact that others taught a respective decree while also denying semi-​Pelagianism, a reevaluation of Montagu on the topic should not be out of the question. And considering his constant denials of Arminianism and reports of his willingness to reconsider the way he said things so as not to impugn the doctrine of unconditional election, it only seems fair to look at how he argued against an irrespective decree to see how semi-​Pelagian and Arminian his arguments really were.

Irrespective Decree and Unconditional Election

Montagu’s opponents tended to equate the idea of an irrespective decree with unconditional election. Thus, in the responses to Montagu’s works, one sees a quick leap from his proclamation of a respective decree to a concern that he was teaching foreseen faith as the cause of 47.  Johann Gerhard, Theological Commonplaces:  On Creation and Angels, on Providence, on Election and Reprobation, and on the Image of God in Man before the Fall, trans. Richard J. Dinda, ed. Benjamin T. G. Mayes and Joshua J. Hayes (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2013), 207–​217. 48.  Gerhard, Theological Commonplaces, 209, 217.

109

110

debating perseverance

election.49 However, when one cuts through Montagu’s heated rhetoric and actually evaluates his arguments, it becomes more apparent that his concerns with an irrespective decree rested on things other than the conditionality of election. It is true that he attacked the vocabulary used to describe the decree as irrespective, absolute, necessary, and irresistible. However, he stated that his fear was that these concepts were being used in a way that emphasized God’s sovereignty to the the point of denying human responsibility. That is to say, in raising concerns against an irrespective decree, Montagu was opposing those who would say that the elect and reprobates will end up in heaven or hell irrespective of what they do. This is seen, for instance, when he discussed Peter and Judas in relation to God’s decree. He said, “Some Protestants, and no mo but some, have considered God, for this effect of his will, in reference to Peter and Iudas, thus; that Peter was saved, because that God would have him saved absolutely; and resolved to save him necessarily, because hee would so, and no further; that Iudas was damned as necessarily, because that God, as absolute to decree, as omnipotent to effect, did primarily so resolve concerning him, and so determine touching him, without respect of anything but his owne will:  insomuch that Peter could not perish, though he would, nor Judas be saved, do what he could.”50 While his opponents were quick to object by making common reference to the certainty of Peter’s salvation and Judas’s condemnation, they seem to overlook Montagu’s “insomuch” qualification.51 Montagu was actually opposing the idea that people were ordained to heaven or hell in such a way that they would go there irrespective of whether they repented, believed, and obeyed. In other words, Montagu wanted to preserve the idea that God not only ordained the ends of men but also ordained the means of attaining those ends.

49.  Carleton, An Examination, 19, 41–​62; Featley, A Second Parallel, pt.1, pp. 9–​ 14; Wotton, A Dangerous Plot Discovered, ch. 20, pp. 127–​130; Burton, Plea to an Appeal, 51–​64. 50.  Montagu, A New Gagg, 179. 51.  See “Errors Delivered by Mr Richard Mountagu,” 48r; Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem, pt. 2, p. 49.

110

111

troubles after dort

Interestingly enough, Montagu reminded his readers that “the Lutherans in Germany detest and abhorre” such an idea of an irrespective decree and argued that the Church of England opposed it as well. He pointed out how Article 17 of England’s confession qualified its statement on predestination and election by declaring, “We must receive God’s promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in holy scripture.” That Montagu made recourse to this part of Article 17 further suggests that his real concern with the irrespective decree was that he thought it taught that men reach their destiny regardless of the ordained means of faith and repentance.52 In fact, he challenged his opponents to read the first paragraph of Article 17 where it defined predestination to life and to recognize that “in all which passage, both containing God’s Decree, and execution of that decree, is not one word, syllable, or apex touching your absolute, necessarie, determined, irresistible, irrespective Decree of God, to call, save and glorifie, S. Peter for instance, infallibly, without any consideration had of, or regard unto, his Faith, Obedience, Repentance; and to condemn Iudas, as necessarily, without any respect had at all unto his Sinne.”53 Again, Montagu’s attack against the irrespective decree is aimed at the idea that election was being taught in such a way that made faith, repentance, and obedience unnecessary. Montagu’s opponents had connected his treatments of the divine decree to perseverance in order to prove his Arminianism. In turn, Montagu used what he saw as the Church of England’s treatment of apostasy to demonstrate its incompatibility with an irrespective decree. He said, “The Church itself hath directly and in express words overthrown the ground therof, in teaching thus: that a Justified man, and therefore Predestinate in your doctrine, may Fall away from God, and therefore become, not the Child of God.”54 At this point, Montagu simply leaves it at the level of an assertion that falling away undermines the idea of an irrespective decree. By stating “and therefore 52.  Montagu, A New Gagg, 179. 53.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 58. 54.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 59.

111

112

debating perseverance

Predestinate in your doctrine,” it appears he was highlighting the difficult task his opponents had of explaining how the Church’s doctrinal standards relate falling away to the justified. In other words, he was insinuating that the confession of the Church was more congruent with the idea that not all of the converted are elect. But why should someone think that apostasy in any way spoke against an irrespective decree? At the end of his discourse against the irrespective decree, Montagu returned to his argument of apostasy as proof against an irrespective decree. As he explained his case, he revealed once again that his concern was not to deny unconditional election but to protect the idea that the means are just as necessary for salvation as the establishment of the ends. Montagu argued, “If the Once justified by a lively Faith, may, in the opinion of our Church, lose that justification, they are not saved by an absolute necessity, irrespective, without relation unto their Repentance. For whatsoever thing may be otherwise than it is, is not necessarily to continue one way, and ever the same.”55 From these words, it becomes more clear that he thought that an irrespective decree suggests that God elects people to salvation without always relating that salvation to faith and repentance. This understanding of Montagu’s position is further confirmed in his elaboration on the point: “No man taketh Christ’s sheep out of his hand; none of God’s Elect doe perish for ever, which although it be true, it is so true, upon supposition of the meanes, Faith, Repentance, and final Persevering in obedience: without which they are none of God’s Elect, nor belonging to Christ; these being the appointed instrumentall cause of all their salvation, as the proper immediate cause of the wicked’s destruction, is their impenitence, infidelity, and disobeying God.”56 Again, Montagu’s denial of an irrespective decree did not function as a denial of God’s sovereignty in election. Rather, it voiced a concern about speaking of

55.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 73–​74. 56.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 74.

112

113

troubles after dort

predestination in such a way that divorced proximate and secondary causation from the equation. Although Montagu’s denial of an irrespective decree resulted in him being labeled an Arminian, it did not have to happen that way. Even Yates was able to distinguish between different ways of understanding the term “irrespective” in relation to God’s decree, saying, “his decree is irrespective for any thing prerequired out of himeselfe, but not irrespective in regard to the meanes.”57 Yates had used this distinction well to defend against Montagu’s criticism, showing that his view did not negate the necessity of human responsibility. However, he withheld the courtesy of applying this distinction to Montagu’s writings, where the main concern about the irrespective decree regarded the means. Had his opponents chosen the irenic approach of Bishop Joseph Hall, Montagu may have avoided the label of Arminian. Referring to the respective/​irrespective debate as a “scholastical quirk,” Hall saw the two positions reconcilable so long as the respect made to faith is understood “not as a condition, whose performance God expects, as uncertain; but as a gift, which God, according to his eternal prescience, foresees in man, present and certain.”58 For all of his invectives against the irrespective decree, Montagu did not mix conditionality with the idea of God having respect to faith and repentance. This is not to say that Montagu had a popular approach to discussing God’s decree. It does, however, suggest that such differences did not necessitate the accusation of Arminianism. Rather, it raises the issue of variant theological expressions of the decree founded on the same Reformed understanding of unconditional election. 57.  Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem, pt. 2, p. 49. 58.  Joseph Hall, “Via Media: The Way of Peace: In the Five Busy Articles, Commonly Known by the Name of Arminius,” in The Works of Joseph Hall, D. D., 12 vols (Oxford: D. A. Talboys, 1837–​1839), 10:485–​486. Hall made the same point when trying to reconcile differences between Reformed and Lutherans on the issue at the Leipzig Conference of 1631. See Joseph Hall, “On the Promotion of Peace among Protestants,” in The Works of Joseph Hall, 11:498–​499.

113

114

debating perseverance God, Man, and Liability

Perhaps it is helpful to see Montagu’s attack on the irrespective decree not as a denial of unconditional election itself but as a denial of a specific approach to unconditional election. Although he technically stopped short of charging adherents of an irrespective decree as making God the author of sin, Montagu voiced grave concern about their expressions of divine sovereignty and how they were inadvertently shifting liability from man to God.59 For instance, when it came to the idea of God ordaining sin, he attributed prescience instead of predestination to the fall of Adam and the treason of Judas in order to say that “God was Author of neyther Positively.”60 In doing this, Montagu seems to have situated himself among the single predestinarians. In turn, he set his opposition up, in teaching the irrespective decree, as advocates of supralasarian double predestination: This is no malicious relating of the doctrine of your Side, that delight to be stiled Calvinists. The first counsel, purpose, and decree of God was thus:  Before the works of his hands of old, merely and irrespectively to declare his power (I cannot say his justice) and what hee might and would doe upon his creatures, for his glorie sake, hee made the wicked against, nay for the day of vengeance. The means to bring this his purpose to passe, was Creation; and the cause of his creating man, was to effect it.61

Montagu was troubled by those who said God decreed creation and the fall merely as means to the predetermined end of someone’s destruction. Convinced that double predestination made God unjust, he challenged his opponents once again by quoting from Article 17. Rehearsing the confessions statement on “predestination unto life,” Montagu quickly pointed out that “the Church speaketh onely unto Election; toucheth not upon Rejection, Reprobation, or Desertion and 59.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 54. 60.  Montagu, A New Gagg, 183. 61.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 50.

114

115

troubles after dort

Dereliction rather.”62 Making recourse to Article 17 showed that his opponents could not claim the Church of England as officially supporting double predestination, and that it could only be held by them as their opinion. But at the very least, he felt that the confession implied an infralapsarian position. Montagu asserted, “that according to this Doctrine, a curse is presupposed, a state of damnation and wo intended; out of which they are delivered.”63 Montagu saw the irrespective decree as the work of supralapsarian double predestination. And since he saw that position as unjustly shifting man’s liability onto God, he found further reason to reject it. An important thing to be noted here is that the battle lines were not as clear and distinct as the polemics of the day might lead one to believe. To be fair to Montagu’s opponents, the primary reason they defended an irrespective decree was to ensure the doctrine of unconditional election. Although Montagu linked the irrespective decree to supralapsarian double predestination, there is no reason to believe that it was a necessary connection. In fact, the published responses of Carleton, Burton, and Yates each gave a defense of the irrespective decree that favored the infralapsarian over the supralapsarian position.64 Wotton seems to have represented a minority position among the responders, expounding the Thirty-​Nine Articles in a supralapsarian manner.65 The point is that the Reformed tradition harbored a diversity of viewpoints on unconditional predestination, and the lines of demarcation were not neatly divided among polemical opponents in this debate. Even though the single predestinarian position advocated by Montagu was less prominent among the more widely published Reformed scholastics, it definitely had held a place within the Reformed tradition. Surely Montagu misconstrued his opponents’ meaning of the irrespective decree and uncharitably characterized them as compromising God’s

62.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 51. 63.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 52. 64.  Carleton, An Examination, 15–​18, 37; Burton, Plea to an Appeal, 46 [47], 49; Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem, pt. 1, p. 66; pt. 2, pp. 33, 38. 65.  Wotton, A Dangerous Plot Discovered, ch. 20, p. 137.

115

116

debating perseverance

justice. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to assume that every denial of the irrespective decree was done on semi-​Pelagian grounds.

Freedom of the Will and Human Responsibility

Perhaps the most decisive issue for determining semi-​Pelagianism is on the nature and necessity of grace. The Reformed tradition uniformly held to an operative and effectual working of God’s saving grace in the elect. In an effort to uphold this position, Montagu’s opponents saw his advocacy of free will as granting some power in man to contribute to salvation and thus compromising the necessity of grace.66 Therefore, as a final part of reassessing the supposed Arminianism of Montagu, his statements about free will and how they relate to his understanding of grace must be considered. As has already been seen, Montagu’s style of writing was antagonistic, so it is no surprise that people were concerned about his views of free will and grace. For instance, he used the already controverted idea of apostasy of the saints as a way of saying that grace had to be in some way resistible. While the Dutch Remonstrants may have challenged the irresistibleness of an effectual call, it is not clear that Montagu’s point was to deny effectual calling. In fact, his argument for resistance was based less on free will and more on “so much of Adam remaining, and carnal concupiscence.”67 Montagu never pushed the point farther than this, and he seems to have been trying to say that men do not become stocks and blocks due to the influence of grace. For all of Montagu’s attempts to defend a notion of free will, he certainly did it with full recognition of the radical effects of sin on mankind. He described Adam’s fall into sin as “using his freedom of will not well as he ought, he lost his freedom, undid himselfe, and his whole race then in his loins.”68 Admitting to a loss of freedom, his advocacy 66.  Featley, A Second Parallel, pt. 1, pp.  14–​ 20; Wotton, A Dangerous Plot Discovered, ch. 8, pp.  54–​83; Burton, Plea to an Appeal, 65–​87; Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem, pt. 2, pp. 157–​168. 67.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 89. 68.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 63.

116

117

troubles after dort

of free will was not to mitigate the effects of the fall and man’s desperate need of grace. Rather, it was meant to say that the fall was not so severe that it left man’s will fundamentally broke and irresponsible of its actions. As Montagu reminded the Gagger, “it is not said, that by the fall of Adam wee have utterly lost all of us our free-​will, as if the Soule were clean defeated and disfurnished of that Power.”69 While the soul suffers under the damaging effects of sin, it still has the basic power to make choices and is responsible for them. For Montagu, the question was not whether man still has free will at all. The question for him was the degree of freedom man has since the fall. In a manner similar to Heinrich Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession (particularly Chapter  9), Montagu distinguished between the freedom experienced by the unconverted and the converted, and he saw a difference between the freedom to make moral choices in the civil realm and freedoms related to piety and salvation. Commenting on Article 10 of the Church of England’s confession, Montagu stated that “man is heer in this passage, by the Church, considered two waies: as in Nature depraved; as in Nature again by Grace restored. In Nature depraved, Freewill is totally denied unto man for any workes of righteousnesse, acceptable or pleasing to God, before conversion; or of works of actuall concurrency in the very act of first converting: but not for workes of Nature or Morality; of which works only the Proposition was to be understood.”70 In denying human action toward God before receiving the grace of conversion, Montagu avoided Pelagianism. But equally important for this study is how he avoided semi-​Pelagianism by refusing to attribute anything to free will in the act of first converting. Recognizing this helps us better see his concern about the interplay of grace and free will. Montagu was well aware that the intersection between grace and human freedom is where the dispute got hottest. Although semi-​ Pelagians could stress the necessity of grace, they were perceived as giving an inordinate position to the human will in cooperating with grace. 69.  Montagu, A New Gagg, 109. 70.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 100–​101. See also Montagu, A New Gagg, 108.

117

118

debating perseverance

In order to better navigate through these troubled waters, Montagu relied on Augustine’s imagery of the handmaid. As Montagu stressed, “wee need a supply continually of Divine Operation, Protection, Direction, and new Inspiration, to goe on with Free-​will, which is Comes, non Dux, Pedissequa, non Praevia, as S. Austen speaketh, Epist. 106.”71 Free will did not take command of a grace made available to it, but accompanied the Spirit and followed Its lead. Montagu thought that this Augustinian formula would steer him safely between the pitfalls of semi-​ Pelagianism and fatalism. He expressed it as asserting these two important things:  “That the will of man, being first informed, enlightened, healed by grace, and then assisted continually by the same concurring grace, is Pedissequa, an hand-​maid, and a subordinate Agent with and under grace; and that beleefe, repentance, and the like, are true and reall operations of Man’s understanding and will; and proceed, as actions natural, out of the powers of the reasonable soule, elevated and actuated to that height and actuality by God’s grace.”72 Where the first part stresses man’s dependence on sovereign grace, the latter upholds the idea of the presence of free will. Further explaining the relation between grace and free will, Montagu wrote: The will of man is a true naturall faculty, given to man in his creation. In the state of corruption, this naturall faculty is a true efficient cause of sinne, and this naturall faculty is punished for sinne. In the state of justification, the same naturall faculty is truly and really endued with grace, and bringeth forth the works of righteousness, and shall be rewarded with glory and immortality. In both these states the will is a true Efficient; but differently: a principall Efficient in the first state; a subordinate Efficient in the second, because the holy Ghost activateth and enableth it. For, By the grace of God wee are that wee are: and that grace is not in vaine in us, in the Doctrine of the Church of England, Artic. X, working with us when we have that good will. God’s preeminence in the worke of our 71.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 91. 72.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 90–​91.

118

119

troubles after dort salvation, his chiefe hand in the businesse, his Grace preventing, inspiring, enlightning, exciting, upholding, sustaining and concurring, doth not take away mans Free-​will in cases where Will hath any interest at all.73

In balancing these important themes of free will and grace, Montagu made it a point to give grace the weightier position. He ardently denied this position to mean “that the grace of God, and power of will, are ex aequo joint copartners to go passibus aequis.”74 There is cooperative grace in the Christian life, but we only work together with Grace “when wee have once that good will wrought in us.”75 Montagu’s response to the Gagger about free will was meant to show that Protestants had not adopted fatalism. Likewise, his reaction toward the Informers suggests that he thought they phrased things in such a way that made charges of fatalism seem plausible. In both of his books, he tried to avoid the pitfalls of semi-​Pelagianism that put grace as a handmaid of the will by stressing the preeminence of grace and the subordination of man’s will to it. Nevertheless, his greatest concern was to defend against the charge of fatalism by arguing that neither the fall nor grace completely takes away free will. He saw all humanity as free in the basic functions of nature, yet only the converted person’s will is made free to function spiritually. He also stressed a postregenerative, cooperative grace that reflects the ongoing responsibility of the Christian. Yet these emphases on freedom and cooperation were not foreign to Reformed thought, and they were not necessarily antagonistic to it. When one takes into account Montagu’s primary concerns and what he actually said on grace and free will, the charges of Arminianism become less plausible.76

73.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 93–​94. 74.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 92–​93. 75.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 101. 76.  For a recent and significant reappraisal of the issue of freedom among Reformed scholastics, which happens to note similar anthropological concerns for upholding human freedom that we have seen in Montagu, see Willem J. van Asselt, J. Martin Bac, and Roelf T. te Velde, eds., Reformed Thought on Freedom: The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012).

119

120

debating perseverance

Conclusion The Arminian controversies of the 1620s displayed a significant struggle within the Church of England to find its identity among the international Reformed community. As the controversy took place in relation to Richard Montagu, one sees a polemically and politically charged disagreement that proved very divisive among church leaders and unsettling among countrymen. Opponents were characterized as either Calvinist or Arminian, with seemingly no room to move in between. All of this revolved around Montagu’s views on perseverance and was accompanied with assumptions that he was denying the doctrines of unconditional election and effectual grace. Many historians have followed the conventional description of the Arminians against the Calvinists to describe the Montagu affair. Those terms were indeed the standard categories established by prevailing accusations in the debate. To be sure, Montagu was largely responsible for creating the categories. With rhetorical flair, he strategically isolated a particular movement within the Church of England, consisting of extremist and troublesome Calvinists, in order to make his own position look more moderate. And when one considers his unwillingness to subscribe to the Canons of Dort and his penchant for challenging doctrinal formations that had become popular among Reformed theologians, it is easy to see why the accusation of Arminianism stuck. To a certain degree, the categories of Arminianism and Calvinism serve an important function in assessing the significance of the debate. It is obvious that they were both labels that the Church of England wanted to avoid and that their use wielded a pretty powerful political leverage. It was especially important in the years after Dort, when political and religious stability were uncertain and the unrest of the previous decade in The Netherlands served as a reminder of the instability created by theological discord. But if the Montagu affair is to be defined merely by these polemically established categories, historians will miss a significant part of the debate and how it reflects a facet of the identity they were so desperately fighting for.

120

121

troubles after dort

The reassessment made in this chapter shows a more complex scene than simply Arminians fighting against Calvinists. By pushing beyond the polemical engagements and evaluating Montagu’s books to determine whether he was actually committed to an Arminian theology, a window opens to view Montagu’s intentions and the nature of the people he had hoped to mobilize. It has been argued that it was not necessary to understand Montagu’s teaching of falling from grace as Arminian theology. In fact, showing that Montagu’s denial of doctrines, like the irrespective decree and his advocacy of free will, were actually done on Augustinian and Reformed grounds reinforces the idea that his denial of the perseverance of all saints was likewise done on Augustinian and Reformed grounds. Taking this into consideration should broaden the historian’s perspective on the Montagu affair and the identity crisis the Church of England was experiencing. When Montagu spoke of falling from grace, he was not trying to dredge up sympathy from Arminians or disassociate himself from the Reformed tradition. Rather, his treatment of perseverance is best seen as an attempt to resonate with Reformed churchmen who followed the reading of Augustine that acknowledged conversion for some reprobates and thus the ability of some with true saving faith to commit apostasy. It was meant to support those within the Reformed tradition that were now being marginalized by the Canons of Dort. This revised perspective on the Montagu affair opens up the scene to see greater significance in the Church of England’s identity crisis than simply whether it was going to look more like Jacob Arminius or John Calvin. For one thing, it highlights the fact that readings and receptions of Augustine continued to contribute significant influence in the development of theology within the Church of England and the Reformed tradition. While Montagu tried to portray himself as upholding the Augustinian tradition and his opponents as forsaking the ancient church, his opponents accused him of playing fast and loose with tradition while claiming that they held the true reading of the early church fathers. Both sides claimed Augustine as their own. And as to the doctrine of perseverance, it seems that neither side was willing to concede that the alternate readings of Augustine were legitimate. Instead, they

121

122

debating perseverance

argued for their own readings of Augustine as the only sensible option. The impression is given that the importance of Augustine in shaping the church’s identity continued in full force, though a tolerance for alternate readings had waned. Another thing highlighted by this reevaluation is the diversity of expression that had developed within the Reformed tradition. This can be easily obscured by leaving an assessment of the Montagu affair as the battle of Arminianism against Calvinism. So far as the term “Calvinism” has been used synonymously for the Reformed tradition, it tends to suggest that it was a debate between those committed to the Reformed tradition and those wanting to reject it. But this reassessment reveals that the supposed Arminian controversy, though it may have involved and tolerated some Arminians along the way, was largely intended to appeal to a broad-​church Reformed community. And just as the fear of Arminianism kept many from dealing fairly with the alternate view of perseverance that once had been a legitimate option, the polarizing nature of the Montagu affair has kept many modern historians from recognizing it as an intramural debate within the Reformed tradition. A further item that this reimaging of Montagu helps to bring out is the significance of the Synod of Dort’s decisions for the identity crisis the English Church was experiencing. By situating Montagu’s approach as a debate over what kind of Reformed church England was—​as opposed to a debate over whether it was Reformed or not—​ attention is drawn to the rising concerns about how international trends among the Reformed churches were beginning to overrule the way the Reformed tradition had been allowed to develop in England. Surely Head 5, Rejection of Errors 3 of the Canons of Dort narrowed the way perseverance could be understood and still be recognized as Reformed. Yet the Canons did not have official authority within the Church of England, which had been recognized as a Reformed church up until then. Reformed churchmen were feeling the tension between national church autonomy and international declarations within the Reformed tradition. Montagu and his opponents had differing sympathies, one desiring to maintain old allowances that had characterized the Church and the other favoring a narrower framework that

122

123

troubles after dort

would more closely conform England to the majority position within the international Reformed movement. By pushing beyond the polemical theatrics and observing the content of what he was doing, it becomes clearer that Montagu was not heading up an Arminian offensive but trying to rally a particular strand of Augustinianism that remained within the Church of England. And while the Montagu affair was not limited to perseverance, historians must consider how it relates to the Synod of Dort’s decision on perseverance and the looming identity crisis the Church of England was undergoing. Indeed, Dort caused trouble for the Reformed identity of England, and simply writing off Montagu as an Arminian overlooks the complex situation that the Church of England found itself in after the grand synod.

123

124

chapter five

a further dilemma for british divines Baptism’s Effect on Infants

The previous chapter demonstrated the trouble created for England’s Reformed identity due to the narrowed definition of perseverance promoted by the Synod of Dort. Yet the difficulty of getting the whole of the Church of England to adopt the perseverance of the saints was not the only problem generated by the Fifth Head of the Canons of Dort. Given the fact that doctrines are not completely isolated affirmations, and that tinkering with one runs the risk of affecting another, it should come as little surprise that the debate over perseverance created occasions of collateral damage. An example of this is the further dilemma it caused regarding the efficacy of infant baptism. Over the years, scholars have analyzed the topic of baptism within the Church of England during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with concerns of how it relates to the Church’s identity. Geoffrey Bromiley characterized the Church during that era as predominantly following a Reformed understanding of baptism, although its official formularies allowed for a good bit of latitude.1 Concerning the efficacy of baptism, Bromiley was largely reliant on the nineteenth-​century work of William Goode, who had looked at individuals in much greater

1.  Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Baptism and the Anglican Reformers (London: Lutterworth Press, 1953).

124

125

a further dilemma for british divines

detail.2 More recently, some scholars have emphasized the variety of viewpoints taken up in those earlier years of the Church. For instance, Bryan D. Spinks highlights the divergent views of William Perkins and Richard Hooker and how those differing perspectives played out in the Church.3 E. Brooks Holifield pointed to a spectrum of views that even included “Puritan sacramentalists.”4 These works have made valuable contributions to this field of study. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that these treatments do not situate the key baptism debates of the late 1620s and early 1630s as products of the debate on perseverance. In fact, Holifield and Spinks suggest that they came out of debates with Baptists.5 This chapter assesses some of the debates related to infant baptism in a way that shows, over against earlier scholarship, their relation to the perseverance debate revolving around Montagu and how it created difficulties for the English theologians supportive of Dort. It begins with an analysis of Montagu’s argument from infant baptism against the perseverance of all saints, showing the problematic nature of the Church’s liturgical language associated with the sacrament. It then looks at the host of responses to Montagu’s arguments, recognizing the differences between the public replies directed to Montagu and some of the private discussions that were generated. In evaluating the responses to Montagu’s argument, this chapter demonstrates a diversity of views

2.  William Goode, The Doctrine of the Church of England as to the Effects of Baptism in the Case of Infants, 2nd ed. (London:  J.  Hatchard and Son, 1850). Goode was writing in response to the perceived Romanizing tendencies of the Oxford Movement. Treating a broad range of individuals and quoting extensively from their works, Goode’s work remains a valuable resource for getting into the material. 3.  Bryan D.  Spinks, Two Faces of Elizabethan Anglican Theology:  Sacraments and Salvation in the Thought of William Perkins and Richard Hooker (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1999). 4.  E.  Brooks Holifield, The Covenant Sealed:  The Development of Puritan Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570–​1720 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 75–​87. 5.  Holifield, The Covenant Sealed, 76; Spinks, Two Faces of Elizabethan Anglican Theology, 164.

125

126

debating perseverance

on baptism in England that became a source of tension after Dort and began to raise questions about England’s Reformed identity. It also highlights the continuing contributions of readings and receptions of Augustine and how his writings were used to fuel debate and resolve tensions among British churchmen. The idea is not to give an exhaustive review of the debates and of each person’s views but rather to show how the debates related to the perseverance controversy and to set out some of the basic differences involved in these debates. Thus, this chapter demonstrates that the Synod of Dort inadvertently raised a further dilemma when it decided to go beyond declaring an unconditional perseverance of the elect by proclaiming the perseverance of all saints.

M o n ta g u ’ s A r g u m e n t

f ro m   B a p t i s m

Closing his section on falling from grace in Appello Caesarem, Montagu delivered a parting argument from infant baptism against the perseverance of all saints. The argument was fairly straightforward. He tried to show that the Church of England believes “that children duly baptized are put into a state of Grace and Salvation.”6 From there, he appealed to common experience “that many so baptized children, when they come to age, by a wicked and leud life do fall away from God, and from that state of Grace and Salvation, wherein hee had set them, to a worse state; wherein they shall never be saved.”7 From this, the conclusion was quite simple. One must either reject perseverance of the saints or say that every baptized person is saved, no matter how they live. As will be shown, Montagu’s interpretation of the Church’s position on the efficacy of infant baptism was not accepted by all Englishmen. Nevertheless, for those who followed his interpretation of the Church on baptism, the case for adopting the perseverance of the saints looked bleak.

6.  Richard Montagu, Appello Caesarem. A Just Appeale from Two Unjust Informers (London: Matthew Lownes, 1625), 36. 7.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 36.

126

127

a further dilemma for british divines

In order to make his case, Montagu drew from the liturgical and instructional forms of the Church of England to say that baptism placed children under saving grace. Taking recourse to the Form of Private Baptism, he declared that “we are taught (otherwise than your Masters teach), that every child which is duly baptized, being before borne in original sinne, and in the wrath of God, is now by that Laver of Regeneration received into the number of the Children of God, and Heires of Everlasting Life. For our Lord Iesus Christ doth not deny his Grace and Mercy unto such infants, &c. So heere they bee put into the state of Grace.”8 Montagu’s recitation of the Form was a bit loose. The actual Form did not absolutize it by saying “every child which is duly baptized,” but addressed it at a more particular level by certifying that “all is well done, and according to due order, concerning the baptizing of this childe.”9 Nevertheless, the point Montagu was drawing out was that in every case of properly performed infant baptism, priests declare the child a recipient of grace and one received as a child of God. Accordingly, Montagu felt comfortable making the dogmatic point that baptism bestowed a state of grace on infants. The Form’s characterization of baptized infants was a debatable point, and anticipating that his opponents would argue that it only extended the judgment of “Charity” to baptized infants, Montagu returned to the Form of baptism to say that “wee are there taught earnestly to Beleeve, that Christ hath favourably Received these infants that are baptized, that he hath Embraced them with the armes of his mercy, that he hath given unto them the Blessing of Eternall Life; and out of that Belief and Perswasion, wee are to give thankes faithfully and devoutly for it, &c.”10 His point was that the Form calls parents to hold a firm conviction about their child’s state of salvation, not to kindly consider them saved with the hope that they do not grow up to

8.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 34–​35. 9.  Form of Private Baptism, in The Booke of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England (London, 1625), C2v. 10.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 35.

127

128

debating perseverance

prove otherwise. To back this up, Montagu reminded his opponents how the second answer of the Church’s Catechism teaches “that in their Baptisme they were made the Members of Christ, and the children of God, &c.”11 He even pointed to the prefatory rubric before the Catechism as saying “that it is Certainely True by the Word of God, that children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation; and if they die before actuall sinne, shall be Undoubtedly Saved.”12 Montagu could easily have multiplied quotes like these from the Book of Common Prayer. For instance, toward the end of the Form of Public Baptism, the priest is instructed to declare “that these children be regenerate and grafted into the body of Christs congregation,” followed with a prayer of thanks that “it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy holy Spirit, to receive him for thine owne childe by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy Congregation.”13 Yet Montagu saw no need to belabor the point. Knowing that his opponents were well acquainted with public forms and declarations of the Church, Montagu felt quite confident that he had made his point. References to earnest belief and certainty signified more than a judgment of charity to Montagu; baptism placed the infant in an actual state of grace and salvation. And not only did he express confidence that the Church of England was on his side, he claimed the ancient church for support as well.14 Montagu never explained the exact nature of this state of grace and salvation or how baptism made it effectual. It was enough for him to point out the discrepancy created by churchmen who adopted the

11.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 35. 12.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 35. 13.  Form of Public Baptism, in The Booke of Common Prayer, C2r. 14.  Montagu, Appello Caesarem, 35. Referencing in the margin, “S. Gregg. Nyssen orat. De baptism. S.  Leo de nat. Christ. serm. 5.  Optat. Cont. Parm. l.5. Tert. de baptism. cap 5. S. Cyp. ep. 59. & ep. 2. Concil. Carth. apud. S. Aug. ep. 90. Quicunque negat parvulos per Baptismum Christi a perditione liberari, et salute percipere ternam, Anathema sit. S.  Aug. epist. 157. S.  Chrys. hom. 40 in 1 Cor. Prosp. de vocat. Gent. lib. 1 cap. 5. S. Basil. lib. de Baptismo. S. Ambr. de poenit. lib. 1 cap. 7. et Alli.”

128

129

a further dilemma for british divines

Church’s language about baptized children and then claimed the perseverance of all saints. How could anyone reconcile the idea that baptism places children in a state of grace and salvation with the idea that people could not fall from saving grace? For Montagu, admitting apostasy in genuine saints was the obvious conclusion.

Published Responses and the Judgment of Charity It was obvious that Montagu’s opponents were not going to allow this argument from baptism to deter them from advocating the perseverance of all saints. Rather than concede the point and disavow the Book of Common Prayer, they decided to reconcile the Church’s statements on baptism with Dort’s view of perseverance. The strategy employed in the published responses to Montagu’s argument was to cast suspicion on Montagu’s reading of the Church’s documents, present an alternative understanding of the Church’s statements on baptized infants, and then demonstrate the superiority of their reading of the documents.

Challenging Montagu’s Reading of the Prayer Book

Although Montagu avoided a detailed treatment of the necessary effect of baptism claimed by the Church of England, he was widely suspected by his opponents of adopting a Roman Catholic understanding of baptism. Associating Montagu’s arguments with that of the Jesuit Robert Bellarmine, Anthony Wotton declared that “M. Mountagu in this point agreeth with the Church of Rome.”15 William Prynne understood Montagu as promoting baptismal regeneration, arguing that “it would bring in this Popish doctrine, that the Sacraments doe ex opere operato,

15.  Anthony Wotton, A Dangerous Plot Discovered. By a Discourse, Wherein Is Proved, that, Mr: Richard Mountague, in His Two Bookes; the One, Called A New Gagg; the Other, A  Just Appeal:  Laboureth to Bring in the Faith of Rome, and Arminius: under the Name and Pretence of the Doctrine and Faith of the Church of England (London, 1626), ch. 12, pp. 55, 51.

129

130

debating perseverance

convey grace to all that come unto them.”16 And in challenging Montagu’s reading of the Book of Common Prayer, John Yates chided: “For had you not concurred in judgement with the Romanists, that originall sin is utterly abolished in all such as are baptized, you would never have adventured to alter the sense in so corrupt a fashion.”17 In all fairness to Montagu, his book neither specified baptism as implanting a regenerative habit of grace nor referred to it as automatically remitting original sin. Yet he clearly claimed as Church of England doctrine that baptism somehow brought children into a state of grace and salvation, and for many of his opponents, that sounded too much like Rome.18 Before giving an alternative reading, it was important to go beyond associating Montagu’s position with Rome to argue that Montagu’s handling of the Church’s documents was flawed. Wotton questioned whether it was even legitimate to use liturgical forms and the catechism to fill out Church of England doctrine beyond what is contained in the Thirty-​Nine Articles, since “the Articles were made upon great deliberation, and of purpose to settle an unite in matter of Religion; therefore it would not omit principall points, and set down others, that are subordinate, and not called into question.”19 Wotton quite frankly did not recognize the liturgy and catechism as competent records of the Church’s faith, for “no publike act of our Church hath made them such.”20 Yet beyond this concern over the source material, Montagu’s

16.  William Prynne, The Perpetuitie of a Regenerate Mans Estate, 3rd ed. (London: Michael Sparke, 1627), 439. 17.  John Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem. Or a Submissive Appearance before Caesar; In Answer to Mr Mountagues Appeal, in the Points of Arminianisme and Popery, Maintained and Defended by Him, against the Doctrine of the Church of England (London, 1626), pt. 2, p. 157. 18.  Goode accused Montagu and the Laudians of being a Romanizing bunch that pushed a reading of the Book of Common Prayer beyond legitimate bounds by introducing spiritual regeneration in baptism, but with no evidence of it. It seems he was influenced in his judgment by Montagu’s opponents and by the appeal that “High Church” Anglicans of his day made to the Laudians for their position. See Goode, The Doctrine of the Church of England, 25, 387, 478, 483. 19.  Wotton, A Dangerous Plot Discovered, ch. 12, p. 54. 20.  Wotton, A Dangerous Plot Discovered, ch. 12, p. 51.

130

131

a further dilemma for british divines

interpretation of the passages were found questionable. Prynne had picked up on Montagu’s universalizing of the language of the Form of Private Baptism and argued that many things may be warranted to believe of individuals that may not be attributed universally to a group. Taking an example from the prayer book to make his case, Prynne showed that the Form of Burial calls for priests to declare that every individual dies in the Lord, departed in true faith, and has their soul received by God, though no one would say that every visible member of the Church that dies and is buried is certainly saved.21 Wotton argued that the common position among leaders in the Church (noting Bishop John Jewel as a prime example) was to “deny that the habit of grace is bestowed in baptisme,” and that “if it be said some have taught as M. Mountagu doth: I answer; it hath been in a corner then; He that did so Crept in at the window:  neither shepheard, nor sheepe knew it.”22 The point was to show that Montagu’s reading of the documents was inadequate and gave a novel reading of the Church’s positions on baptism’s efficacy.

Presenting an Alternative Reading of the Prayer Book

It was not enough to discount Montagu’s reading of the Church on the efficacy of baptism; Montagu’s opponents still needed to reconcile the Church’s language regarding baptized infants with their view of perseverance. As Montagu had suspected, the popular approach demonstrated in the published responses to his work utilized the judgment of charity to explain statements in the Catechism and Forms of Baptism. In order to make sense of this judgment of charity, his opponents distinguished between the renovative language associated with baptism and the spiritual reality that it signified. Accordingly, Daniel Featley declared, “All that are regenerate Sacramentally are not necessarily and infallibly regenerate spiritually:  A  man may be baptised with water,

21.  Prynne, The Perpetuitie of a Regenerate Mans Estate, 452–​453. 22.  Wotton, A Dangerous Plot Discovered, ch. 12, p. 54.

131

132

debating perseverance

and yet not with the holy Ghost.”23 From there they linked this distinction to the judgment of charity, as when Henry Burton affirmed, “True it is, that Baptisme is called regeneration, but Sacramentally; and so all children baptised are said to be regenerate, and so generally we believe they are saved, while we judge them to be in the state of grace, in regard of the common sacred Ordinance of God.”24 By linking regeneration to baptism, but only as far as the sacrament signifies it, Montagu’s opponents were able to adopt the liturgy and catechism without adhering to what they saw as a Roman Catholic understanding of baptism. As George Carleton said, “By this distinction of men regenerate, and justified sacramento tenus onley, and such as are so indeed according to God’s purpose and calling, he might easily and fairely have satisfied himself in al these objections, which he draweth out of the book of Homilies, and out of our Service booke.”25 The distinction between sacramental and spiritual regeneration provided them not only with an alternative reading of the Book of Common Prayer but also with an answer as to how they could affirm it in conjunction with their conviction of the perseverance of all saints. Carleton tied it all together: Then to proceede: of these who have received the Sacrament of regeneration, and are judged by us to be regenerate and justified, many may proceed and make a great progress in the Church, to be enlightened, to taste of the heavenly gift, to be made partakers of the holy Ghost (that is, of many graces of the holy Ghost) to taste of the good word of God, and of the powers of the world to come: and yet they may fall away totally and finally. But they that are regenerate, justified & called according to Gods purpose (aske not me who these are, it is enough that they are known 23.  Daniel Featley, A Second Parallel, Together with a Writ of Error Sued against the Appealer (London, 1626), pt. 1, p. 88. 24.  Henry Burton, A Plea to an Appeale:  Traversed Dialogue Wise (London, 1626), 19. 25.  George Carleton, An Examination of Those Things wherein the Author of the Late Appeal Holdeth the Doctrines of the Pelagians and Arminians to Be the Doctrine of the Church of England, 2nd ed. (London: William Turner, 1626), 207.

132

133

a further dilemma for british divines to God) they may fall into diverse temptations & sins, which bring men under Gods wrath; but these never fall away either totally or finally.26

To a great degree, combining their distinction with the judgment of charity allowed Montagu’s opponents to have their cake and eat it too. The category of being regenerate sacramentally allowed them to express compliance with the Church of England and presume all baptized infants as regenerate according to the liturgy and catechism. The separate category of being regenerate spiritually allowed them to affirm the position of Dort on perseverance of the saints. And recourse to the judgment of charity allowed for an explanation of the phenomenon of apostasy that occurs when the two categories of regeneration do not seem to overlap in the same person. While the judgment of charity provided an alternate reading of the Church’s documents, Montagu’s opponents denied that their approach to sacramental language was anything new. In fact, they countered Montagu’s use of the early church with their own. Carleton said that the ancients, particularly “Saint Augustine might easily have satisfied him” with a distinction “betweene them that are regenerate and justified only Sacramento tenus, and those that are regenerated and justified according to the purpose of Gods election.”27 Likewise, Featley drew from Augustine, Chrysostom, and Jerome in order to prove that “although the inward grace ordinarily accompanies the outward sign, and we ought to believe by the judgement of Charity, that all who are baptized are truly regenerate: yet iudicio veritatis, as Junius distinguisheth, that is, by the judgement of precise and infallible truth all are not so, as the Fathers speak roundly and plainly.”28 As a way of explaining how the ancient fathers were not advocating an automatic spiritual regeneration in all baptized infants, Prynne argued that the early church only had in mind the elect and faithful in Christ. Furthermore, their

26.  Carleton, An Examination, 206–​207. 27.  Carleton, An Examination, 193. 28.  Featley, A Second Parallel, pt. 1, p. 90. Citing “August. lib. 5 contra Donatis. cap 24,” “Chrysost. in Matth. hom 5,” “Jerom Com. in epist ad Gal. cap 3.”

133

134

debating perseverance

remarks of regeneration were spoken in relation to internal baptism as distinct from external water baptism.29 Yates associated the ancient church with the judgment of charity by their acceptance of infants for baptism based on the profession of those bringing children to baptism and by the different ways they spoke of putting on Christ.30 Montagu’s opponents were quite confident that antiquity was on their side regarding the judgment of charity and in saying that not all baptized infants actually participate in what it signifies.

Presenting an Alternative Understanding of the Sacraments

Montagu’s opponents felt that they were giving more than just an alternative reading of the Church’s sacramental language. They sensed that the disagreement went deeper, involving different understandings of the nature and efficacy of the sacraments. Featley declared that “if wee speake properly and precisely, the Sacraments seale, and not conferre grace.”31 This distinction between sacraments functioning as seals and conveyors of grace established the difference that they saw between them and a Roman Catholic understanding of baptismal regeneration. They did not want to deny all efficacy to the baptism but wanted to present a more evangelical option for understanding its power. Instead

29.  Prynne, The Perpetuitie of a Regenerate Mans Estate, 443. Citing “Tert. de Baptis. Lib. c.  5. Basil Exhortatio ad Baptis. Oratio. 1.  Gregor. Nyss. Oratio de baptism. Optatus adver. Parmenianum lib. 5.  pag. 236, 237,” and then “of Tertullian lib. de baptism, of Origen in Epist. ad Rom. cap. 6 lib. 5. Verse 3.4. of Hilarie: Com, in Math. Canon. 10. of August: cont. Donat lib. 5 cap. 24. In Psale 77. super Levit. lib. 3. Quest. 84. & de unitat Ecclesiae, cap. 19. of Greg. Nyssen: in his Orat. de baptismo: and his vitae Moseos Enarratio, of Haymo Exegesis in Rom. 3. & 6. of Chrysostome in Math. Hom. 5 and of Hierome, Com. in Gal. lib. 2. upon the words of Paul, Gal. 3.17.” 30.  Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem, pt. 2, pp. 150–​152. Citing “Augustine Serm. 10. de verb. Apost.,” “Aug. de Merit. & Remiss. Pecc. C. 19 & 25 & Epist. 23,” “Tertull. de Bapt. cap. 18,” “Augustine lib. de Bapt. cont. Donat. cap 24,” and “Augustine De correp. & Grat. cap. 9.” 31.  Featley, A Second Parallel, pt. 1, p. 87.

134

135

a further dilemma for british divines

of seeing the sacraments tending to infuse habitual grace in its recipients, they understood it as having its effect in a similar way to Scripture. Yates could speak of baptism as “a visible and palpable word, a seale of righteousness, a sign not only signifying but exhibiting the grace that it represents.”32 The sign and seal approach to baptism relates the efficacy of the sacrament to the individual’s faith in what it represents, helping to explain how it is that baptism does not automatically work grace into all recipients. As Carleton pointed out, “The Sacrament is good to them to whom it is a seal of the righteousness of Faith, but it is not a seale in all that receyve the Sacrament: For many receyve the signe, which have not the thing.”33 Furthermore, the power of baptism was understood primarily as assisting in the confirmation and growth in grace. Thus, Prynne explained that “baptisme is not a cause, but a Seale of grace, it doth not infuse or begin, but it onely seales and confirms that grace which is begun before.”34 Even though Montagu’s opponents were able to explain the Church’s sacramental language according to the judgment of charity, Montagu’s assertion of a state of grace for baptized infants obviously carried some weight. Not content with the simple explanation of the judgment of charity, his opponents tried to explain in what sense baptism associated people with a state of grace and salvation. Wrestling with this, Featley conceded that “in a good sense a child may be said to be put into the state of Grace and Salvation, because thereby the infant is admitted into the Church, and participateth of the meanes of salvation.”35 Granted, this state was not an automatic entrance into saving grace through spiritual regeneration. Nevertheless, baptism does place children within God’s ordained context for working salvation in people. In Carleton’s words, “We say, that, if they fall into a sinnefull and wicked

32.  Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem, pt. 2, p. 141. 33.  Carleton, An Examination, 194. 34.  Prynne, The Perpetuitie of a Regenerate Mans Estate, 442. See also Featley, A Second Parallel, pt. 1, p. 87; Wotton, A Dangerous Plot Discovered, ch. 12, p. 53. 35.  Featley, A Second Parallel, pt. 1, p. 87.

135

136

debating perseverance

life after baptism, they loose the priviledge of their baptisme, & the good that they might have had by it, so long as they remain such.”36 If Montagu’s opponents were willing to speak of a state of grace associated with baptism, it was of a hypothetical nature. Furthermore, this state of grace was facilitated according to their sign and seal approach to sacramental efficacy. According to Prynne, baptism “seales all the promises and covenants of God unto them, and gives them an interest and right unto them, if they will imbrace them when they come to yeares.”37 In maintaining this framework, it was important to make a clear distinction between an objective context of grace (which can be lost) and a subjective appropriation of grace (which cannot be lost). As seen above, that was done by noting the difference between merely participating in the means of grace and a proper reception of that grace. This distinction was also facilitated by several other distinctions. Beyond the use of conditional qualifiers such as “so far as” and “if they will,” clear distinctions were made between the conditional promises declared in baptism and the absolute promises of salvation made to the elect. For instance, Yates spoke of how “in our eye Baptisme is that which both declareth and maketh us to be Christians: which though it always doth not take effect, neither giveth absolutely what it promiseth, onely conditionally, nor yet becomes that really to the receiver, which it signifies in the owne nature.”38 This conditional aspect of baptism allowed them to engage the discussion with suppositional arguments and still speak of its efficacy. Another important distinction was made concerning the nature of the church. Prynne asserted that baptism “makes them Christians, and incorporates them into the Church, making them visible members of the visible Church, and giving them an interest in all those priviledges the church injoyes.”39 Of course, in specifying membership in

36.  Carleton, An Examination, 206. 37.  Prynne, The Perpetuitie of a Regenerate Mans Estate, 445. 38.  Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem, pt. 2, p. 149. 39.  Prynne, The Perpetuitie of a Regenerate Mans Estate, 445, and again on 446.

136

137

a further dilemma for british divines

the visible church, he was distinguishing this from membership in the mystical and invisible church. In the same way, Yates would say that many “are admitted into the visible Church by the doore of Baptisme,” with the qualification that “the like may be said of many that are baptized . . . that they are not incorporate members into the mysticall body of Christ, and if they were, they should so continue, for that Christs body cannot be made mutilate and imperfect, and the Church which is his fulnesse cannot be more empty at one time than at another.”40 Closely associated with the visible/​mystical distinction in the church was the distinction between its external and internal administration. With it, Burton could argue that “though in our accompt, many are called, by receiving the outward Ordinances of God, and the externall ordinary means of salvation:  notwithstanding in Gods account, few are chosen. And the chosen are onely those that are truly saved in Gods account, The Lord knoweth who are his.”41 The external/​visible aspect of the church reinforces the objective context for grace that they sought, while the internal/​mystical aspect spoke to the subjective appropriation of grace. So how does this all correspond to the judgment of charity and a dual affirmation of the Church of England’s sacramental language and the perseverance of all saints? In short, since the Church externally provides the means of grace, it judges charitably that baptized infants do or will subjectively appropriate that grace unless they prove otherwise. Wrapping things together, Yates declared: For Baptisme is the doore of our actuall entrance into God’s house, the Sacrament of regeneration, the effectuall meanes of our initiation and ingraffing into Christ, and of our communion and societie with the faithfull. Which royal prerogatives and many more, though they appertaine to some onely in a Sacramentall sense, and by way of exernall profession, whereas others are Spiritually, mystically, & really indowed with them: yet in regard of us, who have not the discerning of spirits, and are 40.  Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem, pt. 2, pp. 143, 144. 41.  Burton, A Plea to An Appeale, 19–​20.

137

138

debating perseverance not able to distinguish those that are ravening wolves in sheepes clothing from sheepe indeed, they are accounted such as they represent, and judged of according to the outward semblance, and open testimony that they afford.42

And it was this juxtaposition of the objective exhibition of grace and the subjective reception of grace that allowed them to make sense of falling from baptismal grace without admitting a fall from true spiritually regenerating grace.

Concessions and Ambiguities

For all of the solidarity among the published responses regarding Montagu’s argument from baptism, there remained some concessions and ambiguities among the ranks of those utilizing the judgment of charity. As was seen in the preceding discussion, the published responses refuted a notion of baptism working ex opere operato to implant a habit of faith in recipients. Yet where someone like Yates openly denied the automatic remission of original sin in baptism,43 some others were at least willing to entertain the idea. For instance, Carleton conceded that the early church fathers taught “that young Children Baptized are delivered from Originall sinne: Wee teach the same, and we doubt not, if they dye before they come to the practice of actuall siness, they shall be saved.”44 And a little later, Carleton restated two points taught by antiquity and required by the Church of England: “That baptisme is not simply necessary, so as without it damnation must follow of necessity; and that children baptized are delivered from originall sinne.”45 Yet immediately following this, Carleton justified his position about baptized infants growing up and falling away with the Church’s judgment of charity.46 So while Carleton clearly affirmed deliverance from 42.  Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem, pt. 2, p. 148. 43.  See n. 17. 44.  Carleton, An Examination, 197–​198. 45.  Carleton, An Examination, 205–​206. 46.  Carleton, An Examination, 206.

138

139

a further dilemma for british divines

original sin for baptized infants, what is less clear is whether his affirmation was made according to the judgment of charity or if he thought there was automatic remission indeed. Even in the way he states it, it is unclear whether deliverance from original sin is the effect of baptism or something confirmed by baptism. Replying to Montagu’s claim “that children duely Baptized, are put into the estate of grace and salvation,” Carleton granted that “we must esteem them so judicio charitatis.”47 One is left to wonder if he considered remission of original sin as part of being in a state of grace and only judged to be performed, or whether it stood separate from this state of grace and was automatically removed by baptism. Perhaps a more surprising case of ambiguity on the matter is Prynne, who accepted the title of Puritan and suffered considerable persecution for that cause. Thus one may be less likely to think that he would have associated the remission of original sin with baptism. Yet Prynne conceded that “though Infants are not so far regenerated by their baptisme, as to have any habit, stocke, and seed of true and saving grace begun within them, yet the elect are so far cleansed and washed by their baptisme from the guilt of originall sin, by a secret and hidden way, which God hath not revealed to us, that if they die in their infancie, before their actuall regeneration and reall conversion unto God, they shall be saved: wherefore though Infants are not spiritually regenerated by their Baptisme, yet it is to purpose, because they receive much fruit and benefit by it in these respects.”48 And though he did not take the time to explain his position more than this, he did bring it up again at the end of his response to the argument from baptism by saying, “Now sacramental grace and regeneration is one thing, and this state of true and saving grace, and faith is another: if wee admit that Infants once baptized have a sacramentall grace within them, (which is nothing else but a freedome from the guilt of originall sinne) yet no man I thinke can bee so absurd as to say, that they have any habituall graces, or justifying faith within them; for they want reason and understanding to 47.  Carleton, An Examination, 207–​208. 48.  Prynne, The Perpetuitie of a Regenerate Mans Estate, 445.

139

140

debating perseverance

apply the word and promises of God, and to use those meanes which should beget these graces in them.”49 He makes it clear that, at least for the elect, baptism is an instrument in the removal of original sin. What is not so clear is how he reconciled this with his trenchant belief that baptism neither infuses or begins anything but only seals and confirms, along with his adamant denial of baptism working effectually in infants so long as they pose no impediment.50 Was his concession on remission of original sin a last-​ditch argument in case his others did not work, or did he really embrace it and only mean to apply his more stringent criticism against the idea of an infusion of grace? Whatever the case, the concessions and ambiguities made by Carleton and Prynne were minor and passing comments within a larger and fairly unified opposition to Montagu that leaned heavily on the judgment of charity for reconciling the Book of Common Prayer with the Canons of Dort on perseverance.

P r i vat e S t r u g g l e s

ov e r   B a p t i s m a l

E f f ic a c y

As important as the published responses to Montagu were, they only make up part of the story. The fact is that the Montagu affair generated a host of discussion, and some of the most intriguing responses came in more private communications. Those public responses portray a popular opposition to baptismal regeneration in England that Montagu most likely would have anticipated. What would have been harder for Montagu to forecast was a response that reconciled an automatic and indiscriminate version of baptismal efficacy with perseverance of the saints. And because those conciliatory responses came in more private correspondence and were not even directed at Montagu, they have been neglected in treatments of the Montagu affair. Carleton figured prominently in the published responses to Montagu, which was particularly significant since he was an English representative at Dort. However, he was not the only British delegate to Dort who 49.  Prynne, The Perpetuitie of a Regenerate Mans Estate, 456. 50.  Prynne, The Perpetuitie of a Regenerate Mans Estate, 442, 444.

140

141

a further dilemma for british divines

was troubled by Montagu’s argument from baptism. There were at least two other delegates that showed considerable concern with Montagu’s argument: John Davenant and Samuel Ward. But instead of taking this concern to the press, Ward and Davenant conducted their discussions more privately. Furthermore, rather than arguing from the judgment of charity, they bypassed it for a clear and reasoned embrace of the idea that baptism automatically causes the remission of original sin.

Davenant’s Argument for Reconciliation

In the wake of the Montagu affair, Ward and Davenant corresponded with one another concerning the relation between baptismal regeneration and the perseverance of the saints. The two were quite aware of the trouble Montagu had stirred among the defenders of Dort, and especially over the doctrine of perseverance. However, Davenant hesitated “to treat this entire controversy proceeding from perseverance.” Davenant held out some hope of reconciliation with “our Montagu” since the latter’s views on perseverance did not overthrow election. But what troubled Davenant and Ward most was that Montagu used the argument from baptized infants.51 The very fact that Montagu raised the argument from the efficacy of infant baptism suggests that he recognized some form of baptismal regeneration gaining recognition among English churchmen. From the published responses to Montagu on the issue, one could get the impression that Montagu’s argument had completely missed the mark. Yet the fact is that, whether Montagu was cognizant of it or not, men like Davenant and Ward stood behind the Dortian definition of perseverance 51.  John Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” in Thomas Bedford’s Vindiciae Gratiae Sacramentalis (London, 1650), 30–​31. “Animadverto Montacutium nostrum, quamvis multa ad Dei necessitionem ad vitam aeternam odiose imponat illis qui absolutam praedestinationem tuentur; tamen extra aestum contentionis, agnoscit quoad Electos illam ipsam pereundi impossibilitatem, quam nos ipsis tribuimus . . . . Sed non est praesentis instituti integram hanc de Perseverantia controversiam pertractare: Sufficiat ostendisse quam invalidum sit ad sententiam nostrum labefactandam, puerile illud a pueris ratione nondum utentibus, desumptum argumentum.”

141

142

debating perseverance

while simultaneously advocating an automatic grant of salvation in baptism. Montagu had scored a direct hit, and as the correspondence of Davenant and Ward shows, they carried quite the burden in trying to square their seemingly incompatible positions. In spite of regarding it as “weak” and “childish” to argue from the case of “children not yet able to make use of reason,” Davenant was unable to easily dismiss it but spent the whole of his letter articulating an elaborate defense of his position.52 As much as he wanted to dismiss Montagu’s argument, he was aware that it potentially had appeal to other English churchmen holding to a form of baptismal regeneration. On top of Arminians and Roman Catholics, Davenant mentioned that the baptismal argument against perseverance was being adopted by “several of our own.”53 Davenant’s basic strategy in responding to Montagu’s arguments was to demonstrate that the state of baptized infants was “entirely unrelated to the present controversy.”54 It was a simple procedural issue of determining whether the argument even addressed the question at hand. Regarding the perseverance debate, “it is only asked whether everybody who clung to Christ for a time by faith, and for a time lived righteously and holily, can voluntarily act to depart from faith and righteousness. These things do not pertain to infants; therefore, neither perseverance nor apostasy presently comes in question.”55 This approach was by no means new to Davenant, for he employed similar measures with his fellow British delegates to Dort in their Collegiat Suffrage. There, the British divines introduced their judgment of the fifth article with the following disclaimer: “In this article when question is made concerning 52.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 31. “Sufficiat ostendisse quam invalidum sit ad sententiam nostrum labefactandam, puerile illud a pueris ratione nondum utentibus, desumptum argumentum.” 53.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 1. “quo Arminiani, Pontificii, atque è nostris nonnulli utuntur.” 54.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 1. “ab hac controversia prorsus alienum.” 55.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 2–​3. “Sic igitur colligo:  In hac quaestione non quaeritur, nisi de illis solummodo qui per fidem Christo ad tempus adhaeserunt, & ad tempus juste sancteque vixerunt, quique actu voluntario a fide & justitia deficere potuerunt: Haec non spectant ad infantes, ergo neque Perseverantia neque Apostasia haec, quae nunc in quaestionem venit.”

142

143

a further dilemma for british divines

the perseverance of the Saints, it is to be understood, that wee treat of those Saints onely, which are come to the use of reason, and are justified by the Act of faith formed in them by the preaching of the Gospell; and who are supposed by the act of their owne wills to persevere in the same faith, or else to faile in their perseverance.”56 Since the debate revolved around the volitional functions of fully mature humans, infants should remain exempt from the discussion. Davenant’s approach bore some resemblance to the published responses against Montagu. In fact, Featley had described the argument “drawne from the Baptisme of Children” as “weak & childish; for it doth not at all touch the state of the question.”57 As he argued, “infants haue not the actuall vse of reason” and thus can neither be expected to “apprehend and apply the promises of the Gospell” nor “commit those crying actuall sins, which the Appealer calls mortall.”58 Such an attempt to show that infants were not germane to the perseverance debate was bolstered by the many denials of a habit of faith and grace infused ex opere operato in baptism. Likewise, Davenant leveled his own assault against the idea of an infused habit in baptism. Indeed, he spent the first part of his letter to Ward developing five propositions concerning “what is not conferred to children in baptism.”59 Displaying a considerable amount of research, Davenant showed how the Arminians did not believe in an infused habit, that it was disputed among Roman Catholics and not clearly established at the Council of Trent, that the Reformed tradition denied it, and that the early church fathers knew nothing of it.60 On the point of infused graces in baptism, Davenant was at one with those who published their responses to Montagu—​and his refutation on the point was arguably the most able. 56.  The Collegiat Suffrage of the Divines of Great Britaine, concerning the Five Articles Controverted in the Low Countries (London:  Robert Milbourne, 1629), 102. 57.  Featley, A Second Parallel, pt. 1, p. 86. 58.  Featley, A Second Parallel, pt. 1, p. 87. 59.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 11. “Hactenus in eo potissimum operam posuimus ut quid non detur Parvulis in Baptismo oftenderemus 60.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 1–​12.

143

144

debating perseverance

Notwithstanding the common ground concerning infused graces, Davenant’s response took a distinctly different approach than that presented among published books. Quite notably, the argument based on the judgment of charity is glaringly absent from Davenant’s letter. As already noted, the published responses used the judgment of charity to explain how baptized infants were not automatically placed in a state of salvation but, if anything, only hypothetically spoken of as reaching this state. Yet for men like Davenant and Ward, although it was not by infusion, baptism did grant salvation to infants, and the words of the Church’s liturgy went beyond kind consideration. Whereas Davenant spent the first part of his letter arguing against infused grace in baptism, he used the second part to carefully craft an argument for showing an actual grant of salvation in baptism and how its loss in apostates was not at odds with Dort’s doctrine of perseverance. In setting forth the positive effect of baptism on infants, Davenant bypassed the idea of ecclesiastical privileges and participation in the means of grace that was prevalent in the published responses to Montagu. While he may have been able to affirm those things, he saw something more effectual in baptism given to infants. The first point he made was that “all baptized infants are absolved from the guilt of original sin.”61 Davenant recognized that some limited this effect to the elect, but he found no compelling reason to discriminate between baptism’s efficacy on the elect and nonelect.62 One recalls the ambiguous position of Prynne where he seems to have conceded at least to the remission of original sin in baptism. But for Davenant, it is clear that baptism automatically removes liability for original sin for both elect and nonelect infants.63 61.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 12. “Omnes Infantes Baptizati ab Originalis peccati reatu absolvuntur.” 62.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 13. “Neque aliquid caussae video cur hunc effectum ad solos Electos arctemus, quod olim feccerunt nonnulli (ut testator Lumbardus) & nunc facere aliquos ex illorum scriptis mihi fit verisimile.” 63.  A  variety of views were expressed during this time. For instance, Cornelius Burges, who would later be a significant Presbyterian at the Westminster Assembly, limited baptismal efficacy to the elect but pushed beyond Davenant in saying that the elect are ordinarily indwelt by the Holy Ghost at baptism and so united to

144

145

a further dilemma for british divines

Davenant also sought to show how remission of original sin was the link between baptism and the benefits of saving grace. In doing this, he was able to engage more fully with Montagu’s assertion of baptized infants entering into a state of grace and salvation. Characterizing his position as that of the early church fathers and a significant strand running through the medieval era, Davenant argued that remission of original sin is the primary effect of baptism and that an infant’s regeneration, justification, and adoption is suspended on it.64 Key to Davenant’s argument was the idea that infancy occurs “before the age of participating in reason and free choice.”65 This was a time “when actual sin has not come upon the young.”66 Thus, categorically speaking, infants “were limited to that age liable to original sin alone.”67 Accordingly, the guilt of original sin is the only “hindrance which prevents infants from going to heaven.”68 With this in mind, Davenant talked through the benefits of justification, regeneration, sanctification, and adoption, demonstrating how the church fathers and a number of men up through the sixteenth century equated each of these graces with the remission of sin in infants.69 It was a way of defining the state of salvation according to the condition of infants.

Christ that they are given the initial principle of regeneration that sets the foundation for their future actuation of that spiritual life. See Cornelis Burges, Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants (Oxford, 1629). Burges was not writing in direct response to Montagu and will not be treated here. 64.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 12. “Atq; hic est primarius ejus effectus, ex quo etiam pendet illorum, quae dicitur, Regeneratio, Justificatio, Adoptio, sive ad regnum celeste acceptation. 65.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 17. “ante aetatem rationis & liberi Arbitrii compotem.” 66.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 14. “Justificatio iditur Infanti re non differ ab expiation sive remission Originalis peccati, cum in parvulis actuale peccatum non inveniatur, à quo possint justificari.” 67.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 18. “ad aetatem solius peccati Originalis ream limitatos.” 68.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 18. “impedimentum, quod arcet Infantes ab ingressu coeli.” 69.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 14–​18.

145

146

debating perseverance

Having set out the state of salvation according to the condition of infants, Davenant contrasted it with the state of salvation according to the condition of adulthood. As he put it, “the justification, regeneration, and adoption that we allow to coincide with baptized infants is not univocally the same as that justification, regeneration, and adoption that, on the question of the perseverance of the saints, we maintain is never lost.”70 Carefully working through each of those graces in relation to the salvation of adults, Davenant argued that those graces manifest themselves in faith and in relation to the developed will and reason.71 Throughout, he labored to show how saving graces in infancy and adulthood were very different things. Although they both conferred genuine states of salvation that made them acceptable in heaven, he insisted that “they cannot be the same either in reality or to reason.”72 Therefore, baptismal regeneration for children was seen as a different species from the new creation applied to adults.73 Seeing that the conditions of infancy and adulthood differ as to the use of reason, the kinds of grace associated with the two conditions differ as well. Davenant was eager to show that “the justification, regeneration, and adoption of baptized infants confers to them a state of salvation suited for the condition of infants.”74 This concept of “salvation fit for the condition” was crucial for Davenant’s effort to coordinate his belief that baptism granted an actual state of salvation to infants with his adherence to Dort’s statement on the saints’ perseverance. He argued 70.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 18. “Justificatio, Regeneratio, Adoptio, quam concedimus competere infantibus baptizatis, non est univocè eadem cum illa justification, regeneration & Adoptione, quam in quaestione de Perseverantia sanctorum nunquam amitti defendimus.” 71.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 18–​25. 72.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 19. “non possunt esse aut re aut ratione eadem.” 73.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 19. “nec Regeneratio parvuli, est jusdem speciei cum hac nova creation, sive spirituali renascentià adultorum, quam defendimus nunquam totaliter aboleri aut amitti, postquam Spiritûs virtute semel product fuerit in corde regenerati.” 74.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 25. “Parvulorum baptizatorum Justificatio, Regeneratio & Adoptio confert illis statum salutis pro condition parvulorum.”

146

147

a further dilemma for british divines

that “infants, through baptism, are certainly placed in a state of salvation, but merely with respect to that age and condition of the young. Therefore, those who pass away at a mature age without fulfilling their baptismal vow do not lose the salvific state that they had in the condition of infants, but they lose the infant state, which being changed, ceases to be sufficient for the salvation of an adult in so far as it was sufficient by divine ordinance for the salvation of the infant.”75 Likewise, Davenant stressed that the change from infancy to maturity requires the active engagement of the will to maintain the state of salvation: “Those who in baptism were truly justified, regenerated, and adopted in the common condition of little ones, do not become justified, regenerated, and adopted in the special condition of adulthood when they arrive at the use of reason, unless they fulfill the vow proclaimed in baptism by repenting, believing, and renouncing.”76 Whereas saving graces do not require “preceding actions of free choice” in order to apply to infants, such volition is required in order for justification, regeneration, and adoption to stand in adults.77 For Davenant, infant salvation was considerably different from the salvation of adults. Adults experiencing saving grace can never lose it,

75.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 27. “Ex hisce cuivis patere potest Infantes per Baptismum poni quidem in statu salutis, sed respectivè tantùm ad illam aetatem & conditionem parvulorum. Qui igitur in adultiore aetate pereunt, non impleto Baptismi voto, non amittunt statum salutiferum, quem habuerunt pro conditione infantulotum; sed amittunt statum infantilem, quo mutate, cessat esse sufficiens ad salutem Adulti, quod Ordinatione divina sufficiens erat ad salute parvuli.” 76.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 27–​28. “Qui in Baptismo pro communi conditione parvulorum verè justificati, regenerati & adoptati fuerunt, pro speciali conditione Adultorum non existunt justificati, regenerati, aut adoptati cùm ad usum rationis pervenerint, nisi poenitendo, credendo, abrenuntiando, votum Baptismate nuncupatum impleverint.” 77.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 28. “Nam licèt tam in parvulis, quàm in Adultis justificatio, regeneratio, & Adoptio innuant actus Dei:  Tamen hi actus divini quatenus spectant parvulos non requirunt in illis actiones aliquas praecedaneas liberi Arbitrii: At in adultis ex ordinatine divina praerequirunt: neque ponunt in parvulis spiritualia illa effecta, quae in Adultis si minùs ponantur, illorum justificatio, regeneratio, & Adoptio nullo modo potest consistere.”

147

148

debating perseverance

for the grace fitted for their condition was “established in election.”78 However, he saw that “a temporary ordination to life by the remission of original sin can stand in infants without the benefit of election, which infallibly appoints and brings to eternal life.”79 The fact that this appointment to life was temporary did not negate it as a state of genuine salvation, for “infants in their present condition are accordingly justified, regenerated, and sanctified in baptism so that, if they were to die in this state of infancy, there would be no doubt of their election or salvation.”80 Nevertheless, in order to maintain his position, Davenant had to concede that it was possible for some nonelect to gain temporary access to salvation. However, he did it in such a way that maintained the certainty of perseverance for those who had saving faith. This allowed him to grant Montagu a losable state of salvation associated with infant baptism. And because the saving grace of infant baptism was not univocal with the saving grace of adulthood, Davenant could charge Montagu and others with equivocation when they opposed perseverance of the saints on the grounds of infant baptism.81

Ward’s Defense of Automatic Efficacy in Baptism

This sophisticated response to Montagu’s argument from baptism was not limited to Davenant’s letter to Ward. In fact, Ward carried it out through his correspondence with other churchmen of his day. Particularly enlightening is his correspondence with his Irish colleagues James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, and William Bedell, Bishop of Kilmore.

78.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 25. “fundata in Electione.” 79.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 25. “Stare ergò potest in parvulis temporanea Ordinatio ad vitam per Remissionem Originalis peccati absque beneficio Electionis, quae ad vitam aeternam infallililiter destinat ac perducit.” 80.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 26. “quòd parvuli pro sua praesenti conditione ita justificentur, regenerentur, sanctificentur in Baptism ut si moriantur in hoc statu parvulorum, neque de Electione, negue de Salute eorum sit dubitandum.” 81.  Davenant, “Epistola Davenantii,” 21. “Aequivocatione igitur vocabulorum aut falluntur contra illam Adoptionem adultorum factum fide mediante.”

148

149

a further dilemma for british divines

Ward and Ussher’s relationship reached back to the early 1600s. Both men had considerable interest in Patristic scholarship, and much of their correspondence regards projects and manuscripts related to the early church. It would also appear that Ward was offered a position at Trinity College, Dublin. Though that did not work out, Ward and Ussher developed a lifelong friendship.82 In March 1629/​30, Ussher wrote to Ward, saying, “You have done to me a great pleasure in communicating unto me my lord of Salisbury and your own determination touching the efficacy of baptism in infants; for it is an obscure point, and such as I desire to be taught in by such as you are, rather than deliver mine own opinion thereof.”83 By the “lord of Salisbury,” Ussher referred to Davenant, as that is where he held his bishopric. Aware of the perseverance controversy and the stir related to the efficacy of baptism, Ussher sought insight into the debate from his good friend. Responding to Ussher, Ward revealed a little of the background of his work on the efficacy of baptism. According to Ward, the debate had gone beyond Montagu’s treatise and found its way into the halls of Cambridge: The occasion of my determination, was (as I  think I  signified in my former letters) for that the question was given with a purpose to impugn the doctrine of perseverance, as they conceived, by an undeniable argument. I  was very loath the question should be brought upon the

82.  Samuel Ward to James Ussher, July 6, 1608, “Letter VI,” in The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, D.  D., 17  vols. (Dublin:  Hodges and Smith, 1847–​1864), 15: 55. Hereafter Works of Ussher. “I do acknowledge Mr. Alvey’s great kindness and kind offer, and could have wished his offer had come first, but God had otherwise disposed; for I had disposed of myself before I heard of him; who otherwise would have been glad to have been one of your consociates. But howsoever I hope, by intercourse of letters, we shall benefit one another in some sort by God’s grace.” Henry Alvey was then provost of Trinity College, Dublin. 83.  Ussher to Ward, March 15, 1629/​30, “Letter CLXIII,” in Works of Ussher, 15:482.

149

150

debating perseverance commencement stage, and therefore signified to the then vice-​chancellor, that it would entrench upon the question of perseverance, which is one of those questions, I said, his Majesty would not have discussed, which he signifieth by his declaration. Yet he replied, the affirmative part of the question was the authorized doctrine of our Church, as appeared in the Rubric, of deferring confirmation:  and the answerer was importunate to have that question; and so accordingly it was overruled by the major part of the doctors.84

Ward’s determination argued that “All Baptized Infants Are Justified without a Doubt,” wherein he was sure to demonstrate how this position was not at odds with perseverance of the saints.85 This determination was not a rash response, for Ward had been thinking through the matter for a long time. In fact, Ward confessed to Ussher how he had discussed it with Davenant as far back as when they helped draft their Collegiat Suffrage at Dort.86 In response to Ward, Ussher drew attention to the fact that Ward’s position was at odds with what was more commonly accepted within the Church. Ussher wrote: My lord of Derry hath a book ready for the press, wherein he handleth at full the controversy of perseverance and the certainty of salvation. He there determineth that point of the efficacy of baptism far otherwise than you do: accommodating himself to the opinion more vulgarly received among us; to which he applieth sundry sentences out of St. Augustine;

84.  Ward to Ussher, May 25, 1630, “Letter CLXX,” in Works of Ussher, 15:504. 85.  Samuel Ward, “Omnes Baptizati Infantes sine dubio justificantur,” in Opera Nonnulla: Determinationes Theologicae, Tractatus de Justificatione, Praelectiones de Peccato Originali, ed. Seth Ward (London, 1658), 50–​55; he reconciles his position with perseverance of the saints on pp. 53–​54. 86.  Ward to Ussher, May 25, 1630, “Letter CLXX,” in Works of Ussher, 15:504. “I had heretofore thought upon the point somewhat. And my lord of Sarum, and myself, at Dort, had speech of it, when we signified in our judgment, that the case of infants was not appertaining to the question of perseverance.”

150

151

a further dilemma for british divines and among others that De baptismo:  “Sacramenta in solis electis hoc vere efficiunt quod figurant.”87

The Bishop of Derry was George Downame, and his book was A Treatise of the Certainty of Perseverance, which was appended to The Covenant of Grace.88 At the same time that Ussher was corresponding with Ward on the issue, he was also making Downame aware of the position taken by Davenant and Ward. The exchange was all very cordial, as it existed between colleagues that held great affection for one another. Downame admitted personal disapproval of the opinion that would “extend the benefit of baptism beyond either the purpose or covenant of grace,” yet he thought it best to avoid publicly professing a difference with his fellow churchmen since they agreed on the point of perseverance.89 Ward spoke of Downame as “a worthy man, and whom I do much reverence,” and he also admitted that his own view concerning the efficacy of baptism differed from that of “most of our divines.”90 Even though Ward recognized that his position was not popular, he was not ready to give it up or admit that he did not have Augustine on his side. He conceded that “the Scripture sparingly speak of the effect of baptism in infants,” but he found reliable guidance from “the nature of the sacraments” and the consideration that “the perpetual tradition of the Church is no way to be slighted, where it doth not cross the Scripture, but is consonant to general grounds contained in them.”91 As his career reflects, Ward had an abiding interest in the early church, and 87.  Ussher to Ward, March 15, 1629/​30, “Letter CLXIII,” in Works of Ussher, 15:482. 88.  George Downame, A Treatise of the Certainty of Perseverance: Maintaining the Trueth of the 38th Article of the Nationall Synod Holden at Dublin in the Yeare 1615, appended to The Covenant of Grace, or An Exposition upon Luke 1. 73. 74. 75 (Dublin: Society of Stationers, 1631), 233–​414. Downame treats the question about those who are baptized and fall away on pp. 392–​401. 89.  Downame to Ussher, April 24, 1630  “Letter CLXVII,” in Works of Ussher, 15:493. 90.  Ward to Ussher, May 25, 1630, “Letter CLXX,” in Works of Ussher, 15:505. 91.  Ward to Ussher, May 25, 1630, “Letter CLXX,” in Works of Ussher, 15:505.

151

152

debating perseverance

while the ancient fathers did not carry the authority of Scripture, they were respected as careful interpreters of the Word who should be taken seriously. Concerning perseverance of the saints, Ward gladly shared in the reading of Augustine presented by Montagu’s common opponents, stating “that according to St. Augustine, the non-​elect never come to be justified by a true and lively faith, nor ever are by that bond mystically united to Christ as their head, nor ever attain unto true repentance, &c.”92 Yet he took a decisively different reading of Augustine on the efficacy of infant baptism. Quick to challenge Ussher and Downame’s reference to Augustine teaching that the sacraments work what they signify in the elect only, Ward replied: “The speech in Lombard, alleged as out of St. Augustine, ‘Sacramenta in solis electis efficiunt quod figurant,’ is no where to be found in St. Augustine. And if it were, yet it is to be understood as Lombard doth gloss it, otherwise Augustine should contradict himself, as is evident by the testimonies he there produceth out of Austin; and many more which might be brought for remission of original sin in all baptized infants, out of him.”93 Ward was confident in his reading of Augustine, and he readily received it as his own. While Ward’s determination on the justification of baptized infants received a gentle pushback from Ussher and Downame, it received a more stringent critique from others within his circle of correspondence. Bedell was in correspondence with both Ussher and Ward on this matter, and the three friends showed mutual interest in knowing how each of the others responded. Having been brought into the discussion, Bedell thanked Ward for sending him a copy of Davenant’s letter and Ward’s determination. He yielded to Davenant that the graces associated with infants in baptism were not univocal with those in adults, and he yielded to Ward that baptism truly performed something. Nevertheless, Bedell was sure to qualify this as being done in an “obsignative” or sealing fashion. He argued in a way reminiscent of the published replies to Montagu that the infant’s “absolution and washing in baptism was but conditional and expectative, which doth truly interest 92.  Ward to Ussher, May 25, 1630, “Letter CLXX,” in Works of Ussher, 15:501. 93.  Ward to Ussher, May 25, 1630, “Letter CLXX,” in Works of Ussher, 15:505.

152

153

a further dilemma for british divines

them in all the promises of God, but under the condition of repenting, believing, and obeying, which they never perform, and therefore never attain the promise.” He wanted Ward to see “the nature of sacraments to be not as medicines, but as seals, to confirm the covenant, not to confer the promise immediately.” Bedell correctly recognized that they were looking at different understandings of baptism and felt quite comfortable pointing it out. As he astutely responded, “The right definition of a sacrament in general will decide this question.”94 Ward shared with Ussher and Bedell that he could not assent to the position that would “make the principal end and effect of all sacraments to be obsignation.” Although Ward admitted that sealing was a part of the sacraments, he believed that their primary function was to “offer and exhibit that grace which they signify,” making the effect of exhibition “pre-​existing in order of nature to obsignation.” And because the offer can and does stand without its confirmation, Ward could say that obsignation is not as essential as exhibition. Seeing exhibition as the principal effect, Ward saw the automatic remission of sin as the logical conclusion for infant baptism: “Since then infants are capable of baptism, why not of spiritual ablution of original guilt, which is the thing signified, though not of actual obsignation of this, since they cannot interpose any impediment to hinder the operation of the sacrament.”95 While admitting that his position was not the most popular one in the Church of England, Ward felt he had good precedence to hold it. He pointed to Richard Hooker as a respected and influential churchman who both advocated this position on the efficacy of infant baptism and held to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.96 Hooker

94.  Bedell to Ward, n.d., “Letter CLXXI,” in Works of Ussher, 15:508–​509. 95.  Ward to Ussher, May 25, 1630, “Letter CLXX,” in Works of Ussher, 15:505–​ 506; Ward to Bedell, May 28, 1630, “Letter CLXXII,” in Works of Ussher, 15:510–​511. 96.  Ward to Ussher, May 25, 1630, “Letter CLXX,” in Works of Ussher, 15:506; Ward to Bedell, May 28, 1630, “Letter CLXXII,” in Works of Ussher, 15:511. Holifield does not make the connection between Hooker and Ward, considering Ward the “first architect of Puritan Sacramentalism.” See Holifield, The Covenant Sealed, 78. Spinks, however, points out Ward’s early connections with Perkins and

153

154

debating perseverance

did indeed articulate a strikingly similar view of infant baptism at the end of the previous century. Discussing Augustine on whether infants believe, Hooker said: A present actual habit of faith there is not in them, there is delivered unto them that sacrament a part of the due celebration whereof consisteth in answering to the articles of faith, because the habit of faith which afterwards doth come with years, is but a farther building up of the same edifice, the first foundation whereof was layd by the sacrament of baptisme. For that which there we professed without any understanding, when we afterwards come to acknowledge, do we any thing else but only bring unto ripeness the very seed that was sowne before? We are then believers, because then we begin to be that which process of time doth make perfect. And till we come to actual belief, the very sacrament of faith is a shield as strong as after this the faith of the sacrament against all contrarie infernal powers. Which whosoever doth thinke impossible, is undoubtedly farther off from the Christian beliefe though he be baptized then are these innocents which at their baptisme albeit they have no conceipt or cogitation of faith, are notwithstanding pure and free from all opposite cogitations, whereas the other is not free. If therefore without any feare or scruple we may accompt them and terme them believers only for their outward professions sake, which inwardly are farther from faith then infants, why not infants much more at the time of their solemne initiation by baptisme the sacrament of faith, whereunto they not only conceyve nothing opposite, but have also that grace given them which is the first and most effectual cause out of which our beliefe groweth!97

This statement succinctly conveys what Davenant and Ward were trying to defend. While denying a habit of faith, they saw baptism acting how this “Perkinsian” actually followed Hooker on sacramental theology. See Spinks, Two Faces of Elizabethan Anglican Theology, 163–​165. 97.  Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Politie: The Fift Booke (London, 1597), V.lxiv, pp. 153–​154.

154

155

a further dilemma for british divines

as a sacramental shield where no resistance is made against what it objectively exhibits. Leaving baptism at mere obsignation troubled Ward, for he felt that it stripped baptism of any necessity and seemed to deny any real benefits for infants.98 Bedell was not content with Ward’s objection and maintained his view of obsignation as the primary end of the sacraments. He did not see obsignation as lacking benefits for infants. Countering the idea of baptism acting as a sacramental shield against original guilt, Bedell advocated a type of covenantal shield. Accordingly, baptism benefits infants by bringing them into the “visible Church” and “there is presently granted them an entrance into covenant with God.” Bedell found it “most pious to believe” that baptized children dying in infancy were saved, not because baptism conferred it but on account of a gracious covenantal God who “takes the condition for performed.”99 In saying that covenant children unable to perform the conditions of faith and repentance were nonetheless treated as if they did, Bedell’s position carried much the same effect as Ward and Hooker saying that baptized infants were saved “since they cannot interpose any impediment” and are “free from all opposite cogitations.” In both cases, the child automatically had access to saving grace since it was incapable of doing anything for or against God’s exhibition of grace. The main difference was whether one conditioned the effect specifically on baptism or more directly on God’s covenant.100 98.  Ward to Ussher, May 25, 1630, “Letter CLXX,” in Works of Ussher, 15:505; Ward to Bedell, May 28, 1630, “Letter CLXXII,” in Works of Ussher, 15:510. 99.  Bedell to Ward, n.d., “Letter CLXXIII,” in Works of Ussher, 15:512. This letter appears to be the draft copy Bedell sent to Ussher for review before actually sending it to Ward. See Bedell to Ussher, September 18, 1630, “Letter CLXXVIII,” in Works of Ussher, 15:538. 100.  Although the major part of the Reformed tradition denied baptismal regeneration, they still had to deal with the practical question of what happens to children of believers who die in infancy. Bedell’s covenantal argument for infant salvation is a sample of how the Reformed tradition was wrestling with the issue, and it is reflective of the decision of the Canons of Dort in Head 1, Article 17, which counseled Christian parents not to doubt of the salvation of their children lost in infancy because of their inclusion in the covenant of grace. See W. Robert Godfrey, “A Promise for Parents: Dordt’s Perspective on Covenant and Election,”

155

156

debating perseverance

Bedell agreed with Ward’s contention that exhibition comes before obsignation in the sacraments. However, this was a temporal priority. Readily admitting that “the setting of Christ and his benefits before us . . . must needs go before any obsignation,” Bedell insisted that personal “possession” of what is exhibited comes “by way of obsignation.” Obsignation is offered to infants in baptism, but it is conveyed on condition of faith and repentance. Bedell was chiefly concerned about how the graces signified were actually conveyed, and he was convinced that the way of obsignation “is the sole and only instrumental conveyance which the sacraments have.”101 In raising this concern about the instrumentality of the sacraments, he reminded Ward that “to make them medicines, is the root of all error in this matter.”102 To juxtapose a medicinal view against a pledge-​and-​seal understanding of baptism was an illustrative way attributing either physical or moral causation to the sacrament. Given the assertion of an automatic remission of sins in baptism, Bedell could not see how Ward could avoid the charge of making the sacraments physical causes of salvation. Averse to the idea of granting natural power to baptism, Bedell told Ward that if such a view of baptism is maintained, “you must allow that manner of washing for future actual sins.”103 in Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, ed. Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 373–​386; Erik A. de Boer, “ ‘O, Ye Women, Think of Thy Innocent Children, When They Die Young!’ The Canons of Dordt (First Head, Article Seventeen) between Polemic and Pastoral Theology,” in Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–​1619), ed. Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg (Leiden:  Brill, 2011), 261–​290; Cornelis P.  Venema, “The Election and Salvation of the Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy: A Study of Article I/​17 of the Canons of Dordt,” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 17 (2006): 57–​100; N. H. Gootjes, “Can Parents Be Sure? Background and Meaning of Canons of Dort I, 17,” Clarion 44 (1995):  464–​464, 481–​483; Donald W.  Sinnema, “The Issue of Reprobation at the Synod of Dort (1618–​19) in Light of the History of This Doctrine” (PhD diss., University of St. Michael’s, 1985), 413–​415. 101.  Bedell to Ward, n.d., “Letter CLXXIII,” in Works of Ussher, 15:515. 102.  Bedell to Ward, n.d., “Letter CLXXIII,” in Works of Ussher, 15:517. 103.  Bedell to Ward, n.d., “Letter CLXXIII,” in Works of Ussher, 15:519.

156

157

a further dilemma for british divines

Bedell’s accusations about the medicinal view of baptism and its ramifications for remitting future actual sins were not completely lost on Ward. On top of his determination on the justification of baptized infants, Ward delivered a determination arguing that “The Sacraments Convey Grace Where No Obstacle Is Put Up,” where he discussed the categories of physical and moral instrumental causes.104 He also gave a determination on how “Baptism Does Not Remove Future Sins,” where he addresses sacramental efficacy in relation to the differences between infants and mature people.105 Nevertheless, the point was clear that the Church was split on its understanding of the nature of the sacraments. Ward’s determinations on the efficacy of baptism not only spanned geographic distance in his correspondence with the Irish bishops but also fueled internal debates among Englishmen down through the time of the civil wars. At the same time he was engaged with Ussher and Bedell, he was also dialoging with Thomas Gataker about his determination.106 Similar to the approach taken by Downame, Ussher, and Bedell, Gataker felt that it was best to keep the dispute a private matter, and it remained so for close to two decades. Thomas Bedford, who was a disciple of Davenant and Ward, obtained a copy of the correspondence and published it along with Davenant’s letter in 1650 as a way to further his own cause for a Reformed understanding of baptismal regeneration in his Vidiciae Gratiae Sacramentalis. This led to a debate with Richard Baxter, who not only opposed Bedford but also sought to distinguish the view of Davenant and Ward from Bedford’s advocacy of an implanted habit of faith at baptism. Gataker was disturbed that Bedford’s edition was not comprehensive, so Gataker decided to publish an official edition of the correspondence that collated the initial theses of Ward’s determination, Gataker’s objections, Ward’s response,

104.  Ward, “Sacramenta non ponentibus obicem conferunt gratiam,” in Opera Nonnulla, 44–​49. 105.  Ward, “Baptismus non tollit peccata future,” in Opera Nonnulla, 56–​60. 106.  Gataker too had established a friendship with Ussher and Bedell and interacted with them over patristic manuscripts.

157

158

debating perseverance

and Gataker’s final reply in De Baptismatis Infantilis Vi & Efficacia Disceptatio.107

Conclusion A closer inspection of the Montagu affair has shown how the Canons of Dort not only caused problems for England relating directly to perseverance but also pressed the Church of England hard on its understanding of baptism. In bringing up the apparent conflict between the authorized teachings of the Church of England, which associate baptism with bringing a child into a state of salvation, and the Dortian insistence that believers cannot lose their salvation, churchmen faced yet another dilemma that threatened the Reformed identity of England. This chapter has showcased three basic strategies that the English used to deal with this dilemma, where interpretations of the Book of Common Prayer were in focus. One way of resolving the tension was to argue that this was just another reason the English should not subscribe to Dort. Montagu took this approach, reading Church documents as granting an actual state of salvation in baptism and choosing to discard the Canons. This is not to say that Montagu wanted to deny a Reformed identity for England. It means that he did not think the Church of England needed Dort to legitimate its stance as a Reformed church, and that he was willing to risk that Reformed identity in order to maintain the autonomy of the Church of England.

107.  Gataker told the background of publishing his correspondence with Ward in his preface to De Baptismatis Infantilis Vi & Efficacia Disceptatio (London, 1653), A2r–​A4r. For the interaction between Baxter and Bedford, see the appended material in Richard Baxter, Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church-​membership and Baptism, 4th ed. (London, 1656), 287–​367. For a scholarly assessment of the debate between Baxter and Bedford, and how Ward’s views factored into that, see Hans Boerma, Richard Baxter’s Understanding of Infant Baptism, Studies in Reformed Theology and History N.S. 7 (Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary, 2002).

158

159

a further dilemma for british divines

The published responses to Montagu picked up a second strategy. They denied Montagu’s reading, claiming the liturgy only spoke expectantly with the judgment of charity. Distinguishing between sacramental and spiritual regeneration, they effectively argued that the Book of Common Prayer and the Canons of Dort were addressing different issues. Therefore, they could presume all baptized infants regenerate because they saw the prayer book speaking according to the category of sacramental regeneration. In turn, they could also affirm Dort’s assertion of the perseverance of all saints because it spoke according to the category of spiritual regeneration. They saw baptism as proclaiming a conditional promise rather than conveying an actual state of salvation, and thus they called the Church of England to line up with the international Reformed movement on perseverance. Davenant and Ward presented a third strategy of dealing with the dilemma and found themselves sharing concerns of both of the other two strategies. On the one hand, they generally accepted Montagu’s reading of the prayer book and agreed that baptism conveys an actual state of salvation to infants. Yet, on the other hand, they also agreed with Dort’s more restricted definition of perseverance. But where Montagu drove a wedge between the two positions, they found the task of reconciling them more appealing. This strategy relied on limiting the efficacy of infant baptism to the remission of sin and denying the infusion of a habit of faith. Davenant’s contribution was to demonstrate the compatibility between their understanding of baptismal efficacy and perseverance, while Ward was left to defend the position and justify how baptism could absolve original sin. In theory at least, this allowed them to appeal to the traditionalist movement in England as well as the strong supporters of Dort. The several strategies of dealing with the problem proved that the Church of England was divided on its understanding of baptism. The perseverance question had touched a growing spot of sensitivity in the Church that dealt with fundamental differences in the nature of the sacraments. By taking into account both the published and private responses to Montagu’s argument, one sees that these divisions

159

160

debating perseverance

did not fall along party lines. That is, the baptism question not only encouraged Montagu and his supporters in their anti-​Dort sympathies but also caused tension within the pro-​Dort camp of Englishmen. The very party Montagu accused of being Puritan was divided between seeing baptism as automatically and actually granting salvation and viewing it as giving a conditional promise that confirms salvation if one exercises saving faith and repentance. And even the latter group was not completely unified on how to respond to the issue of baptism cleansing one of original guilt. Yates publicly denounced it as Papist, Carleton and Prynne gave it rather ambiguous concessions, and Ussher, Downame, Bedell, and Gataker kept their criticisms private so as not to expose divisions among the Dortian advocates. The fact that some people wanted to keep the issue private highlights the instability created by the Montagu affair in post-​Dort England. Clearly the Church was divided on the issue of baptism, and it was not as simple as pitting avant-​garde conformists against Puritans. Also playing into these divisions was the ever-​present shadow of Augustine. Some readings were simple and some were sophisticated, yet every side wanted to claim him as their own. Just as views of baptismal efficacy were not divided along party lines, neither were readings of Augustine. And just because some held the same interpretation of Augustine on perseverance did not mean they held the same reading of Augustine on baptism. The Augustinian tradition had many strands, and the fact that strands continued to fray raises questions about the value of the term “Augustinian.” It is somewhat ironic how appeals to Augustine and the early church were primary ways of establishing catholicity, yet due to various readings Augustine, it also led to fractures within the Church of England. Scholars have rightly looked at the differing views of baptismal efficacy in relation to struggles the Church of England faced in establishing and maintaining its identity. However, looking at how this particular debate over baptism was generated by the perseverance debate emphasizes that it was also a battle over the Church maintaining its Reformed identity. England, as a Reformed church, had codified

160

161

a further dilemma for british divines

a rather broad set of theological and liturgical standards, while the international Reformed community was favoring a more detailed and restricted expression of faith. As this chapter has demonstrated, Head 5, Rejection of Errors 3 of the Canons of Dort not only caused a problem regarding perseverance but also proved a catalyst for a further dilemma related to what the Church of England would allow as acceptable views of baptism.

161

162

chapter six

lingering reluctance among reformed englishmen Puritans and Confessionalism

The prominence of Puritans in the 1640s and the Westminster Standards exemplify the triumph, albeit temporary, of Dortian reforms in the English Church. Although the Church of England did not officially adopt the Canons of Dort, the pro-​Dort party scored a significant win over their Laudian opponents by adopting the theological and ecclesiological positions of the international Reformed churches. Such assimilation was, in fact, a piece of the theological agenda of the Westminster Assembly. The Solemn League and Covenant (1643) had specifically called for “the reformation of Religion in the Kingdoms of England and Ireland, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government, according to the Word of God, and Example of the best Reformed Churches.”1 No doubt the Synod of Dort exemplified for them the faith and practice of the “best reformed Churches,” and the Westminster Standards certainly embodied those reforms.2 1.  A Solemn League and Covenant, for Reformation and Defence of Religion, the Honor and Happinesse of the King, and the Peace and Safety of the Three Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland (London:  Edward Husbands, Nov. 16, 1643), art. 1. 2.  Jean-​Louis Quantin claims that the Westminster Assembly sought to “advance Calvinism against patristic authority” and presents the “victorious Puritans” as holding “the most literal, archaic version of sola Scriptura.” Jean-​Louis

162

163

lingering reluctance among reformed englishmen

It has been demonstrated how Dort posed problems for Englishmen who chose a broader understanding of being Reformed according to alternate readings of Augustine on perseverance. As the more robust and well-​defined confession from Westminster sought to align the English with mainstream Reformed orthodoxy, one significant point of alignment was on the perseverance of the saints. The Church of England’s previously noncommittal stance on the point of perseverance was essentially exchanged for Dort’s more narrow codification of the perseverance of the saints as the Westminster Confession of Faith proclaimed, “They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved” (17.1). After all of the debates Reformed Englishmen had on perseverance, the balance had now tipped in favor of uniformity with the international Reformed community’s newfound consensus on the point. Although historical studies on the Reformed doctrine of perseverance are sparse, Puritan scholars have begun to given some attention to the place of perseverance after the Westminster Assembly. These treatments tend to emphasize John Owen since he was involved in the most significant Puritan debate on perseverance to occur after Westminster and gave the most substantial attention to the doctrines of perseverance and apostasy of all his godly brethren. Beyond general overviews of Owen and the typically Puritan approach to perseverance,3

Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity:  The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2009), 252. In doing so, he gives the false impression that the early church fathers were unimportant to the Puritans. 3.  Sinclair B. Ferguson gives an overview of Owen’s teachings on apostasy and perseverance in John Owen on the Christian Life (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), 232–​279. Joel R. Beeke provides a summary of Owen’s major treatise on perseverance in The Quest for Full Assurance: The Legacy of John Calvin and His Successors (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1999), 167–​173. And Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones explain Westminster’s perspective on the perseverance of the saints with illustrations from Owen and other Puritans in A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 601–​617.

163

164

debating perseverance

consideration has extended to Owen’s exegetical development of the doctrine4 and even the levels of continuity and difference between him and Augustine.5 And now the focus of this current study raises further inquiries that call for investigation. Having seen the importance of readings of Augustine in previous English debates on perseverance, one is left to wonder what influence the triumph of the pro-​Dort party in the Puritan revolution had on the readings and receptions of Augustine as teaching the apostasy of the saints. Granted, there has been acknowledgment of the conflicting readings of Augustine on perseverance by Owen and John Goodwin.6 But what is needed now is an inquiry into the way these readings of Augustine were used in the Puritan revolution and the varied effects they produced. This chapter picks up the concerns about different readings and receptions of Augustine on perseverance and tracks reactions to them among Reformed Englishmen in the aftermath of the Westminster Assembly. It begins with Goodwin’s instigation of the perseverance debate, giving special attention to his challenge to the prevailing reception of Augustine among the pro-​Dort party. It then looks at responses to Goodwin from Owen and George Kendall and moves on to an analysis of Richard Baxter’s involvement in the debate. What it reveals is how key representatives of Reformed Puritanism disagreed on readings of Augustine. Moreover, it gives further evidence that variant readings of Augustine influenced how people thought the doctrine of perseverance should be treated in public confessions.

4.  Henry M.  Knapp, “John Owen’s Interpretation of Hebrews 6:4–​ 6:  Eternal Perseverance of the Saints in Puritan Exegesis,” Sixteenth Century Journal 34 (Spring 2003):  29–​52. This was originally ch. 7 in his notable dissertation on “Understanding the Mind of God: John Owen and Seventeenth-​Century Exegetical Methodology” (PhD diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2002). 5.   Henry M.  Knapp, “Augustine and Owen on Perseverance,” Westminster Theological Journal 62 (Spring 2000): 65–​87. 6.  Knapp, “Augustine and Owen on Perseverance,” 82–​83.

164

165

lingering reluctance among reformed englishmen

J o h n G o o dw i n

and

A p o s ta s y

Although the Westminster Assembly established a set of doctrinal standards that clearly affirmed the Dortian position on perseverance, and the Church had also removed the Laudian ministers who opposed it, the doctrine of the saints’ perseverance did not go uncontested. Perhaps the ablest, most articulate, and best-​respected challenger of the doctrine was John Goodwin.7 Goodwin was a Puritan pastor at the influential church of St. Stephen’s, Coleman Street in London.8 While he was trained in and had embraced the Reformed theology of the day, he came to a point where he questioned the doctrines of grace as taught in the Canons of Dort and became known as one of the leading advocates of Arminianism in England.9 And chief among the books advocating Arminianism in mid-​ seventeenth-​century England was Goodwin’s Redemption Redeemed.10 It is true that Goodwin took the label of “Arminain” as an odious slur and chided his opponents for participating in such unhelpful name-​calling.11 Yet his objection to this title was more about the way it was used to dismiss people and less about denying association with the theology of Jacob Arminius. The fact is that Goodwin unashamedly positioned himself alongside the cause of the Dutch Remonstrants. For instance, he presented five heads of difference he had with the 7.  For an intellectual biography on Goodwin, see John Coffey, John Goodwin and the Puritan Revolution: Religion and Intellectual Change in 17th-​Century England (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2006). 8.   For the significance of this church, see Adrian Johns, “Coleman Street,” Huntington Library Quarterly 71, no. 1 (March 2008): 33–​54. 9.  Ellen More, “John Goodwin and the Origins of the New Arminianism,” Journal of British Studies 22, no. 1 (Autumn 1982): 50–​70. 10.  John Goodwin, Apolytrosis Apolytroseos or Redemption Redeemed (London: by John Macock for Lodowick Lloyd and Henry Cripps, 1651). Hereafter Redemption Redeemed. 11.  See Goodwin’s prefaces in Redemption Redeemed, (c3v); and Triumviri:  Or, The Genius, Spirit, and Deportment of the Three Men, Mr. Richard Resbury, Mr. John Pawson, and Mr. George Kendall, in Their Late Writings against the Free Grace of God in the Redemption of the World (London, 1658), B1v–​B2r, 30–​32. Hereafter The Genius, Spirit, and Deportment of the Three Men.

165

166

debating perseverance

majority of his Puritan brethren, mirroring the five points delivered by the Arminians and answered at the Synod of Dort.12 Furthermore, he referred to his opponents as the “Contra-​ Remonstrant party.”13 Whereas charges of Arminianism against Richard Montagu and the Laudians were somewhat unfairly leveled in the debates of previous decades, theological associations of Goodwin with Dutch Remonstrant theology were not unfounded. To a large degree, Redemption Redeemed was a reaction on Goodwin’s part to the Dortian doctrines incorporated in the Westminster Standards. Throughout Redemption Redeemed, Goodwin voiced dissent against the reforms adopted at Westminster. He spoke of supporters of the Westminster Assembly as those “who of late attempted the building of a fence-​wall of Discipline (under the Name of a Reformation) about the Vineyard of Christ amongst us.” He mockingly regarded Westminster’s theology as “the unreformedness and unsoundness of the Doctrine commonly received amongst us.”14 Although Goodwin found the traditionalist approach of Laudianism an abomination and associated himself among the Puritan opposition, he was equally unsatisfied with the Reformed direction taken by the majority of his “godly brethren.”15 With the publication of Redemption Redeemed in 1651, Goodwin initiated several debates among his Puritan colleagues. His main goal

12.  John Goodwin, Eirenomachia. The Agreement & Distance of Brethren: Or, a Brief Survey of the Judgment of Mr. J. G. and the Church of God Walking with Him, Touching These Important Heads of Doctrine: 1. Election and Reprobation. 2. The Death of Christ. 3. The Grace of God, in and about Conversion. 4. The Liberty or Power of the Will, or of the Creature Man. 5.  The Perseverance of the Saints. Truly and Plainly Declaring the Particulars, as Well Agreed upon, as Dissented in, between Them, and Their Christian Brethren of Opposite Judgment to Them in Some Things about the Said Doctrines (London, 1652). Hereafter The Agreement & Distance of Brethren. 13.  Goodwin, preface, The Genius, Spirit, and Deportment of the Three Men, b4v. 14.  Goodwin, epistle dedicatory, Redemption Redeemed, A4v. 15.   Goodwin wrote against the Solemn League and Covenant in Twelve Considerable Serious Cautions, Very Necessary to be Observed, in, and about a Reformation according to the Word of God (London, 1646).

166

167

lingering reluctance among reformed englishmen

there was to defend and advance the doctrine of universal redemption. And quite predictably, the press saw a substantial response supporting the view of particular redemption.16 However, inserted in the middle of the book, Goodwin ventured into an extensive seven-​chapter digression against the “commonly received Doctrine of Perseverance.”17 This excursion on perseverance was substantial enough to be a book in its own right, and its effect was so powerful that it launched a fresh controversy on perseverance that resulted in multiple books published in favor of the perseverance of the saints.18 Goodwin started his apology for apostasy of saints in ­chapter  9, where he challenged what he saw as the main reason people buy into the certain perseverance of all saints—​the comfort they derive from it. Goodwin argued that comfort gained from thinking all saints persevere to the end was false comfort, and that the possibility of defection from faith is actually a more comforting doctrine. In ­chapters  10 and 11, he challenged his opponents on the passages of Scripture commonly asserted and the theological arguments often produced for perseverance of the saints. Then, in c­ hapters 12 and 13, Goodwin asserted his own set of texts and doctrinal reasons in support of possible defection. He followed this, in c­ hapter 14, with Scripture examples that he believed demonstrated true believers totally declining from grace. Goodwin ended his digression on perseverance in ­chapter  15 with a survey of church history on the topic, arguing that the ancient fathers and even Reformed divines supported possible defection. It is this final chapter 16.  George Kendall, Theokratia:  Or, a Vindication of the Doctrine Commonly Received in the Reformed Churches concerning Gods Intentions of Special Grace and Favour to His Elect in the Death of Christ (London, 1653). 17.  Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 154–​402. This digression makes up over 43 percent of Goodwin’s text. 18.  George Kendall, Sancti Sanciti: Or, The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints (London, 1654) (hereafter The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints); John Owen, The Doctrine of the Saints Perseverance, Explained and Confirmed (London, 1654); Thomas Lamb, Absolute Freedom from Sin by Christs Death for the World, as the Object of Faith in Opposition to Conditional (London, 1656). For a comprehensive treatment of the responses to Goodwin’s Redemption Redeemed, see Coffey, John Goodwin and the Puritan Revolution, 220–​229.

167

168

debating perseverance

of the digression that is most significant for this study, as it picked up the debate on readings and receptions of Augustine on perseverance. Goodwin’s reading of Augustine and the ancient church was nothing new. In fact, his presentation of the material drew heavily upon the work of Gerardus Joannes Vossius’s history of the Pelagian controversy.19 Picking from a list of references outlined by Vossius, Goodwin presented quotes from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Origen, Ambrose, Cyprian, Chromatius, Macarius, and Basil to demonstrate how the fathers before the Pelagian controversy held to possible defection of faith.20 Yet Goodwin knew that the highest achievement would be to pry Augustine from the hands of his Reformed opponents. As he stated it, “That Star of the first magnitude in the Christian Firmament, Augustin I mean, is (I suppose) in every mans estimate, instar omnium, a man that will perform the service alone as sufficiently, as if He had twenty more with Him, to assist Him.”21 Goodwin charged his opponents with approaching Augustine and the ancient church with poor presuppositions. Quoting from Vossius, Goodwin asserted:  “Therefore they understand not the Doctrine or Judgment of Antiquity, who, when they read Augustin, and others, that the Elect of God, either never fall away, or else that they return to God before they dye, from hence infer, that their Opinion was, that true Beleevers, either always persevere in Faith, or at least never fall away utterly from the Grace of God. Whose Arguing leans upon this supposition, that true Beleevers, and the Elect, are terms convertible; whereas, according to Augustin’s Doctrine, not true Beleevers, but true Beleevers persevering, and Elect, are reciprocable.”22 Goodwin thought that his adversaries were reading their own theology back into Augustine, 19.  Gerardus Joannes Vossius, Historiae de controversiis quas Pelagius eiusque reliquiae moverunt (Leiden, 1618). 20.  Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 370–​378; compare Vossius, Historiae de controversiis quas Pelagius, bk. 4. 21.  Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 378. 22.  Vossius, Historiae de controversiis quas Pelagius, bk. 6, thes. 12, as translated in Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 367.

168

169

lingering reluctance among reformed englishmen

treating the dignified father like a wax nose fit to be fashioned to their own liking. Following Vossius’s lead, though providing English translations, Goodwin strung together a number of quotes from Augustine’s treatises on The Gift of Perseverance and Rebuke and Grace in an effort to demonstrate that Augustine believed in the apostasy of saints. He gave numerous instances where Augustine spoke of God withholding the gift of perseverance from those whom He regenerated, justified, made His children, and granted faith, hope, and love.23 Indeed, he presented Augustine’s conviction that “some of the Children of Perdition, who receive not the gift of Persevering unto the end, yet begin to live in such a Faith, which worketh by Love, yea, and live for a time faithfully and justly, and afterwards fall away, nor are they taken away by death, before this happeneth to them.”24 Goodwin did not present every passage given by Vossius, but limited himself to what he referred to as “a first-​fruits onely,” leaving his readers to gather the full harvest themselves.25 As he considered this evidence, Goodwin marveled at the way that William Prynne had so quickly and cavalierly dismissed readings of Augustine that recognized him teaching the apostasy of the saints. In triumphal fashion all his own, Goodwin dismissed Prynne’s reading of Augustine as embarrassingly stupid.26

23.  Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 379–​382. Citing “Aug. de Corrept. & Grat. cap. 8,” “Aug. de Corr. & Grat. c. 6,” “Aug. de Cor. & Grat. c. 7. vid: & de Bono Persev. c. 13,” “Aug. de Corr. & Grat. c. 7 & 8,” “Aug. de Bono Persev. c. 8,” “Ibid. c. 10,” “Ibid. cap. 13.” 24.  Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 381. Citing “Ibidem. [de Bono Persev.] Cap. 13.” 25.  Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 379. 26.  Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 383. Goodwin was reacting to Prynne’s statement:  “I wonder how any can bee so impudent, shamelesse and audacious as to cite [Augustine] to the contrary.” William Prynne, The Perpetuitie of a Regenerate Mans Estate, 3rd ed. (London: Michael Sparke, 1627), 242. Goodwin retorted: “All which considered, that saying of Mr Prynne . . . I will not say, (in his language) an impudent, shameless, and audacious saying, but such a saying, which as much ingenuity as a grain of mustardseed would abhor.”

169

170

debating perseverance

Goodwin’s historical survey leaped from Augustine to the Reformation. He quoted from Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, and Martin Chemnitz as a reminder that the Lutheran wing of the Reformation did not adhere to the doctrine of all saints persevering.27 Yet Goodwin was not satisfied with leaving the Protestant opposition to perseverance of the saints at Lutheranism and granting his opponents the honor of having full support from the Reformed tradition. Interestingly enough, he did not draw on the English strand of the Reformed tradition—​represented in men like Matthew Hutton, Adrianus Saravia, and Richard Montagu—​ that actually challenged the common position of the perseverance of the saints. Instead, he made the rather audacious claim that “if the opinions commended by me for Truth in the work in hand, be Arminian, certain I am that the ancient Fathers and Writers of the Christian Church were generally Arminian: yea and that Calvin himself, had many sore fits and pangs of Arminianism (at times) upon him; yea and that the Synod of Dort it self was not free from the infection.”28 In fact, he marshaled a host of quotes from Reformed theologians that supposedly supported apostasy of the saints.29 Granted, he admitted that most of these men made explicit claims against defection of true saving faith. Nevertheless, he argued that they held conflicting principles and contradicted their doctrine of perseverance at other points.30 As clever as Goodwin thought this was, his attempts to find support from the likes of Calvin and Dort—​and even from Johannes Piscator!—​came off forced, and certainly they were not compelling. He either lacked understanding of his Reformed opponents or he was simply being unfair.

27.  Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 384–​387. 28.  Goodwin, preface, Redemption Redeemed, (c4r). 29.  Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 387–​401. He quoted from John Calvin, Wolfgang Musculus, Peter Martyr Vermigli, Benedictus Aretius, Heinrich Bullinger, Johannes Piscator, Giovanni Diodati, Franciscus Junius, Heinrich Mollerus, and John Davenant. 30.  Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 387. Coffey tries to explain the seeming contradictions as pastoral Arminianism in John Goodwin and the Puritan Revolution, 213–​214.

170

171

lingering reluctance among reformed englishmen

One of the reasons Goodwin had for giving his historical survey was to cast doubt on the catholicity of the “commonly received” doctrine of perseverance. He insisted that “some of the over-​zealous Admirers of it” had regarded it as if it were “the fundamental Article of the Reformed Religion, One of the principal Points of Christian Religion, wherein the Protestant Churches are purged from Popish Errors,” “the Foundation of all true certainty of Salvation,” and “a Doctrine, which all true Ministers of the Gospel ought to inculcate.”31 Goodwin was questioning how it could be a fundamental article and a principal point of Protestantism if the church fathers, Lutherans, and even Reformed churches deny it.32 In raising the topic of fundamental articles and the imposition of particular doctrines on local congregations and ministers, Goodwin was touching on a sensitive issue among his Independent colleagues. In fact, in the years just following the publication of Redemption Redeemed, major efforts were made to provide a confession of fundamental articles to maintain religious peace and order in England. Leading Independents had been pleased to see the dissolution of the strict Presbyterian approach to uniformity, but they were then troubled to see the spread of Socinianism and other heretical groups in the land. In February 1652, John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, and Sidrach Simpson led a group of ministers to petition Parliament to prevent heresy in the land while still maintaining toleration for the 31.  Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed, 395, 343–​344, 386–​387. 32.  For background on the use of fundamental articles in the Reformed tradition and the contrast with developing rationalistic approaches, see Martin I. Klauber, “Calvin on Fundamental Articles and Ecclesiastical Union,” Westminster Theological Journal 54, no. 2 (Fall 1992): 341–​348; Martin I. Klauber, “The Drive toward Protestant Union in Early Eighteenth-​ Century Geneva:  Jean-​ Alphonse Turrettini on the ‘Fundamental Articles’ of the Faith,” Church History 61, no. 3 (September 1992): 334–​349; Martin I. Klauber, “Between Protestant Orthodoxy and Rationalism:  Fundamental Articles in the Early Career of Jean LeClerc,” Journal of the History of Ideas 54, no.  4 (October 1993):  611–​636; Richard A. Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 2nd ed., 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 1:406–​445.

171

172

debating perseverance

various dissenting voices within the bounds of orthodoxy. Despite his aversion to the government policing religion, John Goodwin supported their Humble Proposals, among which was a call for the “Principles of the Christian Religion” to be the standard against which ministers “may not be suffered to preach or promulgate any thing in opposition.”33 Those principles were articulated in sixteen points, “which the Scripture plainly and clearly affirms, that without the beliefe of them salvation is not to be obtained.”34 It was a statement that, if enacted, would have allowed Goodwin’s Arminianism to be recognized as orthodox by the state. In 1654, after Richard Cromwell had assumed the role of Protectorate, Parliament appointed a committee to determine the fundamentals of Christianity. John Goodwin played no part in that committee, but those sixteen principles that he had previously agreed on were reasserted and expanded to twenty points of A New Confession of Faith.35 Richard Baxter, who was assigned to that committee, recorded that “Parliament dissolved, and all came to nothing, and that Labour was lost.”36 Nevertheless, these struggles reflected a widespread conviction that the fundamental articles were vital to establishing personal faith, determining a legitimate church, 33.  The Humble Proposals of Mr. Owen, Mr. Tho. Goodwin, Mr. Nye, Mr. Simpson, and Other Ministers, Who presented the Petition to the Parliament, and Other Persons, Febr. 11. under Debate by a Committee this 31. of March, 1652. for the Furtherance and Propagation of the Gospel in the Nation (London, 1652), 6. 34.  Proposals for the Furtherance and Propagation of the Gospell in This Nation (London, 1652), 5. It has been reproduced more recently in Reformed Confession of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, comp. James T. Dennison, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–​2014) 4:423–​427. 35.  Thomason titled it A New Confession of Faith, or the First Principles of the Christian Religion Necessary to Bee Laid as a Foundation by All Such as Desired to Build on unto Perfection, in Thomason Tracts E.826[3]‌. Early English Books catalogs it under the first line as “The holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God, and the only rule of knowing him savingly, and living unto him in all holiness and righteousness, in which we must rest [S.l.: s.n., 1654].” Also found in Reformed Confession of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, 4:428–​431. 36.  Richard Baxter, Reliquiae Baxterianae: Or, Mr. Richard Baxter’s Narrative of the Most Memorable Passages of His Life and Times (London, 1696), pt. 2, p. 205.

172

173

lingering reluctance among reformed englishmen

and setting standards for preaching. And it was precisely this sympathy that Goodwin was appealing to when he challenged his opponents on whether the doctrine of perseverance should be seen as foundational.37 So in the course of debating the doctrine of perseverance, Goodwin had revived the old debate on how to read Augustine and the ancient church. His book not only challenged the historical sensibilities of many of his opponents but also tied it to the rising concern over fundamental articles. Rather than being a mere academic debate, readings of Augustine proved once again to have practical application related to the church’s understanding of catholicity and how the Christian faith was to be publicly confessed.38

R e s p o n s e s f ro m   J o h n O w e n a n d G e o r g e   K e n da l l Among responses to Goodwin’s digression on perseverance, John Owen and George Kendall didn’t allow Goodwin’s reading of Augustine to go unchallenged. Kendall considered Goodwin’s historical sensibilities as something to be laughed at, and he was inclined to ignore them altogether. Yet with the urging of his friends, coupled with the fact 37.  For more on the fundamental articles and these two confessional projects, see Thomas Michael Lawrence, “Transmission and Transformation: Thomas Goodwin and the Puritan Project, 1600–​1704” (PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2002), 142–​ 187; and Coffey, John Goodwin and the Puritan Revolution, 233–​245. Lawrence and Coffey unconvincingly claim A New Confession as anti-​Arminian, most notably due to its additional statement about the state of fallen man being wholly corrupt and unable to do any spiritual good. However, Goodwin and his Arminian colleagues could and did affirm such a position. See Goodwin, The Agreement & Distance of Brethren, 57–​58. What set them apart from the Reformed was their belief in a universal application of prevenient grace. 38.  Quantin claims that Owen and his Puritan colleagues “pushed scripturalism even further” than the Westminster Assembly when they drew up the Principles of the Christian Religion and A New Confession. Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity, 255. By focusing solely on their emphasis on Scripture being the rule for Christian faith and practice, Quantin overlooks the significance of these fundamental articles in the quest for determining the boundaries of catholicity and the way that the early church factored into the discussion.

173

174

debating perseverance

that he sought to present a chapter-​for-​chapter response to Goodwin’s digression, he incorporated his assessment of Goodwin’s historical survey as the final chapter of his book, The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.39 Owen too seems to have entered into the debate on Augustine with a bit of reluctance, wanting to avoid any “pretence to any great skill in the old learning.” But even though patristics was not his specialty, Owen boldly asserted “that not one of the ancients, much less Austin, did ever maintain such an apostasy of saints and such a perseverance as that which Mr Goodwin contendeth for.”40 Unlike Kendall, Owen incorporated his response to Goodwin “secondarily” within this treatise.41 This is not to say that Owen did not seek to give a full rebuttal to Goodwin, for that is evidently seen throughout the work. However, Owen consciously sought his “own method” and order of addressing the doctrine instead of following the path laid by Goodwin.42 Thus, Owen engaged in a systematic analysis of the debated teaching in the main chapters of The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, relegating his fuller discussion of the church’s reception of it to the preface.43 Although Kendall and Owen confidently dismissed Goodwin and Vossius’s reading of Augustine, it was not done without due consideration 39.  George Kendall, epistle dedicatory, The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, *3v. For another example of Kendall mocking Goodwin’s treatment of history, see his preface to the reader, The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, ***3v. 40.  John Owen, The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, Explained and Confirmed, in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, 24 vols. (London: Johnstone and Hunter, 1850–​1855), 11:497–​498. 41.  Owen, The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, 11:74. 42.  Owen, The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, 11:74, 87. This stands against the claims of Ferguson and Beeke that Owen followed the order of Goodwin’s book. See Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, 262; Beeke, The Quest for Full Assurance, 167; Beeke and Jones, A Puritan Theology, 604. 43.  Owen’s lengthy preface to the reader is found in The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, 11:19–​74. However, Owen interrupted his historical assessment of the doctrine of perseverance in the church with a digression against Henry Hammond concerning the authenticity of Ignatius’s letters used to support Episcopalian church government. See Owen, The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, 11:28–​56.

174

175

lingering reluctance among reformed englishmen

of the texts Goodwin marshaled for his cause. For instance, Owen conceded that there were several “sundry expressions” in Augustine “granting many who were saints, believing and regenerate, to fall away and perish for ever.”44 In responding to one of Goodwin’s quotations from Augustine’s On Rebuke and Grace, Kendall acknowledged:  “A falling away, I  grant, he acknowledgeth, even of such as have been regenerated in Christ, and have had faith, hope, and love.”45 However, as much as they recognized the apparent difficulty of those passages, they thought a more careful consideration of the context demanded a different reading of Augustine. In the words of Owen, “The seeming contradiction that is amongst themselves in the delivery of this doctrine will easily admit of a reconciliation, may they be allowed the common courtesy of being interpreters of their own meaning.”46 Kendall and Owen argued that Augustine’s language was best understood as using the judgment of charity toward those who only seemed to be true believers. In order to demonstrate this, Kendall capitalized on the admission of both Goodwin and Vossius that Augustine denied that the elect could ultimately apostatize. Having conceded that Augustine spoke of the regenerate in Christ falling away, Kendall asked what effect it would have if Augustine had also called them elect. Kendall then quoted Augustine, saying, “Who can deny they are elect when they believe and are baptized, and live according to God? Assuredly, they are called elect by those being ignorant of what they will be, but not by the One who knew that they would not have the perseverance that brings the elect to the blessed life; He knows that they stand in the same way He has foreknown that they will fall.”47 This passage allowed 44.  Owen, The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, 11:65. 45.  Kendall, The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, ch. 7, p. 116. Citing “Cap 8. de corrept. & Gratia.” 46.  Owen, The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, 11:65. 47.  Kendall, The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, ch. 7, p. 116. “Quis neget hos electos, cum credunt, & baptizantur, & secundum Deum vivunt, plane dicuntur electi, a nescientibus quid future sint, non ab illo, qui eos novit non habere perseverantium, quae ad beatam vitam perducat electos; scitque illos ita stare ut praesciret esse casuros.” Kendall gave no reference for this, but according to the referencing system of the day, he was quoting ch. 7 of On Rebuke and Grace.

175

176

debating perseverance

Kendall to show that what Augustine said of the elect may as well be said of believers and the godly. The conclusion was that “Austin in all this, hath spoken but of such as seemed believers and godly to men, were not really such, or looked on as such by God.”48 Kendall believed that the judgment of charity explained all the quotes that Goodwin and Vossius presented for Augustine and his successors.49 In a similar way, Owen made the link between the nuanced ways Augustine could speak of the elect as well as regenerate believers. He pointed out places where Augustine spoke about people being called children of God, disciples, members of Christ’s body, and even the elect, when indeed they were never truly those things.50 Not only did Owen find intratextual support within Augustine’s writings to provide a principle for interpreting the tricky selections on perseverance, he also read Augustine within a historical context where profession by baptism was taken seriously and the judgment of charity was liberally applied: “What

48.  Kendall, The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, ch. 7, p. 116. 49.  Kendall, The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, ch. 7, p. 117. 50.  Owen, The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, 11:66. This he especially handles in his book De Correp. et Grat., cap. ix. “Non erant,” saith he, “filii, etiam quando erant in professione et nomine filiorum; non quia justitiam simulaverunt, sed quia in ea non permanserunt.” This righteousness he esteemed not to be merely feigned and hypocritical, but rather such as might truly entitle them to the state and condition of the children of God, in the sense before expressed. And again, “Isti cum pie vivunt dicuntur filii Dei, sed quoniam victuri sunt impie, et in eadem impietate morituri, non eos dicit filios Dei praescientia Dei.” And farther in the same chapter, “Sunt rursus quidam qui filii Dei propter susceptam temporalem gratiam dicuntur a nobis, nec sunt tamen Deo.” And again, “Non erant in numero filiorum, etiam quando erant in fide filiorum.” And, “Sicut non vere discipuli Christi, ita nec vere filii Dei fuerunt, etiam quando esse videbantur, et ita vocabantur.” He concludes, “Appellamus ergo nos et electos Christi discipulos, et Dei filios, quos regeneratos” (that is, as to the sacramental sign of that grace), “pie vivere cernimus; sed tunc vere sunt quod appellantur, si manserint in eo propter quod sic appellantur. Si autem perseverantiam non habent, id est, in eo quod coeperunt esse non manent, non vere appellantur quod appellantur, et non sunt.” As also, De Doct. Christiana, lib. iii. cap. xxxii., “Non est revera corpus Christi quod non erit cum illo in aeternum.”

176

177

lingering reluctance among reformed englishmen

weight in those days was laid upon the participation of the sacramental figures of grace, and what expressions are commonly used concerning them who had obtained that privilege, are known to all. Hence all baptized persons, continuing in the profession of the faith and communion of the church, they called, counted, esteemed truly regenerate and justified, and spake so of them.”51 Given the historical context and the principles Augustine provides himself, Owen could only conclude: And these are the persons which Austin and those of the same judgment with him do grant that they may fall away, such as, upon the account of their baptismal entrance into the church, their pious, devout lives, their profession of the faith of the gospel, they called and accounted regenerate believers; of whom yet they tell you, upon a thorough search into the nature and causes of holiness, grace, and walking with God, that they would be found not to be truly and really in that state and condition that they were esteemed to be in; of which they thought this a sufficient demonstration, even because they did not persevere: which undeniably, on the other hand (with the testimonies foregoing, and the like innumerable that might be produced), evinces that their constant judgment was, that all who are truly, really, and in the sight of God, believers, ingrafted into Christ, and adopted into his family, should certainly persevere; and that all the passages usually cited out of this holy and learned man, to persuade us that he ever cast an eye towards the doctrine of the apostasy of the saints, may particularly be referred to this head, and manifested that they do not at all concern those whom he esteemed saints indeed, which is clear from the consideration of what hath been insisted on.52

Whereas Goodwin bypassed the Middle Ages in his historical survey of perseverance, Owen felt it necessary to say something. What proponents of perseverance of the saints needed, if their reading of Augustine was right, was an explanation for how that position became diminished throughout church history. Owen linked it with the “mystery of 51.  Owen, The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, 11:65. 52.  Owen, The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, 11:66.

177

178

debating perseverance

iniquity” that began to infiltrate the church during the medieval period, which tended to pervert various truths about God’s grace. Concerning perseverance, Owen recognized a strong Augustinian tone running through the Middle Ages that continued to teach that the gift of perseverance is bestowed according to predestination, that it cannot be lost, that the nonelect will not persevere, and that no believer perseveres on their own strength. Nevertheless, he viewed this as a reduction from perseverance of the saints to the mere perseverance of the elect and regarded it as a corrosion of truth from the way Augustine fully understood the issue. Owen said, “Their judgments being perverted by sundry other corrupt principles, about the nature and efficacy of sacraments, with their conveyance of grace ‘ex opere operato,’ and out of ignorance of the righteousness of God and the real work of regeneration, they generally maintain (though Bradwardin punctually expressed himself to be of another mind) that many persons not predestinate may come to believe, yet fall away and perish.”53 Thus, Owen read the medievals as forced to embrace apostasy of the saints due to their erroneous acceptance of baptismal regeneration, relegating the full Augustinian position of perseverance of the saints to an English resistance headed by Oxford’s very own Thomas Bradwardine.54 Owen was applying the older argument for English exceptionalism to his own view of perseverance. The perseverance of the saints could be traced back throught the Middle Ages to Augustine, an uncorrupted Christian doctrine preserved from Rome’s influence by the faithful in England. Responding to Goodwin’s treatment of the Reformed tradition, Kendall and Owen found his attempts to prove apostasy of the saints from Reformed writings as outrageous. Kendall examined each of Goodwin’s claims in an effort to refute them point by point.55 With sarcastic flair, he spoke of Goodwin as one who “shews only his own

53.  Owen, The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, 11:68. 54.  Owen celebrated Thomas Bradwardine throughout the preface to the reader, The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, 11:21, 22, 63, 68, 69–​71. 55.  Kendall, The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, ch. 7, pp. 121–​140.

178

179

lingering reluctance among reformed englishmen

acuteness in discovering contradiction in those passages, which duller wits conceived sufficiently reconciled.”56 Kendall also expressed surprise that Goodwin did not try to argue his case from the Thirty-​Nine Articles, though he explained how that would be a “misconstruction” of that confession to do so.57 Owen handled it a little bit differently. Although he had planned to give a defense of those Reformed writers that Goodwin had put forward, Owen decided to “spare the reader” and himself the burden of “spending time and pains for the demonstration of a thing of so evident a truth.” He went on to say, “I presume no unprejudiced person in the least measure acquainted with the system of that doctrine . . . will scarce be moved once to question their judgments by the excerpta of Mr Goodwin.”58 Goodwin’s reading of history and accusation about making perseverance the fundamental article agitated Owen and Kendall, and they certainly were not willing to give it up as unimportant. Kendall was hesitant to call perseverance of the saints the fundamental article of the Reformed religion, for “We look upon Justification by faith, as the Fundamental Point, in opposition to those high thoughts which the Church of Rome hath of Works.”59 Nevertheless, it was so vital to the Reformed faith “that it is nearly allied to the Fundamental Point” and “may well be stiled one of the principal points wherein the Protestant Churches are purged from Popery.”60 Not only was it an important doctrine to distinguish the Reformed from Rome, it was critically important to the Christian faith. Owen too stopped short of cataloging the saints’ perseverance as a fundamental article, as is evidenced in its absence from the “Principles of the Christian Religion” and A New Confession. Nevertheless, Owen referred to the doctrine as “the very salt of the covenant of grace, the most distinguishing mercy communicated in the blood of Christ, 56.  Kendall, The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, ch. 7, p. 125. 57.  Kendall, The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, ch. 7, p. 136. 58.  Owen, The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, 11:73–​74. 59.  Kendall, The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, ch. 7, p. 131. 60.  Kendall, The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, ch. 7, pp. 131, 132.

179

180

debating perseverance

so interwoven into, and lying at the bottom of, all that consolation which ‘God is abundantly willing that all the heirs of the promise should receive,’ that it is utterly impossible it should be safe-​guarded one moment without a persuasion of this truth, which seals up all the mercy and grace of the new covenant with the unchangeableness and faithfulness of God.”61 Kendall treasured it as well, sharing how “we look on the Doctrine of Perseverance, as one of the choicest Jewels in the Churches Cabinet, as that which quickens the dullness, cures the sadness, fortifies the resolutions of the Saints.”62 While Owen refrained from putting extrafundamentals in the confessions he proposed to be enforced by the state, he maintained Westminster’s statement on perseverance for a churchly confession when he advocated the Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order.63 Owen and Kendall agreed with Goodwin that perseverance of the saints was not a fundamental article of the faith, but not because they found Goodwin’s historical survey compelling. Rather, they read Augustine in favor of the perseverance of the saints and received it gladly as their own. And while their political convictions on religious toleration led them to advocate liberty on the issue throughout England, their theological convictions on the significance of the doctrine made them favor adding it to their church confessions. From their reading of history and personal convictions on the doctrine, they saw that Roman Catholicism had corrupted the Christian faith and that recovering perseverance was critical to restoring a vibrant expression of Christianity. Feeling they had Augustine and the early fathers on their side, this doctrine held a mark of ancient orthodoxy that was necessary for Christians to confess. 61.  Owen, The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, 11:78. 62.  Kendall, The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, ch. 7, p. 121. 63.  For a statement on the balancing act between state toleration and a robust confession of the church that includes extrafundamentals, see the preface of A Declaration of the Faith and Order Owned and Practiced in the Congregational Churches in England:  Agreed upon and Consented unto by Their Elders and Messengers in Their Meeting at the Savoy, October 12. 1658 (London: printed by J. P., 1659), A2v–​A3r.

180

181

lingering reluctance among reformed englishmen

R ic h a r d B a x t e r ’ s A lt e r n at i v e P e r s p e c t i v e Richard Baxter had a knack for landing in the middle of controversy, so it should come as no surprise to see him involved in the controversy over perseverance. However, his foray into the fray did not come as a direct challenge to any of the participants in the quarrel. Rather, it was the result of a few comments he made on the topic of assurance and some zealous critics that drew him into the arena.

Baxter’s Involvement in the Perseverance Controversy

In 1653, Baxter published The Right Method for a Settled Peace of Conscience, and Spiritual Comfort. He originally intended to provide a page of spiritual directions for a friend, but as he wrote it, it expanded into a book that he felt could benefit many others as well. A  major theme in the book was assurance of salvation, and he freely discussed the difficulties Christians face in obtaining it. Baxter had grown disenchanted with the civil wars and even the Westminster Assembly. He feared that the Puritan ascendancy, for all of its good, had become an idol that left Christians with frustrated expectations and distress of heart. Baxter lamented, “We looked that War should have even satisfied our desires, and when it had removed all visible Impediments, we thought we should have had such a glorious Reformation as the World never knew! And now behold, a Babel, and a mangled Deformation! What high Expectations had we from an Assembly! what Expectations from a Parliament! and where are they now!”64 The Parliamentarian cause of the 1640s had promised sweet tidings for the Reformed in England, but the carnage of multiple civil wars proved most bitter. Visions of spiritual renewal were met with the growing reality of religious sectarianism. Now, in 1653, the Westminster Assembly stopped meeting and Parliament had been

64.  Richard Baxter, The Right Method for a Settled Peace of Conscience, and Spiritual Comfort (London, 1653), a10r.

181

182

debating perseverance

dissolved. In the wake of social upheaval, Christians were exposed to the ugly side of revolution in ways that proved a challenge to long-​held personal beliefs. It had created a context in which people began questioning things like the perseverance of the saints and even the assurance of their own salvation. Baxter concluded that “the examples of these ten years last past have done more to stagger many sober wise Christians in this Point, then all the Arguments that ever were used by Papists, Arminians or any other:  To see what kinde of men in some places have fallen, and how far; as I am unwilling further to mention.”65 In the middle of expressing his sympathy with those who struggle with assurance, Baxter shared a bit of his own personal difficulties. He admitted that although he was strongly confident that he would persevere to the end, he didn’t feel like he could be absolutely certain. This was partly linked to the fact that he was not absolutely certain of the perseverance of all saints. To be sure, he was certain of the perseverance of all the elect. He even believed that all true saints persevere to the end. Yet as he was cautious to say, “But yet I dare not say, that I am Certain of this, that all are elect to salvation, and shall never fall away totally and finally, who sincerely Believe and are Justified.”66 For Baxter, certainty entailed a level of confidence that he was uncomfortable using in relation to perseverance. He was more comfortable leaving it at the level of strong opinion. It was not long before Baxter received opposition to his book, being accused of writing against the perseverance of the saints and causing others to doubt it. Eager to clear his good name, Baxter released a second edition of Right Method where he appended an apology to set things straight. He reassured his readers that he “never questioned the Certainty of the Object,” that he owned it as his “strong opinion,” and that he only meant to confess his own “Darkness” of mind.67 In spite of

65.  Baxter, The Right Method for a Settled Peace of Conscience, 162. 66.  Baxter, The Right Method for a Settled Peace of Conscience, 166. 67.  Richard Baxter, “An Apologie,” in The Right Method for a Settled Peace of Conscience, and Spiritual Comfort, 2nd ed. (London:  Underhil, Tyton, and Roybould, 1653), Cc2r.

182

183

lingering reluctance among reformed englishmen

his attempts to clarify his position and let people know that he indeed believed in the perseverance of the saints, Baxter continued to receive opposition. As he reports, some had started a campaign against him that deterred people from reading his book.68 Kendall then exacerbated things when he assaulted Baxter’s Right Method in the preface of The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. Kendall mainly thought that Baxter had an insufficient view of assurance, yet he also implied that Baxter believed that the nonelect can be justified.69 Kendall not only brought criticism of Baxter’s view of perseverance in print, but he did it in the context of his reply to Goodwin’s denial of perseverance of the saints. Like it or not, associations were made, and Baxter was fully entrenched in the public debate.70 Baxter produced a third edition of Right Method in 1657. Feeling that a practical book was not the most appropriate place for controversy, he removed a large part of the offending chapter and the whole of the appended apology. Yet this did not mean that Baxter was finished defending himself or trying to prove his point. It simply meant he was finding a different outlet to handle the debate. So in 1658, he released a booklet titled Richard Baxter’s Account of His Present Thoughts concerning the Controversies about the Perseverance of the Saints. Here, Baxter sought to show the complexity of the debate by outlining twelve

68.  Richard Baxter, postscript, The Reduction of a Digressor (London, 1654), 145–​146. 69.  Kendall, preface, The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, ****3r. 70.  Kendall had a history of “correcting” Baxter, as seen in his digression on imminent acts within God in Kendall, A Vindication of the Doctrine, ch. 4, pp. 134–​ 137. And beyond treating Baxter as an opponent to perseverance in his preface, Kendall also contributed a digression against Baxter’s understanding of the difference between saving grace and nonsaving grace in The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, ch. 4, pp. 97–​142. Nevertheless, we should not think Baxter did nothing to instigate trouble related to assurance and perseverance. After all, as he expressed his concerns about the doctrine of assurance, he painted views of those like Kendall and Owen as extreme, antinomian, and beset with principles of carnal security and presumption. See Baxter, The Right Method for a Settled Peace of Conscience, (b)r–​(b2)r.

183

184

debating perseverance

different positions on perseverance. He then gave his own opinion on the positions so as to vindicate himself. While he still avoided elevating it to the level of certainty, he clearly articulated that “the Doctrine of perseverance is grounded on the Scriptures, and therefor is to be maintained, not only as extending to all the elect . . . but also as extending to all the truly sanctified.”71 In 1675, Baxter treated the topic of perseverance once again in Catholick Theologie. Having gone through a career filled with controversy, he had given up the hope of seeing a settled peace in the land. In writing Catholick Theologie, Baxter wanted to reassess the many controversies that plagued England with hopes that the next generation would be able to find a means of reconciliation. Concerning perseverance, he maintained his old position for perseverance of the saints but stressed the fact that he could not hold it with certainty and that it need not be a point of division.72

Understanding Baxter’s Position

In order to understand Baxter’s cautious affirmation of perseverance of the saints, it is important to look at his reading of Augustine and church history on the doctrine. Granted, part of the reason he felt uncomfortable declaring certainty on it was because he knew “how many Texts of Scripture seem to speak otherwise.”73 Yet for himself, he was able to reconcile those troubling passages in his mind with the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. What caused him more concern was that so many other respectable Christians were not able to read those passages and come to the same convictions. He found it troubling that “there are a great number of texts of Scripture which seeming to intimate the contrary, do make the Point of great Difficulty to many of 71.  Richard Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Account of His Present Thoughts concerning the Controversies about the Perseverance of the Saints (London, 1658), 32. 72.  Richard Baxter, Catholick Theologie: Plain, Pure, Peacable: For Pacification of the Dogmatical Word-​Warriours (London, 1675), bk. 1, pt. 2, p. 116. 73.  Baxter, The Right Method for a Settled Peace of Conscience, 166; see also Baxter, Catholick Theologie, bk. 1, pt. 2, p. 113.

184

185

lingering reluctance among reformed englishmen

the wisest.”74 And in thinking of those wise men, Baxter was not primarily thinking of his contemporaries. He was considering the church throughout history, giving special attention to the early years of its development. In spite of his own strong confidence in the perseverance of the saints, he struggled, saying, “I know how generally the Primitive Fathers thought otherwise, if a man can know their mindes by their Writings: I know that Austin himself, the Mall of the Pelagians, seems to be either unresolv’d, or more against this Perseverance then for it. I know how many Learned, Godly men do differ from me, and deny the Certainty of Perseverance.”75 While his reading of church history did not serve as the foundation of his personal beliefs, it did influence how dogmatic he could be about his convictions.76 Baxter was well aware that there were competing readings of Augustine on perseverance, though he hardly found them compelling. Even the fact that some of his favorite theologians tried to use Augustine to promote the perseverance of the saints left him unconvinced. Reflecting on the British delegation to Dort and the reading of Augustine they presented in their Collegiat Suffrage, Baxter lamented that “though Davenant be that Divine whom I honour for judgment above all, or almost all since the Apostles days; yet I must say that in this they all dealt very negligently or partialy.” Where they presented Augustine as speaking of those falling away as only seeming to be sons of God, Baxter saw Augustine as describing “Sons as to their sincerity of Faith which worketh by love, but not to be Sons by predestination.” Baxter presumed that the British delegates had actually known that Augustine held a different position but that they wanted to present him as somehow wavering. Baxter saw this as a case of having 74.  Baxter, The Right Method for a Settled Peace of Conscience, 162. 75.  Baxter, The Right Method for a Settled Peace of Conscience, 166. 76.  Quantin portrays Baxter as having little to no respect for the ancient church because Baxter cautioned against making the early church fathers a foundation for doctrine and discipline. See Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity, 265–​266. In doing so, Quantin overlooks Baxter’s numerous appeals to antiquity and the value he attributed to the ancient church for determining catholicity.

185

186

debating perseverance

one’s theological convictions influence one’s reading of history. He felt confident that Augustine taught the apostasy of genuine sons of God, and “He that doubteth whether this was Augustine’s sense, when he hath read him, may doubt of almost anything which he is unwilling to believe.” Baxter dismissed the delegation’s reference to Augustine teaching that only the elect receive forgiveness of sin in the treatise against the adversaries of the law and prophets because he could “find nothing of any such Subject, much less sense” there. But in response to their use of Augustine’s treatise against Julian as claiming that God does not bring reprobates to spiritual repentance and reconciliation in Christ, he disregarded it in the face of what he saw as overwhelming testimony to the contrary in the rest of Augustine’s writings.77 Baxter thought that any stray comments from Augustine that seem to deny true conversion in the nonelect could not negate what seemed to him as many clear statements from Augustine concerning the final apostasy of genuine saints. Accordingly, he gave a number of quotes, most notably from The Gift of Perseverance, On Rebuke and Grace, and The City of God, to argue that Augustine denied the perseverance of all saints.78 Baxter clearly admitted that Augustine’s position was not his own. In fact, he did not hesitate to challenge Augustine’s exegesis at points. For instance, Baxter understood Augustine’s treatment of the golden chain in Romans 8 as speaking of the called and justified in a limited sense of those that were elect, not comprehending all of the called and justified. To this, Baxter critically retorted that Augustine’s “Exposition is a forcing of the Text” and that there was “not a sufficient warrant in the Text for such a limiting Exposition.”79 Similarly, commenting on the difference he saw Augustine placing between 77.  Baxter, Catholick Theologie, bk. 1, pt. 2, pp. 98–​99. 78.  Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Account of His Present Thoughts, 5–​7; see also Baxter, Catholick Theologie, bk. 1, pt. 2, pp. 97–​98. He cites “de bono persever. c. 8, & 9,” “de corrept. & gratia. cap. 8, & 9,” “de corrept. & grat. cap. 8,” “Ibid cap. 12,” “de dono persever. cap. 22,” “de correp. & grat. cap. 8,” “Ib. cap. 9,” “Ibid. cap. 6,” “Ibid. cap. 12,” “de cor. & grat. c. 13,” “Epist. 101. ad Vitalem,” and “Lib 11 de Civitate Dei cap. 12.” 79.  Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Account of His Present Thoughts, 15, 16.

186

187

lingering reluctance among reformed englishmen

sincere sons that fall away and sons of predestination, Baxter cried, “But where he can find this distinction of Sonnes in Scripture, I know not.”80 While Baxter advocated a critical reading of Augustine, it was also attended with a critical reception. Although Baxter did not publicly interact with Owen and Kendall’s reading of Augustine, he was well aware of their position. And knowing that his distinguished colleagues took a different reading of Augustine did not alter his own judgment on the issue. Baxter comforted himself with the thought that he had the best of Protestant patristic scholarship on his side and that he used it to his advantage. Having dismissed those who presented a contrary reading of Augustine on perseverance as “immodest,” Baxter shared how he had “asked the reverend Bishop Usher in the hearing of Dr. Kendall, Whether this were not plainly the judgment of Austin? who answered, that without doubt it was. And he was as likely to know as any man that I  am capable of consulting with.”81 Likewise, he often referred his readers to Vossius as further confirmation for reading Augustine as teaching apostasy of some saints.82 Baxter’s reading of Augustine and church history was not without ecclesiastical effects. It not only kept him from claiming personal certainty on the point of perseverance but also caused him to question its legitimacy as a public article of faith. In a revealing moment, Baxter shared how his interaction with Augustine humbled him: Though I  presume to dissent in this point from Augustine and the common Judgment of the Teachers of that and many former and later Ages; yet do I find myself obliged by the Reverence of such contradicting Authority, and forced also by the consciousness of my ignorance, to suspect my own understanding, and to dissent with modesty, both

80.  Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Account of His Present Thoughts, 16. 81.  Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Account of His Present Thoughts, 5; see also Baxter, Catholick Theologie, bk. 2, p. 215. 82.  Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Account of His Present Thoughts, 8; Baxter, Catholick Theologie, bk. 1, pt. 2, p. 100; Baxter, Catholick Theologie, bk. 2, pp. 204, 215.

187

188

debating perseverance honouring the contrary-​minded, and being willing to receive any further evidence, and to know the truth if it be on their side. And so I  must needs say, that I see not neer such clear evidence against this Opinion, as I do against the former, much less as I do for the Fundamental Articles of the Faith:  and therefore I  am not arrived at that certainty in the Doctrine of the Perseverance of all the Justified, as I am for the Doctrine of Perseverance of all the Elect; much less as I am about the death and resurrection of Christ, the Life Everlasting, and such other verities.83

Baxter’s disagreement with Augustine caused him significant reserve, especially as it made him evaluate perseverance in relation to the fundamental articles of the Christian faith. And it was not simply Augustine that gave him pause. Augustine stood as the articulate spokesman for the early church and the medieval tradition that followed him. Baxter reiterated his point, saying, “I dare not say that I have attained a certainty in understanding this Point and all the Texts of Scripture that concern it, better than Augustine, and the common Judgment of the Church for so many Ages:  And therefore I  dare not say that I  have attained to a certainty, that all the justified shall persevere.” He went on to say he dare not treat it like he would “the Fundamentals.”84 Baxter made the connection between fundamental articles, public confessions of the church, and the catholicity of the church throughout the ages. Thus, his reading of Augustine and church history caused him to question the prudence of elevating certain doctrines to confessional status. He felt that to “withdraw our affection or communion from those that differ from us herein” was “excessively Uncharitable, in condemning to Hell fire, for ought we can find, all, or next all, the Church of Christ for 1300 or 1400  years at least,” making it “a great Impiety to make Christ hereby to have no visible Church on earth (nor for ought we can prove, many persons) for so many hundred years.” Considering the fact that “the Doctrine of Perseverance now in question, was never (that is proved) in any of 83.  Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Account of His Present Thoughts, 16–​17. 84.  Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Account of His Present Thoughts, 17.

188

189

lingering reluctance among reformed englishmen

their Creeds,” Baxter cautioned his readers that making it part of the public confession of faith runs the risk of making them “guilty of notorious schism . . . while we plainly imply that if we had lived in those former Ages that were of a contrary mind to us in this, we would have avoided the communion of them all.” Excommunicating Augustine and so large a majority of Christianity throughout the ages was a terribly troubling thought.85 Whereas Owen and Kendall responded to Goodwin’s prodding about fundamental articles by asserting the vital role the doctrine of perseverance plays in the Christian life and advocating its inclusion in the church’s public confession of faith, Baxter shied away from giving it such prominence. As all his writings on perseverance sought to prove, he was confident that Christians could deny the perseverance of all saints and still live a healthy Christian life. With the witness of church history at hand, Baxter advocated that “we should withal make known that it is not to be numbered with the most necessary or most evident certain truths, which our salvation, or all our peace, or the Churches Communion doth rest upon: and accordingly that we put it not into our Creed, or Confessions of Faith, which are purposed to express the Fundamentals only, or only those Points which we expect all should subscribe to, with whom we will hold communion.” Baxter went on to give the example of how, in 1652, he and other pastors refrained from putting perseverance in the catechism and confession “agreed upon by the Worcestershire Ministers.”86 Thus, Baxter’s conviction—​ and those of his fellow ministers in the Midlands—​significantly shaped the way he approached doctrinal standards. This was something he felt deeply about. Even facing criticism for leaving perseverance out of the confession and catechism, Baxter stood his ground and boldly declared: “Now I confess it is far from my Opinion that a man cannot be saved that denyeth the perseverance of all the sanctified, or that we must reject all from our Communion that are of that mind: And I should rather have abhorred than subscribed a confession, that had 85.  Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Account of His Present Thoughts, 18–​19. 86.  Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Account of His Present Thoughts, 23.

189

190

debating perseverance

contained any such thing, or that had put in the point of perseverance to the ends and on the termes as our confession was subscribed.”87 Even as a part of the committee assigned to draft A New Confession in 1654, Baxter harbored anxieties about Owen’s approach to confessions. While one would think that the committee’s charge to stick to the fundamentals would have eased Baxter’s concerns, he feared that his colleagues were headed by “over-​Orthodox Doctors” who would try to insert their personal opinions within the confession of fundamentals.88 While it seems that perseverance was not something that was being loaded onto the fundamentals, Baxter perceived it happening on other doctrines. Writing to his associates on the committee over a concern about an addition made to the fundamental statement on Scripture, Baxter confessed: And though it grieves me to be offensive to my Brethren, yet had I rather suffer any thing in the World, than be guilty of putting among our Fundamentals one word that is not true. The Christian Faith hath been ever the same since the Apostles days: and I find not that ever the Churches Fundamentals contained such an Article as this.89

Even when they had a common goal, they held different sensibilities of how to get there. And once again, perceptions of the ancient church became an important consideration for assessing fundamental articles. 87.  Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Account of His Present Thoughts, 25. For the confession and Baxter’s treatment of it, see Christian Concord:  Or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors and Churches of Worcestershire. With Rich. Baxter’s Explication and Defence of It, and His Exhortation to Unity (London, 1653). For contemporary analyses of Baxter’s goal of doctrinal unity in primitive purity contrasted with Owen’s form of confessionalism, see Paul Chang-​ Ha Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty: Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in Its Seventeenth-​Century Context (Leiden:  Brill, 2004), 156–​190; Tim Cooper, John Owen, Richard Baxter and the Formation of Nonconformity (Surrey:  Ashgate, 2011), 137–​195. 88.  Baxter, Reliquiae Baxterianae, pt. 2, p. 199. 89.  Baxter, Reliquiae Baxterianae, pt. 2, p. 204.

190

191

lingering reluctance among reformed englishmen

As Baxter worried later in his life about the unnecessary divisions that the church was experiencing, he expressed his thought on “The Baptismal Covenant Expounded in the Ancient Creed” in the front matter and the preface to Catholick Theologie. There, Baxter argued from Christ’s commission to the apostles in Matthew 28:19–​20 and Mark 16:16 that baptism implied a basic confession of faith for church membership that was equivalent in a sense to the Apostles’ Creed, where “All that were baptized did profess to Believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and devoted themselves to him, with profession of Repentance for former sins, and renouncing the Lusts of the Flesh, the World and the Devil, professing to begin a new and holy life, in hope of everlasting glory.” By this, Baxter saw a basic confessional pattern established by Christ that found remarkable consistency with baptismal creeds found in early church history and expressed in the Apostles’ Creed. He argued for the sufficiency of this summary and symbol of Christianity against those he termed “dogmatists,” who wanted to construct confessions as tests of fellowship that added numerous opinions to the simplicity of the historic baptismal covenant. He conceded to additional confessions if they were used to “satisfie other Churches that doubt our right understanding of the faith” and for the “enumeration of Verities which Preachers shall not have leave to preach against (though they subscribe them not).” Nevertheless, Baxter was cautious not to add unnecessary doctrines to confessional documents that would trump the standard of catholicity established by Christ and held through most of church history.90 Considering his approach to creeds and catholicity, it makes sense that Baxter opposed adding anyone’s opinion of the doctrine of perseverance to the church’s public confession of faith. Personally, he affirmed Dort’s and Westminster’s doctrine of the perseverance of all saints. Nevertheless, Baxter thought the denial of perseverance of the saints should be classified as a “Tolerable Opinion,” confessing that “humility and modesty forbid me, to profess a certainty or too much confidence for a Doctrine, which I openly say, I cannot prove or find 90.  Baxter, Catholick Theologie, A3r–​A4r, (c)v–​(c2)v.

191

192

debating perseverance

that any one Christian held of about 1000  years after the Apostles dayes.”91 It came down to proper classification and an attempt to balance orthodoxy with charity. Although Augustine and the early church did not lay a foundation for Baxter’s theological convictions, they certainly gave him pause. This statement, explaining himself during the heat of the perseverance controversy, captures well the sentiment Baxter carried throughout his career: Therefore, notwithstanding all the Objections that are against it, and the ill use that will be made of it by many, and the accidental troubles that it may cast some Believers into, yet it seems to me, that the Doctrine of perseverance is grounded on the Scriptures, and therefore is to be maintained, not only as extending to all the Elect against the Lutherans and Arminians, but also as extending to all the truly sanctified, against Augustine and the Jansenians, and other Dominicans: though we must ranke it but among truths of its own order, and not lay the Churches Peace or Communion upon it.92

Conclusion Goodwin’s book generated considerable debate among Puritans as his opponents sought to defend the Dortian and Westminsterian viewpoint of perseverance against what was clearly a non-​Reformed advocacy of apostasy of the saints. However, an often unrecognized result of Goodwin’s prodding is the debate it spurred within the Reformed camp concerning Augustine’s understanding of perseverance. Whereas men like Owen and Kendall argued for Augustine holding to the perseverance of all saints, Baxter supported Goodwin’s reading of Augustine that recognized genuine apostasy in some saints. Thus, it is clear that the different readings of Augustine that had been debated previously in 91.  Baxter, Catholick Theologie, bk. 1, pt. 2, p. 116. 92.  Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Account of His Present Thoughts, 32.

192

193

lingering reluctance among reformed englishmen

the English church persisted in the Reformed tradition, even after the triumph of Dort and Westminster. That is to say, there was not a unified reading of Augustine among the Puritans during the interregnum. Interestingly enough, both sides wanted to interpret Augustine’s seemingly contradictory statements on perseverance in light of his clearer statements. The difference was what they took to be the clear and defining statements. Baxter’s opposition to his colleagues’ reading of Augustine also serves as a reminder that having a reading of Augustine did not necessarily mean having a positive reception of that reading. In the other debates observed in this book, the trend was that readings of Augustine typically corresponded to an individual’s personal belief on perseverance. Thus, people used their reading of Augustine to support their own position. However, Baxter clearly demonstrated that he personally received the Dortian and Westminsterian position on the perseverance of all saints in spite of his belief that it collided with Augustine’s teaching on the matter. Readings and receptions are not always the same. Yet this chapter does more than show that disagreements over Augustine remained within the Church of England. It also highlights the effects that these different readings of Augustine had on the way people approached church structures. Appeals to Augustine were not just defensive measures for protecting one’s personal position, but they also helped inform the shape of public confession of faith. In questioning whether the doctrine of perseverance was a fundamental article, Goodwin linked the debate to a growing concern about tolerating diversity within the greater bounds of orthodoxy. Perseverance was viewed in relation to ideas of catholicity, for you cannot have a fundamental doctrine that all Christians, everywhere, have not always believed. Both Baxter and Owen wanted to avoid placing perseverance among the fundamental articles, yet differences in reading Augustine, intersecting with divergent approaches to ecclesiology and a bit of personal animosity, resulted in divergent ways of handling confessional documents. While Baxter’s reading of Augustine did not correspond with his own personal opinion on perseverance, it did have an effect on

193

194

debating perseverance

whether he thought it should be placed in public confessions of faith. Finding it foolish to excommunicate Augustine and the early church, Baxter favored the Apostles’ Creed as a sufficient statement of the fundamentals as well as an adequate confession of faith for his contemporary setting. Conversely, feeling confident that Augustine and the early church were on his side, Owen was much more comfortable including perseverance of the saints in public confessions of faith. Nevertheless, his Independent convictions pushed him to greater levels of toleration in England. Therefore, because he could concede that perseverance and other specifications from Dort and Westminster were not fundamental articles, Owen advocated a minimalist confession to be used by the government to enforce a basic element of orthodoxy in England. Thus, he advocated multiple confessions for different purposes. The fundamentals would establish a common faith throughout England, while more specific confessions for individual church subscription would allow for fuller expression of the doctrines that each congregation felt necessary for maintaining vital Christianity. Neither Baxter’s nor Owen’s confessional approaches were adopted by Parliament as a model for unifying the Church of England. As the various factions within the revolution proved too unstable, the restoration of the monarchy resulted in the widespread ejection of Puritan ministers from the Church of England, which ensured that neither Baxter’s nor Owen’s visions would gain official acceptance in the land. Still, the struggles and debates they went through reveal that the Puritan ascendency had not done away with the opposing readings of Augustine on perseverance. In fact, those contrasting views added yet another bit of tension among those who favored closer uniformity with the international Reformed community. Unable to resolve such tensions and maintain unity, the Church of England failed to maintain its Reformed identity among the nations.

194

195

chapter seven

perseverance, augustine, and england’s struggling identity

This study has evaluated several samples within the life of the Church of England. It began with debates at Cambridge University that gave rise to the Lambeth Articles. It then surveyed the British delegation’s involvement at the Synod of Dort. Returning to English soil, it evaluated debates stirred by a traditionalist within the Church of England who was unhappy with the results of Dort. Then it analyzed other debates involving pro-​Dort Puritans of the English Commonwealth era. Over the course of the study, close watch was given to the doctrine of perseverance and how commitments to both the Reformed tradition and the early church influenced the participants in these debates. As the study ends, it seems appropriate to reflect on three important findings and their significance for modern discussions concerning the identity of the Church of England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These findings regard the existence of a minority opinion within the Reformed tradition on the doctrine of perseverance, how readings of Augustine influenced confessional development in England, and the difficulty polemical labels can pose for accurately understanding the historical data.

195

196

debating perseverance

T h e M i n o r i t y O pi n i o n Early on, this study discovered the existence of a minority opinion on the doctrine of perseverance within the Reformed tradition. The predominant Reformed view was the perseverance of every saint. While Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and Arminians repudiated the idea that saved people could not lose their faith, teaching on the perseverance of the saints flourished so greatly among the Reformed that it can rightly be considered a Reformed distinctive. Nevertheless, most Reformed confessions before the Synod of Dort lacked a specific affirmation of the perseverance of the saints. Many confessions didn’t address the issue. Other statements of the Reformed faith attributed certain perseverance to the elect alone, which technically allowed for the notion that some of the nonelect could temporarily gain and inevitably lose saving faith. Even though the majority opinion among the Reformed favored perseverance of the saints, this study confirms that there were some Reformed churchmen before Dort who took comfort in the confessional silence and rejected the majority opinion. Evidently, the Church of England housed some of that minority opinion. The simple existence of a Reformed minority opinion on perseverance is interesting. But the significance becomes all the greater when one recognizes the growing success of the majority opinion. As the idea of perseverance of the saints increasingly pressed toward confessionalization within Reformed communities, its reception among the English was not so easy. Consider, for instance, how Archbishop John Whitgift sanctioned the Lambeth Articles in order to establish parameters at the University of Cambridge for theological controversy over doctrines related to predestination. Those articles favored a standard Reformed perspective on election, clearly set to suppress semi-​Pelagianism, yet they specifically avoided attribution of perseverance to every believer and settled with the more modest claim of the elect’s inability to lose justifying faith. Defining it this way allowed for the popular Reformed position of the perseverance of the saints, yet it respectfully made room for the minority opinion that thought God sovereignly converted some nonelect and allowed them to fall away. This episode at the end of the

196

197

perseverance, augustine, and england

sixteenth century reveals a certain measure of uneasiness among ranking officials within the Church of England to officially narrow the definition of perseverance. They could accept perseverance of the saints as a good option to be maintained within the bounds of orthodoxy, but they resisted the urge to make it the only orthodox option. Consider also the Synod of Dort, which demonstrates a similar sort of uneasiness among the British delegation. In this case, it is clear that the delegation favored the doctrine of the perseverance of all saints on a personal level and demonstrated their favorable stance toward it in their report to the Synod. Nevertheless, when it came to drafting the Canons of Dort, they specifically urged the Synod to avoid condemning those who thought true saving faith could be lost, so long as it was not advocated on semi-​Pelagian grounds. Granted, their request was denied and the Synod rejected all expressions of total or final apostasy of true believers. But given the chance, the British delegation sought to dissuade the Synod from amplifying the Reformed distinctive by codifying the perseverance of the saints as the only Reformed position. Although they personally advocated it and desired to see it flourish, the British delegation sought to maintain a continued respect for the minority opinion among the Reformed on the issue of perseverance. Note as well how the debates surrounding Richard Montagu give testimony of the troubles caused in England by the narrower definition of perseverance proclaimed in the Canons of Dort. Given the background of the debates at Cambridge and the British delegation’s reticence to eliminate the broader approach to perseverance, some backlash in England was nearly unavoidable. Although the Synod’s determination on perseverance of the saints was not the sole cause of unrest for Montagu and his associates, it certainly gave them reason to question the value of continuing to identify the Church of England with the Reformed churches. Due to the Church of England’s broad-​church approach to being Reformed, the Canons of Dort made it harder to commit to the international Reformed consensus. As evidenced in the friction surrounding Montagu, the issue of perseverance highlighted other areas of tension for England’s broad-​church approach. One bit of collateral damage from Dort’s rejection of genuine apostasy was

197

198

debating perseverance

its indirect assault on a traditionalist understanding of the efficacy of infant baptism. Reformed England had allowed for forms of baptismal regeneration, which on the surface seemed incompatible with the perseverance of the saints. Although men like John Davenant and Samuel Ward sought to reconcile the traditionalist view of baptism with the perseverance of the saints, the rift between the pro-​Dort party and the contra-​Dort party proved irreparable. At a time when some desired England to take a more decisive stand with the international Reformed community and officially subscribe to the Canons of Dort, the Montagu affair reflects a persisting uneasiness in England to exclusively adopt the distinctively Reformed view of perseverance. It is little wonder that England refrained from adopting the Canons of Dort as a doctrinal standard of its Church. Along with the civil wars, the 1640s witnessed the triumph of the pro-​ Dort party in England and the ascendancy of the well-​ known Westminster Assembly. However, Presbyterian attempts to maintain religious uniformity proved unsuccessful, and England soon found itself struggling to establish a stable approach to the Reformed religion. A  survey of the perseverance debate started by John Goodwin reveals that, despite the strong support of Dortian doctrine in England, a lingering uneasiness persisted among the Reformed to make the perseverance of the saints a confessional item for the whole Church of England. Adherents of the perseverance of the saints, like John Owen and Richard Baxter, may have held different sensibilities about confessional documents and how they were to be used, but they shared the common conviction that the doctrine was not a fundamental article for Christianity and should not be pressed upon the entire English Church. So there once was a time when perseverance of the saints was distinctly favored among the Reformed without making it a sine qua non of being Reformed. This also means that there was a time when respectable Reformed men could deny the perseverance of the saints without fear of losing their Reformed credentials. This part of Reformed history was obscured by the eventual triumph of the majority opinion within the tradition. Yet by observing these English debates on perseverance of the saints afresh, historians can better appreciate the

198

199

perseverance, augustine, and england

significance of this Reformed distinctive becoming a nonnegotiable confessional item.

T wo R e a d i n g s

of Augustine

Not only has this study observed an abiding uneasiness in England regarding the reception of the perseverance of the saints, it also demonstrated that readings and receptions of Augustine played an important role in making that reception so difficult. Without a doubt, appeals to Augustine and the early church influenced policy making and confessional development in the Church of England. As Protestants, they were not seeking the authority of tradition to establish the validity of doctrine. Rather, they were arguing for catholicity and who could legitimately claim to be in the church. To complicate matters, two different interpretations of Augustine on perseverance had emerged within the Reformed tradition. One reading substantially agreed with the Reformed minority opinion and understood Augustine as teaching that genuinely converted people could lose justifying faith if they were not of the elect. A second reading corresponded with the Reformed majority opinion and perceived Augustine as teaching that all true believers will persevere to the end. And while the second reading of Augustine was naturally quite favorable among the Reformed who held that position themselves, the presence of the first reading made it difficult for the English to maintain their sense of catholicity and strictly adopt a view of the perseverance of the saints. So while William Whitaker could propose an article for the perseverance of the saints at Lambeth palace with the confidence of having Augustine on his side, Whitgift ultimately chose to broaden the article so as to respect the readings of Augustine followed by Archbishop Matthew Hutton and Adrianus Saravia. The British delegates to Dort personally favored the second reading of Augustine that taught the perseverance of the saints, yet they cautioned the Synod against condemning those Reformed men who followed the first reading of Augustine that denied perseverance of the saints. Montagu presented the first reading of Augustine as good grounds for England to reject the Canons

199

200

debating perseverance

of Dort, though his pro-​Dort opponents tried to refute him in favor of the second reading of Augustine. In response to John Goodwin’s appeal to the first reading of Augustine, Owen and George Kendall rallied behind the second reading of Augustine. This in turn spurred Baxter to assert the first reading of Augustine as correct—​despite his own personal convictions favoring the perseverance of the saints—​and to avoid putting statements of perseverance of the saints in confessional documents for the sake of maintaining catholicity. Surely these competing readings of Augustine caused difficulties for the confessional reception of the perseverance of the saints in England.

The Obscuring Effect

o f   S u cc e s s f u l   L a b e l s

A third helpful finding relates to the way historical positions are obscured and forgotten. This study suggests that the existence of a minority opinion on perseverance and the influence of two readings of Augustine for maintaining it were not merely forgotten. Rather, an effective use of labels helped to obscure these things from initial observation. Labels are a necessary part of forming one’s identity, but historians must be aware that they can distort the perception of things as much as they can clarify it. This is especially the case when labels are used in polemical contexts. Consider how the terms “Calvinist” and “Arminian” evidence the danger of labels throughout this study. For instance, William Barrett labeled his opponents “Calvinists” as a polemical means of associating their uncontroversial doctrine of perseverance with the rather controversial Genevan approach to church polity. Montagu also used “Calvinists” and “Puritans” in a polemical fashion, and his opponents made an equally polemical use of “Arminian” against him. Tagging opponents with labels is a valuable means of advancing one’s position and shapping group identity to favor that position. If nothing else, it allows one to divide and conquer their opponents. However, during these polemical contexts, the actual positions of those receiving the labels were often distorted. As historians continue to uncritically appropriate these labels as they rehearse these stories, they run the risk of obscuring more of the situation than

200

201

perseverance, augustine, and england

they reveal. On the one hand, secondary scholarship must recognize the polemical categories that were set up and determine how people fit within them. But in doing so, historians must also recognize the limited value and shortcomings of these labels, even as the original recipients of these labels recognized in their day. To continue to speak of Calvinists and Arminians without appropriate caution has only reinforced an imbalanced approach to understanding the identity of the Church of England. Too often the notion of Calvinism has become synonymous with the Reformed tradition, and this gives the impression that Calvin set the standard for the whole tradition. But as this study suggests, the Reformed tradition was wider than just Calvin and did not depend on his particular articulation of doctrine as a test of orthodoxy. In effect, discussions of Calvinism have tended to veil the breadth of the Reformed tradition and overlook the minority positions that had existed within it. And as seen in the Montagu affair, the label “Arminian” is just as problematic. By reducing the issue to a difference between Calvinism versus Arminianism, it becomes difficult for scholars to see a place for someone like Montagu within the Reformed tradition. But by digging behind the labels, one sees that Montagu was not really dependent on Arminius but was drawing from traditionalist strands within the Church of England—​ strands that were valid within the broad-​church approach of reform in England and tolerated among the international Reformed community until Dort. Simplistic categories left unqualified lead to simplistic understandings of history, often oblivious to the rich contours of the theological landscape. If caution is necessary when labeling people as Calvinists and Arminians, this study sounds a double note of caution regarding the term “Augustinian.” Labeling someone Augustinian already demands a qualification of the way that person relates to Augustine. That is to say, is the person Augustinian in ecclesiology, in soteriology, or in the monastic rule that they follow? But this survey of perseverance debates extends the caution further. In light of the competing readings of Augustine’s theology, one is left to wonder which Augustine a given Augustinian is related to. Opponents holding to different

201

202

debating perseverance

readings of Augustine, and each equally convinced that their reading is correct, lead to confusion on who the true heirs of Augustine really were. Determining which of the two readings of Augustine on perseverance is more correct is beyond the scope of this study. However, the fact that there were competing readings of Augustine on perseverance is significant, and it highlights how mutually exclusive positions were simultaneously depicted as Augustinian. England had a strong Augustinian heritage, but the fraying effect of this heritage gave it a wide range of outcomes that proved even broader than its approach to being Reformed. The difficulty posed by labels brings the discussion back around to the problem modern scholarship faces concerning the identity of the Church of England. Scholars commonly describe the Church of England during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries as either comprising a Calvinist consensus or partaking of an Anglican spirit steeped in an ancient catholicity. Yet this study does not easily support either of those two trends. Those advocating a Calvinist consensus face the problems created by overly simplistic categories and labels. If the categories for understanding the Church of England’s identity are only Calvinist or anti-​ Calvinist, then categorizing people like Hutton and Saravia becomes very difficult. These two men obviously opposed Whitaker, and Calvin for that matter, on perseverance. Yet in spite of having Whitaker’s proposal for perseverance of the saints revised to express the perseverance of the elect in the Lambeth Articles, Hutton and Saravia were not supportive of the semi-​Pelagian position espoused by Barrett. And it will not do to categorize them as modified Calvinists, as it appears they were drawing on a minority position that already existed in the Reformed community rather than adjusting theological dictates from Calvin. If historians maintain a Calvinist versus anti-​Calvinist scheme, what is to be made of the British delegation’s concern about alienating some Reformed men who held to the possibility of genuine apostasy of the faithful? And what is to be done with Montagu since he now looks to be something other than an Arminian? Proponents of a Calvinist consensus have correctly perceived a widespread respect for

202

203

perseverance, augustine, and england

and appeal to the Reformed tradition as a source of identity for the Church of England. But in the process of articulating that observation, the breadth of options within the Reformed tradition—​especially in England prior to the Synod of Dort—​tends to be neglected. Advocates of an early Anglican spirit run into the problem of the breadth of the Augustinian heritage and commonplace appeal to Augustine. The fact is that English theologians, regardless of which faction they represented, frequently tried to legitimize their catholicity by appeals to Augustine and the early church. Men like Hutton and Saravia may have safeguarded their position through an appeal to the early church, but Whitaker looked just as admiringly to Augustine for support. Even the Puritans made passionate appeals to Augustine. No one would think of Owen as representing the Anglican spirit, yet his appeal to Augustine in favor of the perseverance of the saints was wrapped up in an English exceptionalism and an argument for ancient catholicity as emphatic as that of Matthew Parker. Defenders of an early Anglican via media rightly recognize the early church fathers as a source of identity for the Church of England. However, they tend to omit the fact that traditionalists were not alone in cultivating a strong sense of importance for the early church fathers and trying to maintain a sense of ancient catholicity. In the same way that historians must recognize a range of options within the Reformed tradition, they must also admit that the appeal to an ancient catholicity was made from a variety of theological positions within the Church of England. It is also worth pointing out that the many English conformists didn’t seem bothered by being aligned with the Reformed churches, at least until the Reformed churches expected them to forfeit their traditionalist positions. If historians continue to speak of an early Anglicanism that existed between Rome and Geneva, they should at least be clear that it fell within Reformed borders. Rather than limit ourselves to one of these two options, this study finds value in recognizing both the Reformed churches and the early church as important sources of identity for the Church of England. Obviously, maintaining a balance between these sources was not always easy. But historians should not shy away from admitting the

203

204

debating perseverance

importance of both. Instead, why not see the Church of England’s struggle to cultivate both sources of identity—​especially at times when they seemed to fall into conflict—​as a shaping force of the shifting contours of English religious life? Having analyzed several instances when one of the most distinctive marks of Reformed theology was debated with appeals to the early church, it seems that a more nuanced approach is called for—​one that recognizes England’s pursuit of a Reformed and ancient catholicity. The picture of England that emerges is a broad-​church approach to being Reformed that allowed for different readings and receptions of the early church. The Thirty-​Nine Articles provided ample room for various expressions of Reformed orthodoxy to live together in peace. Nevertheless, different segments within those broad parameters sought to promote their version of the Church above others, which appears to be the case with both the Puritans and others with traditionalist sympathies. While different segments of the Church lobbied for their own particular way, the overarching broad-​church approach could recognize both as maintaining a version of Reformed and ancient catholicity. England’s broad-​church approach to being Reformed ran into serious problems as the trend among other Reformed churches had moved toward more precise expressions of orthodoxy. Whereas England’s broad-​church approach gave space to differing perspectives on perseverance, the international Reformed community at the Synod of Dort specified the perseverance of all saints as orthodoxy. The Synod’s definition of perseverance confessionally narrowed orthodoxy by transforming the majority opinion among Reformed churches into the only Reformed position, officially rejecting a once-​viable minority opinion that had circulated freely in places like England. Had the British delegation’s request for toleration prevailed at Dort, there might not have been so much resistance in the Church of England to align itself more thoroughly with the international Reformed community. But the Synod’s insistence on the perseverance of the saints naturally forced English divines to determine whether their ties to the Reformed community were worth it. One senses a reaction from Montagu and the Laudians that they were willing to risk the loss of England’s Reformed

204

205

perseverance, augustine, and england

identity, and they supported their position with their reading of the ancient Christianity. Yet even the pro-​Dort party tried to justify the catholicity of their position with readings of Augustine and the early church. As the Puritan cause gained favor and the Westminster Assembly seemed to declare the triumph of the pro-​Dort party, its own unraveling showed a remaining sensitivity among Reformed Englishmen to the early church and a sense of ancient catholicity. Taken together, these post-​Reformation debates reveal an Augustinian heritage in conflict with itself, struggling to come to grips with the doctrine of perseverance and its effects on the Church of England.

205

206

207

bibliography

P r i m a ry S o u rc e s Aelfric of Eynsham. A Testimonie of Antiquitie Shewing the Auncient Fayth in the Church of England Touching the Sacrament of the Body and Bloude of the Lord Here Publikely Preached, and also Receaued in the Saxons Tyme, aboue 600. Yeares Agoe. London, 1566. Andrewes, Lancelot. A Pattern of Catechistical Doctine, and Other Minor Works. Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1846. Anti-​Montacutum. An Appeale or Remonstrance of the Orthodox Ministers of the Church of England; against Richard Mountagu Clerke, Lately Made Byshop of Chichester. Edinburgh, 1629. Articuli Lambethani. London, 1651. Augustine. Saint Augustine:  Anti-​Pelagian Writings. In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-​Nicene Fathers. Edited by Philip Schaff. Series 1. Vol. 5. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. —​—​—​   .Two Bokes of the Noble Doctor and B. S. Augustine Thone Entiteled of the Predestinacion of Saintes, Thother of Perseveueraunce unto Thende, whereunto Are Annexed the Determinacions of Two Auncient Generall Councelles, Confermyng the Doctrine Taught in These Bokes by S. Aug. Translated by John Scory. Geneva, 1556. —​—​—​   . A Worke of the Predestination of Saints Written by the Famous Doctor S.  Augustine Byshop of Carthage,.  .  .  Item, Another Worke of the Sayde Augustyne, Entytuled, of the Vertue of Perseveraunce to Thend. Translated by Nicholas Lesse. London, 1550. Baxter, Richard. Catholick Theologie: Plain, Pure, Peacable: For Pacification of the Dogmatical Word-​Warriours. London, 1675.

207

208

bibliography —​—​—​   . Christian Concord:  Or the Agreement of the Associated Pastors and Churches of Worcestershire. With Rich. Baxter’s Explication and Defence of It, and His Exhortation to Unity. London, 1653. —​—​—​   . Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church-​membership and Baptism. 4th ed. London, 1656. —​—​—​   . The Reduction of a Digressor. London, 1654. —​—​—​   . Reliquiae Baxterianae: Or, Mr. Richard Baxter’s Narrative of the Most Memorable Passages of His Life and Times. London, 1696. —​—​—​   . Richard Baxter’s Account of His Present Thoughts concerning the Controversies about the Perseverance of the Saints. London, 1658. —​—​—​   . The Right Method for a Settled Peace of Conscience, and Spiritual Comfort. London, 1653. —​—​—​   . The Right Method for a Settled Peace of Conscience, and Spiritual Comfort. 2nd ed. London: Underhil, Tyton, and Roybould, 1653. Bedford, Thomas. Vindiciae Gratiae Sacramentalis. London, 1650. Bernard, Richard. Rhemes against Rome: Or, the Remooving of the Gagg of the New Gospell, and Rightly Placing It in the Mouthes of the Romists, by the Rhemists; in Their English Translation of the Scripture. London: Robert Milbourne, 1626. A Booke of Certaine Canons, concerning Some Parte of the Discipline of the Church of England. London: John Daye, 1571. The Booke of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England. London, 1625. The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–​1619). Edited by Anthony Milton. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2005. Bucer, Martin. Martin Bucer and the Book of Common Prayer. Edited by E. C. Whitaker. London: Mayhew-​McCrimmon, 1974. Bullinger, Heinrich. The Decades of Henry Bullinger:  The First and Second Decades. Translated by H.  I. Edited by Thomas Harding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849. Burges, Cornelis. Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants. Oxford, 1629. Burton, Henry. Plea to an Appeal, Traversed Dialogue Wise. London, 1626. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2  vols. Translated by John Allen. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1921. Carleton, George. An Examination of Those Things wherein the Author of the Late Appeal Holdeth the Doctrines of the Pelagians and Arminians to Be the Doctrine of the Church of England. London, 1626.

208

209

bibliography The Collegiat Suffrage of the Divines of Great Britaine, concerning the Five Articles Controverted in the Low Countries. London:  Robert Milbourne, 1629. Cosin, John. The Correspondence of John Cosin. 2 vols. Durham: Andrews and Co., 1869–​1872. The Creeds of Christendom. Vol. 3. 4th ed. rev. and enl. Edited by Philip Schaff. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1919. A Declaration of the Faith and Order Owned and Practiced in the Congregational Churches in England:  Agreed upon and Consented unto by Their Elders and Messengers in Their Meeting at the Savoy, October 12. 1658. London: printed by J. P., 1659. Downame, George. The Covenant of Grace, or An Exposition upon Luke 1. 73. 74. 75. Dublin: Society of Stationers, 1631. Ellis, John. A Defence of the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England. London, 1700. “Errors Delivered by Mr Richard Mountagu in His Book Entituled, A New Gagg for an Old Goose, and Published by Authority This Present Year 1624.” British Library, Harley MS 7608, fols. 48–​53. Eusebius. Eusebii Pamphili Caesareae Palaestinae episcopi, De demonstratione euangelica libri decem. Quibus accessere nondum hactenus editi nec visi contra Marcellum Ancyrae Episcopum libri duo: De ecclesiastica theologia tres. Paris, 1628. Featley, Daniel. A Second Parallel, Together with a Writ of Error Sued against the Appealer. London, 1626. Fuller, Thomas. The Church-​History of Britain; from the Birth of Jesus Christ, until the Year M. DC. XLVII. London, 1655. Fuller, William. “Booke to the Queene.” In The Second Parte of a Register, Being a Calendar of Manuscripts under That Title Intended for Publication by the Puritans about 1593, and Now in Dr. Williams’s Library, London. 2 vols. Edited by Albert Peel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915. Gataker, Thomas. De Baptismatis Infantilis Vi & Efficacia Disceptatio. London, 1653. Gerhard, Johann. Theological Commonplaces. On Creation and Angels, on Providence, on Election and Reprobation, and on the Image of God in Man before the Fall. Translated by Richard J.  Dinda. Edited by Benjamin T.  G. Mayes and Joshua J.  Hayes. St. Louis:  Concordia Publishing House, 2013.

209

210

bibliography Goodwin, John. Apolytrosis Apolytroseos or Redemption Redeemed. London: by John Macock for Lodowick Lloyd and Henry Cripps, 1651. —​—​—​   . Eirenomachia. The Agreement & Distance of Brethren: Or, a Brief Survey of the Judgment of Mr. J.  G.  and the Church of God Walking with Him, Touching These Important Heads of Doctrine:  1.  Election and Reprobation. 2. The Death of Christ. 3. The Grace of God, in and about Conversion. 4. The Liberty or Power of the Will, or of the Creature Man. 5. The Perseverance of the Saints. Truly and Plainly Declaring the Particulars, as Well Agreed upon, as Dissented in, between Them, and Their Christian Brethren of Opposite Judgment to Them in Some Things about the Said Doctrines. London, 1652. —​—​—​   . Triumviri:  Or, The Genius, Spirit, and Deportment of the Three Men, Mr. Richard Resbury, Mr. John Pawson, and Mr. George Kendall, in Their Late Writings against the Free Grace of God in the Redemption of the World. London, 1658. —​—​—​    . Twelve Considerable Serious Cautions, Very Necessary to be Observed, in, and about a Reformation according to the Word of God. London, 1646. Gregory of Nazianzus. Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni In Iulianum inuectiuae duae. Cum scholiis Graecis nunc primùm editis, & ejusdem authoris nonnulis aliis quorum syllabum sequens pag. Continent. 1610. Hales, John. Golden Remains, of the Ever Memorable, Mr. John Hales, of Eaton-​Colledge. London: for Robert Pawlet, 1673. Hall, Joseph. The Works of Joseph Hall, D.  D. 12  vols. Oxford:  D.  A. Talboys, 1837–​1839. Hooker, Richard. The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker. General editor W. Speed Hill. Vols. 1–​5. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977–​1990. Vols. 6–​7. Binghamton, NY:  Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1993–​1998. —​—​—​   . Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Politie: The Fift Booke. London, 1597. The Humble Proposals of Mr. Owen, Mr. Tho. Goodwin, Mr. Nye, Mr. Simpson, and Other Ministers, who presented the Petition to the Parliament, and Other Persons, Febr. 11. under debate by a Committee this 31. of March, 1652. for the Furtherance and Propagation of the Gospel in the Nation. London, 1652. Hutton, Matthew. The Correspondence of Dr.  Matthew Hutton, Archbishop of York. Edited by James Raine. London: J. B. Nichols and Son, 1843.

210

211

bibliography Jansen, Cornelius. Augustinus, seu Doctrina Sancti Augustini de Humanae Naturae Sanitate, Aegritudine, Medicina adversus Pelagianos & Massilienses. 3 vols. Paris, 1641. Jewel, John. An Apologie, or Aunswer in Defence of the Church of England, Concerning the State of Religion Used in the Same. London, 1562. Kendall, George. Sancti Sanciti. Or, The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. London, 1654. —​—​—​   . Theokratia: Or, a Vindication of the Doctrine Commonly Received in the Reformed Churches concerning Gods Intentions of Special Grace and Favour to His Elect in the Death of Christ. London, 1653. Lamb, Thomas. Absolute Freedom from Sin by Christs Death for the World, as the Object of Faith in Opposition to Conditional. London, 1656. Montagu, Richard. Appello Caesarem. A Just Appeale from Two Unjust Informers. London: Matthew Lownes, 1625. —​—​—​   . A Gagg for the New Gospell? No: A New Gagg for an Old Goose. London: Matthew Lownes and William Barret, 1624. —​—​—​   . “Richard Montagu: ‘Concerning Recusancie of Communion with the Church of England.’ ” Edited and introduced by Anthony Milton and Alexandra Walsham. In From Cranmer to Davidson: A Church of England Miscellany, edited by Stephen Taylor, 69–​101. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1999. Musculus, Wolfgang. Loci Communes Sacrae Theologiae. Basil, 1564. A New Confession of Faith, or the First Principles of the Christian Religion Necessary to Bee Laid as a Foundation by All Such as Desired to Build on unto Perfection. London, 1654. Owen, John. The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, Explained and Confirmed. London, 1654. —​—​—​   . The Works of John Owen. Edited by William H. Goold. 24 vols. London: Johnstone and Hunter, 1850–​1855. Parker, Matthew. De Antiquitate Britannicae Ecclesiae & Priuilegiis Ecclesiae Cantuariensis cum Archiepiscopis eiusdem 70. London, 1572. Perkins, William. Problema de Romanae Fidei Ementito Catholicismo. Cambridge: John Legat, 1604. —​—​—​   . 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 Ever Depart from Them: With an Advertisement to All Favourers of the Romane Religion, Shewing That

211

212

bibliography the Said Religion Is against the Catholike Principles and Grounds of the Catechisme. Cambridge: John Legat, 1598. —​—​—​   . The Works of That Famous and Worthy Minister of Christ in the Universitie of Cambridge, M.  William Perkins. Vol. 2.  London:  John Legat, 1631. Plaifere, John. Appello Evangelium. London, 1651. Proposals for the Furtherance and Propagation of the Gospell in This Nation. London, 1652. Prynne, William. The Perpetuitie of a Regenerate Mans Estate. 3rd ed. London: Michael Sparke, 1627. Reformed Confession of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation. Compiled with introductions by James T. Dennison. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–​2014. Serry, Jacques-​ Hyacinthe (under the pseudonym Augustino le Blanc). Histiriae Congregationum de Auxiliis Divinae Gratiae, sub Summis Pontificibus Clemente VIII et Paulo V. Leuven, 1700. A Solemn League and Covenant, for Reformation and Defence of Religion, the Honor and Happinesse of the King, and the Peace and Safety of the Three Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland. London: Edward Husbands, 1643. Some, Robert. Propositiones Tres, Piè, Perspicuè, & Breviter Tractatae. Cambridge: John Legat, 1596. —​—​—​   . Three Questions, Godly, Plainly, and Briefly Handled. Cambridge: John Legat, 1596. Strype, John. The Life and Acts of the Most Reverend Father in God, John Whitgift. London, 1718. Suffragium Collegiale Theologorum Magnae Britanniae de Quinque Controverssis Remonstrantium Articulis. London:Robert Milbourne, 1626. “A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanae de Canonibus Formandis Aliisque in Synodo Dordacena Proposita.” Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, Samuel Ward MS L2. Ussher, James. The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, D.  D. 17 vols. Dublin: Hodges and Smith, 1847–​1864. Vermigli, Peter Martyr. Life, Letters, and Sermons. Translated and edited by J. P. Donnelly. Kirksville, MO: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1999.

212

213

bibliography Vossius, Gerardus Joannes. Historiae de controversiis quas Pelagius eiusque reliquiae moverunt. Leiden, 1618. Ward, Samuel. Opera Nonnulla: Determinationes Theologicae, Tractatus de Justificatione, Praelectiones de Peccato Originali. Edited by Seth Ward. London, 1658. Whitaker, William. Cygnea Cantio: or, the Swan-​Song. 1772. —​—​—​   . Praelectiones Docissimi viri Guilielmi Whitakeri. Cambridge: John Legat, 1599. Whitgift, John. The Works of John Whitgift. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1851–​1853. Wotton, Anthony. A Dangerous Plot Discovered. By a Discourse, Wherein Is Proved, that, Mr: Richard Mountague, in His Two Bookes; the One, Called A New Gagg; the Other, A Just Appeal: Laboureth to Bring in the Faith of Rome, and Arminius: under the Name and Pretence of the Doctrine and Faith of the Church of England. London, 1626. Yates, John. Ibis ad Caesarem. Or a Submissive Appearance before Caesar; In Answer to Mr Mountagues Appeal, in the Points of Arminianisme and Popery, Maintained and Defended by Him, against the Doctrine of the Church of England. London, 1626. Zanchi, Girolamo. De Religion Christiana Fides. Neustadt an der Haardt, 1585. S e c o n da ry S o u rc e s Allison, A.  F. “John Heigham of S.  Omer, c.  1568–​ c.1632.” Recusant History 4 (October 1958): 226–​242. Amaru, Betsy Halpern. “Arminianism in England 1595–​1629.” PhD diss., University of Massachusetts, 1969. Asselt, Willem J. van, J. Martin Bac, and Roelf T. te Velde, eds. Reformed Thought on Freedom:  The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012. Atkins, Jonathan M.  “Calvinist Bishops, Church Unity, and the Rise of Arminianism.” Albion 18, no. 3 (Autumn 1986): 411–​427. Atkinson, Nigel. Richard Hooker and the Authority of Scripture, Tradition and Reason:  Reformed Theologian of the Church of England? Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997. Backus, Irena. Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation, 1378–​1615. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

213

214

bibliography —​—​—​, ed. The Reception of the Church Fathers. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Ball, Thomas. The Life of the Renowned Doctor Preston. London: Parker and Co., 1885. Barbee, David M.  “A Reformed Catholike:  William Perkins’ Use of the Church Fathers.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2013. Beeke, Joel R. The Quest for Full Assurance: The Legacy of John Calvin and His Successors. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1999. Beeke, Joel R., and Mark Jones. A Puritan Theology:  Doctrine for Life. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012. Beeke, Joel R., and Paul M. Smalley. Prepared by Grace, for Grace: The Puritans on God’s Ordinary Way of Leading Sinners to Christ. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2013. Bernard, George W. “The Church of England, c. 1529–​1642.” History 75 (February 1990): 183–​206. Boerma, Hans. Richard Baxter’s Understanding of Infant Baptism. Studies in Reformed Theology and History N.S. 7. Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary, 2002. Bozeman, Theodore Dwight. To Live Ancient Lives:  The Primitivist Dimension in Puritanism. Chapel Hill:  University of North Carolina Press, 1988. Bromiley, Geoffrey W.  Baptism and the Anglican Reformers. London: Lutterworth Press, 1953. Chadwick, Henry. “Tradition, Fathers, and Councils.” In The Study of Anglicanism, edited by Stephen Sykes, John Booty, and Jonathan Knight, rev. ed., 100–​115. London: SPCK, 1998. Chung-​Kim, Esther. Inventing Authority: The Use of the Church Fathers in Reformation Debates over the Eucharist. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2011. Coffey, John. John Goodwin and the Puritan Revolution:  Religion and Intellectual Change in 17th-​ Century England. Woodbridge:  Boydell Press, 2006. Collinson, Patrick. The Religion of Protestants:  The Church in English Society 1559–​1625. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. Cooper, Tim. John Owen, Richard Baxter and the Formation of Nonconformity. Surrey: Ashgate, 2011. Cruickshank, Colin John. “Saint Augustine in Early New England.” PhD diss., University of Maine, 1996.

214

215

bibliography Davis, John Jefferson. “The Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34, no.  2 (June 1991): 213–​228. de Boer, Erik A. “ ‘O, Ye Women, Think of Thy Innocent Children, When They Die Young!’ The Canons of Dordt (First Head, Article Seventeen) between Polemic and Pastoral Theology.” In Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–​1619), edited by Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg, 261–​290. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Dodaro, Robert, and Michael Questier. “Strategies in Jacobean Polemic: The Use of and Abuse of St Augustine in English Theological Controversy.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44, no. 3 (July 1993): 432–​449. Ferguson, Sinclair B. John Owen on the Christian Life. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987. Fesko, J.  V. Diversity within the Reformed Tradition:  Supra-​and Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort, and Westminster. Jackson, MS: Reformed Academic Press, 2001. —​ —​ —​    . “Lapsarian Diversity at the Synod of Dort.” In Drawn into Controversies:  Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​ Century British Puritanism, edited by Michael A.  G. Haykin and Mark Jones, 99–​ 123. Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Fincham, Kenneth. “Clerical Conformity from Whitgift to Laud.” In Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church c. 1560–​1660, edited by Peter Lake and Michael Questier, 125–​158. Woodbridge:  Boydell Press, 2000. Fraenkel, Peter. Testimonium Patrum:  The Function of the Patristic Argument in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon. Geneva: Droz, 1961. Frank, Günter, Thomas Leinkauf, and Markus Wriedt, eds. Die Patristik in der Frühen Neuzeit:  Die Relektüre der Kirchenväter in den Wisssenschaften des 15. bis 18. Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart-​Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-​Holzboog, 2006. Garrett, Christina Hallowell. The Marian Exiles: A Study in the Origins of Elizabethan Puritanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938. Gilliam, Elizabeth, and William J.  Tighe. “To ‘Run with the Time’:  Archbishop Whitgift, the Lambeth Articles, and the Politics of Theological Ambiguity in Late Elizabethan England.” Sixteenth Century Journal 23, no. 2 (June 1992): 325–​340.

215

216

bibliography Godfrey, William Robert. “A Promise for Parents:  Dordt’s Perspective on Covenant and Election.” In Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition, edited by Jordan J. Ballor, David S. Sytsma, and Jason Zuidema, 373–​386. Leiden: Brill, 2013. —​ —​ —​    . “Tensions within International Calvinism:  The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618–​1619.” PhD diss., Stanford University, 1974. Gonzalez, Antonia Lucic. “Balthasar Hubmair and Early Christian Tradition.” PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2008. Goode, William. The Doctrine of the Church of England as to the Effects of Baptism in the Case of Infants. 2nd ed. London: J. Hatchard and Son, 1850. Gootjes, N. H. “Can Parents Be Sure? Background and Meaning of Canons of Dort I, 17.” Clarion 44 (1995): 464–​464, 481–​483. Gorman, Cyril Anthony. “Augustine and High Medieval Theologies of Perseverance:  The ‘Perseverance’ Teaching of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Matthew of Aquasparta and Gregory of Rimini.” PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2005. Grane, Leif, Alfred Schindler, and Markus Wriedt, eds. Auctoritas Patrium: Zur rezeption der Kirchenväter im 15. Und 16. Jahrhundert. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1993. —​—​—​   . Auctoritas Patrium II: Neue Beiträge zur Rezeption der Kirchenväter im 15. Und 16. Jahrhundert. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1998. Greenslade, S. L. The English Reformers and the Fathers of the Church. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960. Han, Byung Soo. Symphonia Catholica:  The Merger of Patristic and Contemporary Sources in the Theological Method of Amandus Polanus (1561–​1610). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Haykin, Michael A.  G., and Mark Jones, eds. Drawn into Controversie:  Reformed Theological Diversity within Seventeenth-​ Century British Puritanism. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Hill, Christopher. A Nation of Change and Novelty:  Radical Politics, Religion and Literature in Seventeenth-​ Century England. New York: Routledge, 1990. Holifield, E. Brooks. The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Puritan Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570–​ 1720. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.

216

217

bibliography Horst, Irvin B. “Menno Simons and the Augustinian Tradition.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 62 (October 1988): 419–​430. Hughes, Seán F.  “ ‘The Problem of “Calvinism” ’:  English Theologies of Predestination c. 1580–​1630.” In Belief and Practice in Reformation England: A Tribute to Patrick Collinson from His Students, edited by Susan Wabuda and Caroline Litzenberger, 229–​249. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998. Johns, Adrian. “Coleman Street.” Huntington Library Quarterly 71, no. 1 (March 2008): 33–​54. Kirby, W. J. Torrance. “Richard Hooker as an Apologist of the Magisterial Reformation in England.” In Richard Hooker and the Construction of Christian Community, edited by Arthur Stephen McGrade, 219–​236. Tempe, AZ: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1997. —​—​—​   . Richard Hooker, Reformer and Platonist. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005. —​—​—​   . Richard Hooker’s Doctrine of the Royal Supremacy. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990. —​ —​ —​   . “Richard Hooker’s Theory of Natural Law in the Context of Reformation Theology.” Sixteenth Century Journal 30, no. 3 (Autumn 1999): 681–​703. —​—​—​   . The Theology of Richard Hooker in the Context of the Magisterial Reformation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Theological Seminary, 2000. Klager, Andrew P.  “Balthasar Hubmaier and the Authority of the Church Fathers.” Historical Papers 2008: Canadian Society of Church History: Annual Conference, University of British Columbia, 1–​3 June 2008, 18 (2008): 133–​152. —​—​—​   .“Balthasar Hubmaier’s Use of the Church Fathers: Availability, Access and Interaction.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 84 (January 2010): 5–​65. —​—​—​   . “ ‘Truth Is Immortal’: Balthasar Hubmaier (c.1480–​1528) and the Church Fathers.” PhD diss., University of Glasgow, 2011. Klauber, Martin I.  “Between Protestant Orthodoxy and Rationalism: Fundamental Articles in the Early Career of Jean LeClerc.” Journal of the History of Ideas 54, no. 4 (October 1993): 611–​636. —​ —​ —​    . “Calvin on Fundamental Articles and Ecclesiastical Union.” Westminster Theological Journal 54, no. 2 (Fall 1992): 341–​348. —​—​—​   . “The Drive toward Protestant Union in Early Eighteenth-​Century Geneva: Jean-​Alphonse Turrettini on the ‘Fundamental Articles’ of the Faith.” Church History 61, no. 3 (September 1992): 334–​349.

217

218

bibliography Knapp, Henry M.  “Augustine and Owen on Perseverance.” Westminster Theological Journal 62 (Spring 2000): 65–​87. —​—​—​   .“John Owen’s Interpretation of Hebrews 6:4–​6: Eternal Perseverance of the Saints in Puritan Exegesis.” Sixteenth Century Journal 34 (Spring 2003): 29–​52. —​—​—​   . “Understanding the Mind of God:  John Owen and Seventeenth-​ Century Exegetical Methodology.” PhD diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2002. Lambert, Sheila. “Richard Montagu, Arminianism and Censorship.” Past and Present 124 (August 1989): 36–​68. Lane, Anthony N. S. John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999. Lake, Peter. Anglicans and Puritans? Presbyterianism and English Conformist Thought from Whitgift to Hooker. London:  Unwin Hyman, 1988. —​—​—​   . “Calvinism and the English Church 1570–​1635.” Past and Present 114 (February 1987): 32–​76. —​—​—​   .“Lancelot Andrewes, John Buckeridge, and Avant-​garde Conformity at the Court of James I.” In The Mental World of the Jacobean Court, edited by Linda Levy Peck, 113–​133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. —​—​—​   . Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Lawrence, Thomas Michael. “Transmission and Transformation: Thomas Goodwin and the Puritan Project, 1600–​1704.” PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2002. Lim, Paul Chang-​Ha. In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty:  Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in Its Seventeenth-​ Century Context. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Lindberg, Carter. The European Reformations. 2nd ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-​Blackwell, 2010. Luoma, John K. “Who Owns the Fathers? Hooker and Cartwright on the Authority of the Primitive Church.” Sixteenth Century Journal 8, no. 3 (October 1977): 45–​59. Macauley, J.  S. “Richard Montague, Caroline Bishop, 1575–​1641.” PhD thesis, Cambridge University, 1964. MacCulloch, Diarmaid. “The Myth of the English Reformation.” Journal of British Studies 30 (January 1991): 1–​19.

218

219

bibliography —​—​—​   . “Putting the English Reformation on the Map.” Transactions of the RHS 15 (2005): 75–​95. —​—​—​   . “Richard Hooker’s Reputation.” English Historical Review 117, no. 473 (September 2002): 773–​812. Martin, Dennis D. “Menno and Augustine on the Body of Christ.” Fides et Historia 20 (October 1988): 41–​64. Mason, A. J. The Church of England and Episcopacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914. McAdoo, Henry R.  “The Influence of the Seventeenth Century on Contemporary Anglican Understanding of the Purpose and Function of Authority in the Church.” In Christian Authority: Essays in Honor of Henry Chadwick, edited by G. R. Evans, 251–​277. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. —​—​—​   . The Spirit of Anglicanism:  A  Survey of Anglican Theological Method in the Seventeenth Century. New York: Scribner, 1965. McAlhaney, Timothy Morris. “Influence of the Continental Reformers Bucer, Vermigli, and Laski upon Cranmer and the ‘Via Media’ of the English Reformation.” PhD diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002. Middleton, Arthur. Fathers and Anglicans:  The Limits of Orthodoxy. Leominster: Gracewing, 2001. Meijering, E.  P. Melanchthon and Patristic Thought:  The Doctrines of Christ and Grace, the Trinity, and the Creation. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1983. Miller, Victoria C. The Lambeth Articles. Oxford: Latimer House, 1994. Milton, Anthony. “ ‘Anglicanism’ by Stealth:  The Career and Influence of John Overall.” In Religious Politics in Post-​Reformation England, edited by Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, 159–​176. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 2006. —​—​—​   . Catholic and Reformed:  The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought, 1600–​ 1640. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1995. More, Ellen. “John Goodwin and the Origins of the New Arminianism.” Journal of British Studies 22, no. 1 (Autumn 1982): 50–​70. Morrissey, Mary. “The ‘Challenge Controversy’ and the Question of Authority in the Early Elizabethan Church.” In The Search for Authority in Reformation Europe, edited by Elaine Fulton, Helen Parish, and Peter Webster, 147–​169. Farnham: Ashgate, 2014.

219

220

bibliography Muller, Richard A. Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012. —​—​—​   .Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725. 2nd ed. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. Neale, J. E. Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments. 2 vols. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1958. Newman, John Henry. The Via Media of the Anglican Church Illustrated in Letters, Lectures and Tracts Written between 1830–​1841. London: Longmans, Green, 1877. Nijenhuis, Willem. Adrianus Saravia (c. 1532–​ 1613):  Dutch Calvinist, First Reformed Defender of the English Episcopal Church Order on the Basis of the Ius Divinum. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980. Old, Hughes O. Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975. Perkins, John William.“The 1595 Lambeth Articles and the so-​called ‘Calvinist Consensus’ (1).” British Reformed Journal 46 (Winter 2007): 7–​19. —​—​—​   .“The 1595 Lambeth Articles and the so-​called ‘Calvinist Consensus’ (2).” British Reformed Journal 46 (Summer 2007): 6–​11. Pollman, Karla, ed. The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Pollman, Karla, and Meredith Jane Gill, eds. Augustine beyond the Book: Intermediality, Transmediality, and Reception. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Porter, H.  C. “The Anglicanism of Archbishop Whitgift.” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 31, no.  2 (June 1962): 127–​141. —​—​—​    . “Hooker, The Tudor Constitution, and the Via Media.” In Studies in Richard Hooker:  Essays Preliminary to an Edition of His Works, edited by W.  Speed Hill, 77–​ 116. Cleveland:  Case Western Reserve University Press, 1972. —​—​—​   . Reformation and Reaction in Tudor Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958. Quantin, Jean-​Louis. The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Questier, Michael. “Arminianism, Catholicism, and Puritanism in England during the 1630s.” Historical Journal 49, no. 1 (March 2006): 53–​78.

220

221

bibliography Russell, Conrad. Parliaments and English Politics, 1618–​1629. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. Ryrie, Alec, ed. Palgrave Advances in the European Reformations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Sargeaunt, W. D. “The Lambeth Articles.” Journal of Theological Studies 12, no. 2 (January 1911): 251–​260. —​—​—​   . “The Lambeth Articles, II.” Journal of Theological Studies 12, no. 3 (April 1911): 427–​436. Schäfer, Ann-​Stephane. Auctoritas Patrum?: The Reception of the Church Fathers in Puritanism. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2012. Schwartz, Hillel. “Arminianism and the English Parliament, 1624–​1629.” Journal of British Studies 12, no. 2 (May 1973): 41–​68. Sharpe, Kevin. The Personal Rule of Charles I. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. —​—​—​   . Politics and Ideas in Early Stuart England. New York: Printer, 1989. Sinnema, Donald W. “The Drafting of the Canons of Dordt: A Preliminary Survey of the Early Drafts and Related Documents.” In Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618–​1619), ed. Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg, 291–​311. Leiden: Brill, 2011. —​—​—​   .“The Issue of Reprobation at the Synod of Dort (1618–​19) in Light of the History of this Doctrine.” PhD diss., University of St. Michael’s, 1985. Smits, Luchesius. Saint Augustin dans l’oevre de Jean Calvin. 2  vols. Assen: van Gorcum, 1956–​1958. Spinks, Bryan D. Two Faces of Elizabethan Anglican Theology: Sacraments and Salvation in the Thought of William Perkins and Richard Hooker. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1999. Stanglin, Keith D. “ ‘Arminius avant la lettre’: Peter Baro, Jacob Arminius, and the Bond of Predestinarian Polemics.” Westminster Theological Journal 67, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 51–​74. Steinmetz, David, ed. Die Patristik in der Bibelexegese des 16. Jahrhunderts. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1999. Tracy, James D.  Europe’s Reformations, 1450–​1650:  Doctrine, Politics, and Community. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006. Tyacke, Nicholas. Anti-​Calvinists: The Rise of Arminianism c. 1590–​1640. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. —​—​—​   . Aspects of English Protestantism, c.  1530–​ 1700. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001.

221

222

bibliography —​—​—​   . “Lancelot Andrewes and the Myth of Anglicanism.” In Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church c. 1560–​1660, edited by Peter Lake and Michael Questier, 5–​33. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000. —​—​—​   . “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered.” Past and Present 115 (May 1987): 201–​216. Venema, Cornelis P.  “The Election and Salvation of the Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy: A Study of Article I/​17 of the Canons of Dordt.” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 17 (2006): 57–​100. Visser, Arnoud S. Q. Reading Augustine in the Reformation: The Flexibility of Intellectual Authority in Europe, 1500–​ 1620. Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2011. Wallace, Dewey D., Jr. Puritans and Predestination:  Grace in English Protestant Theology, 1525–​1695. Chapel Hill:  University of North Carolina Press, 1982. —​—​—​   . “Via Media? A Paradigm Shift.” Anglican and Episcopal History 72, no. 1 (March 2003): 2–​21. Walsham,Alexandra.“The Parochial Roots of Laudianism Revisited: Catholics, Anti-​Calvinists and ‘Parish Anglicans’ in Early Stuart England.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 49, no. 4 (October 1998): 620–​651. Wawrykow, Joseph P. God’s Grace and Human Action: “Merit” in the Theology of Thomas Aquinas. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995. —​—​—​   . “  ‘Perseverance’ in 13th-​Century Theology:  The Augustinian Contribution.” Augustinian Studies 22 (1991): 125–​140. Webster, Peter. “Augustine ‘Falleth into Dispute with Himself’: The Fathers and Church Music in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England.” In The Search for Authority in Reformation Europe, edited by Elaine Fulton, Helen Parish, and Peter Webster, 171–​187. Farnham: Ashgate, 2014. White, Peter. Predestination, Policy and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. —​—​—​   . “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered.” Past and Present 101 (November 1983): 34–​54. —​—​—​   . “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered:  A  Rejoinder.” Past and Present 115 (May 1987): 217–​229. —​—​—​   . “The Via Media in the Early Stuart Church.” In The Early Stuart Church, 1603–​ 1642, edited by Kenneth Fincham, 211–​ 230. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1993.

222

223

index

Abbot, George, 85n88, 100n16 Aelfric, 3 “All Baptized Infants Are Justified without a Doubt” (Ward), 150 Alvey, Henry, 149n82 Amaru, Betsy Halpern, 40n56, 78n68 Ambrose, 168 Andrewes, Lancelot, 6, 35–​38, 56n98 and final perseverance, 36 and total perseverance, 36–​37 Apologie, An (Jewel), 3 Appello Caesarem (Montagu), 99, 126 Arminius, Jacob, 121, 165 assurance, of salvation, 26–​30, 39, 44, 47, 54, 79, 181–​183 and certainty, 23n9, 25, 26, 28, 43, 47, 50, 171 and security, 23n9, 24, 26, 43, 47, 49, 183n79 Augustine of Canterbury, 3 Augustine of Hippo City of God, The, 186 On Rebuke and Grace, 49, 54, 104, 169, 175, 186 On the Gift of Perseverance, 14, 44, 49, 169, 186 On the Predestination of the Saints, 71 as preeminent church father, 12–​15, 168 See also readings of Augustine

Balcanqual, Walter, 60n2 Bancroft, Richard, 76–​77, 106 baptism as argument for apostacy, 17, 126–​129 as conveying a state of grace, 126 efficacy of, 124–​161 and judgement of charity, 131–​134 by laymen, 45 as sign and seal, 131–​138, 140, 152–​156 “Baptism Does Not Remove Future Sins” (Ward), 157 Barnes, Robert, 1 Baro, Peter, 22, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 50, 57 Barrett, William, 31, 33, 34, 50, 57, 200 and defectibility of faith, 23 evasive response by, 27 portrayed as papist, 25–​26 and public retraction, 23 and second retraction, 29 Basil, 168 Baxter, Richard, 18, 198 on Augustine, 164, 185–​187, 192–​194, 200 on baptism debate, 157 on certainty and opinion, 182–​184 on Collegiat Suffrage, 185 on confessions, 189–​191 on fundamental articles, 188–​191 on A New Confession of Faith, 172 and perseverance controversy, 181–​184 on Westminster Assembly, 181–​182

223

224

index Bedell, William on covenant children, 155 on efficacy of baptism, 152–​157 and letters with Ward, 148, 152 on obsignation, 152–​153 Bedford, Thomas, 157 Beeke, Joel R., 174n42

Cambridge dons, on Augustine, 53–​56 Canons of Dort (1619) behind baptism debates, 124, 158–​159 as defining document for Reformed tradition, 10, 59 on infant salvation, 155n100 as narrowing orthodoxy, 95, 121–​122,

Belgic Confession (1561), 11, 46 Bellarmine, Robert, 129 Bernard, Richard, 98n9 Beza, Theodore, 23, 106 Book of Common Prayer (1552), 2, 130, 132, 158–​159 Book of Homilies, 106 Bradwardine, Thomas, 178 British delegates to Dort on Augustine, 70–​72, 78, 84, 90–​91, 199 on heinous sins, 73–​75 on infants and perseverance, 142–​143 and judgment of charity, 66, 71 on kinds of faith, 66–​67 on kinds of grace, 67–​70 and King James’s instructions, 61–​63, 83, 86 listed by name, 60n2 on necessity of faith and repentance, 75 response to draft canons, 79–​89, 197, 204 as sensitive to concerns back home, 78 Bromiley, Geoffrey, 124 Bucer, Martin, 2, 106 Bullinger, Heinrich, 117 Burton, Henry on baptism as outward ordinance, 137 as infralapsarian, 115 on sacramental regeneration, 132

163, 197, 204 and push to adopt in England, 100, 198 Carleton, George, 60n2 on alternate readings of Augustine, 107 on Augustine, 105, 133 on baptism as sign and seal, 135–​136 and Church of England 100, 162 as infralapsarian, 115 on judgement of charity, 132–​133 on remission of original sin, 138–​140 speech at The Hague by, 62 catholicity, 3–​5, 9, 18–​19, 63, 85, 91, 103–​104, 160, 171, 173, 185n76, 188, 191, 193, 199–​200, 202–​205 Catholick Theology (Baxter), 184, 191 causation, physical or moral, 156 charitable read, 66, 70, 72. See also judgment of charity Charles I, King, 7 Chemnitz, Martin, 170 Chromatius, 168 Chrysostom, 168 Church of England as “Anglican,” 5–​6, 203 as broadly Reformed, 17, 19, 197, 201, 204 as “Calvinist consensus,” 7, 19, 20, 202–​203 as divided on baptism, 159–​160 and early church, 3–​5, 7–​9, 19, 199, 203 and identity, 1–​9, 15–​19, 20–​22, 58, 92, 95, 120–​123, 124–​126, 158–​161, 194, 195, 202–​205 and Reformed tradition, 2–​5, 8–​9, 12, 19, 92, 120, 122–​123, 158–​161, 162–​163, 194, 197, 203

Calvin, John, 4, 11, 23, 25, 102, 106, 121, 170, 201, 202 Calvinist versus anti-​Calvinist framework, 201–​202 and Lambeth Articles, 21–​22, 30, 56 and Synod of Dort, 59 and Montagu affair, 120–​122

224

225

index City of God, The (Augustine), 186 Coffey, John, 170, 173n37 Collegiat Suffrage (British delegates to Dort) and British strategy, 62, 79–​91 on final perseverance of saints, 64–​72 on infants and perseverance, 142–​143 and significance of perseverance, 63–​64

Edward VI, King, 2, 14, 105 Elizabeth, Queen, 2, 35, 105 English exceptionalism, 3, 178, 203 ex opere operato, 129, 138, 143, 178

on total perseverance of saints, 72–​79 Colloquy of Regensburg (1541), 106 Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, The (Kendall), 174, 183 conciliatory confessionalism, 17 by the British delegation, 84 as instructed by King James, 61–​63, 87, 90 Confession of La Rochelle (1571), 11 Convocation of 1571, 4, 5, 104 Coornhert, Dirk Volckertszoon, 46 Cosin, John, 99, 101, 102 Covenant of Grace, The (Downame), 151 Cranmer, Thomas, 2 Cromwell, Richard, 172 Cyprian, 168

on Augustine, 133 on baptism as sign and seal, 134–​135 on infants and perseverance, 143 on sacramental regeneration, 131–​132 Ferguson, Sinclair B., 174n42 Fesko, J. V., 21n3 fides, formata vs. informatis, 28 First Helvetic Confession (1536), 11 Form of Burial, 131 Form of Private Baptism, 127, 131 Form of Public Baptism, 128 French Confession (1559), 11 fundamental articles, 171–​173, 179–​180, 188–​191, 193–​194, 198

Davenant, John, 17, 60n2, 198 and baptismal regeneration, 141–​142 on condition of adults, 146 on condition of infants, 145 on infants and perseverance, 142–​143 against infused grace in baptism, 143 and letters with Ward, 141 on remission of original sin, 144 on “salvation fit for the condition,” 146–​148 Davis, John Jefferson, 32n42 De Baptismatis Infantilis Vi & Efficacia Disceptatio (Gataker), 158 Diodati, Giovanni, 106 Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, The (Owen), 174 Downame, George, 151 “Dublin Fragments” (Hooker), 40–​42 Duport, John, 23

faith, saving vs. temporary, 24 Featley, Daniel

Gagge for the New Gospell, A, 96 Gataker, Thomas, 157–​158 Gerhard, Johann, 109 Goad, Thomas, 60 Goode, William, 124, 125n2, 130n18 Goodwin, John, 18, 198 on apostasy, 165–​173 as Arminian Puritan, 165 on Augustine, 164, 168–​169, 175, 192, 200 and Humble Proposals, 172 on perseverance, 167–​168 on the Reformed tradition, 170 Goodwin, Thomas, 171 grace, preparatory vs. regenerating, 67–​72 Gregory Nazianzen, 168 Hall, Joseph, 60n2 on irrespective decree, 113 sermon at Synod of Dort by, 62 Hammond, Henry, 174n43

225

226

index Hampton Court Conference, 45, 50, 73, 76–​78, 106 Heidelberg Catechism (1563), 11, 46 Heigham, John, 96n4 Henry VIII, King, 1 Holifield, E. Brooks, 125, 153n96 Hooker, Richard, 6, 38–​42, 153–​155

labels, polemical of Arminian, 93–​95, 98–​102, 107, 109, 113, 120, 165, 200–​201 of Calvinist, 24, 57, 94, 97–​99, 120, 200–​201 obscuring effects of, 57, 94, 120, 200–​202

on apostacy, 40 on Augustine, 154 and “Dublin Fragments,” 40–​42 on efficacy of baptism, 125, 153–​155 and the Lambeth Articles, 40 sermon on perseverance by, 39 on total and final perseverance, 39 Hutton, Matthew, 170 on Augustine, 44–​46, 107, 199, 203 as friend of Whitgift, 43 on loss of saving faith, 44, 54

of Popery, 25, 98–​99, 129–​130 of Puritan, 25, 97–​99, 200 Lambeth Articles (1595), 16, 73, 76 as authorized by Whitgift, 20, 29, 30–​34, 196 and Calvinism, 21–​22 and possibility of losing salvation, 32–​35, 196 as proposed by Whitaker, 29, 30–​34 Lambeth Conference, 29, 30, 39, 40, 43, 53, 91 Lawrence, Thomas Michael, 173n37 Luther, Martin, 170

Ignatius, 174n43 Irenaeus, 168 Irish Articles (1615), 11 irrespective decree and freedom of the will, 116–​119 and supralapsarianism, 114–​116 and unconditional election, 109–​113 James I, King, 3, 46, 50, 90, 93 at Hampton Court Conference, 76–​77, 106 and instructions to British delegates, 61–​63, 83, 86 Jewel, John, 3, 131 judgment of charity, 105, 127–​128, 129–​140, 141, 144, 159, 175–​177. See also charitable read Junius, Francis, 23, 133 Kendall, George, 18 on Augustine, 164, 173–​177, 192, 200 on Baxter, 183 on fundamental articles, 179–​180 on judgment of charity, 175–​176 on the Reformed tradition, 178–​179

Macarius, 168 Mary, Queen, 2, 14 Melanchthon, Philipp, 170 Milton, Anthony, 51n84, 52n85 Montagu, Richard, 17, 125, 152, 158–​160, 166, 170, 197–​204 and accommodationist strategy, 95–​96 and argument from baptism, 126–​129 on Augustine, 103–​105, 107, 118, 199 and baptismal regeneration, 129–​130, 141 and Canons of Dort, 100, 120, 158 and charges of Arminianism, 93, 101, 166 and charges of Roman Catholicism, 129–​130 on effects of sin and the fall, 116–​117 on grace and free will, 117–​119 on irrespective decree, 109–​113 on perseverance, 102–​108 on predestination, 114–​116 on resisting grace, 116

226

227

index and similarity with other Reformed arguments, 107 and strong polemical tone, 99 Musculus, Wolfgang, 57

Perkins, William, 3, 125, 153n96 perseverance as major concern of Cambridge controversy, 26, 30 as major concern of Montagu affair, 99 and the Reformed minority opinion, 16, 17, 57, 196–​199, 204

Nevile, Thomas, 50–​51 New Confession of Faith, A (1654), 172, 173n37, 179, 190 New Gagg, A (Montague) 96 Nye, Philip, 171 obsignation, 152–​156 On Rebuke and Grace (Augustine), 49, 54, 104, 169, 175, 186 On the Gift of Perseverance (Augustine), 14, 44, 49, 169, 186 On the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie (Hooker), 38 On the Predestination of the Saints (Augustine), 71 Origen, 168 Overall, John, 6, 50–​53, 56n98, 57, 77, 106, 107 and the Lambeth Articles, 50 on necessity of faith and repentance, 77, 106 on novelty of perseverance of the saints, 52 on three perspectives on perseverance, 51 Owen, John, 18, 198 on Augustine, 164, 173–​177, 192–​194, 200, 203 on confessions, 179–​180 on fundamental articles, 179–​180 on judgment of charity, 175–​177 on the Middle Ages, 177–​178 to petition Parliament, 171 on the Reformed tradition, 178–​179 as significant Puritan, 163 Parker, Matthew, 3, 203 particular redemption, 167 Perkins, John William, 21n3

as total and final, 32, 39–​40, 42, 51, 60–​61, 64–​79, 103, 132–​133, 163, 182, 197 perseverance of the saints as codified at Dort, 10, 12, 197 as the Reformed distinctive, 9–​12, 16, 57, 92, 196 Piscator, Johannes, 170 preparatory grace, 67–​70 Preston, John, 101 “Principles of the Christian Religion” (1652), 172, 179 Prynne, William on Augustine, 105, 133–​134, 169 on baptism as sign and seal, 135–​136 on liturgical forms, 131 on remission of original sin, 139–​140, 144 against Roman baptism, 129 Probleme of Forged Catholicisme (Perkins), 3 Quantin, Jean-​Louis, 56n98, 162n2, 185n76 Rainolds, John, 76–​77 readings of Augustine and confessional policy for England, 16–​18, 57–​58, 61, 84, 91, 164, 173, 193–​194, 199 and conflicting interpretations, 16–​19, 22, 57, 61, 84, 90–​91, 121, 160, 164, 192–193, 199–​200 in debates on perseverance, 15–​19 in modern scholarship, 13–​15 See also under individual names

227

228

index Redemption Redeemed (Goodwin), 165, 171 Reformed Catholike, A (Perkins), 3 regeneration, sacramental vs. spiritual, 131–​134 Richard Baxter’s Account of His Present Thoughts concerning the Controversies

traditionalists, 17, 19, 97–​98, 159, 166, 195, 198, 201, 203, 204 Treatise of the Certainty of Perseverance, A (Downame), 151 Tyndale, William, 1

about the Perseverance of the Saints (Baxter), 183 Right Method for a Settled Peace of Conscience (Baxter), 181–​183

and baptism controversy, 149–​150 and perseverance controversy, 22–​30, 196 University of Leiden, 46 University of Oxford, 2, 178 universal redemption, 5, 167 Ussher, James, 84n85 on Augustine, 187 challenging Ward on baptism, 150 and letters with Ward, 148–​149 as old friends with Ward, 149

“Sacraments Convey Grace Where No Obstacle Is Put Up, The” (Ward), 157 Saravia, Adrianus, 46, 170 on Augustine, 49–​50, 199, 203 on Barrett’s retractions, 47 on believing reprobates, 48, 54 Saxon Visitation Articles (1592), 11, 85n88 Second Helvetic Confession (1566), 11, 117 semi-​Pelagianism, 17, 29–​30, 33, 35, 48, 50, 51–​52, 75, 85n88, 94–​95, 101, 107, 108, 109, 116–​119, 196, 197, 202 Simpson, Sidrach, 171 Socinianism, 171 Solemn League and Covenant (1643), 162, 166n15 Some, Robert, 25, 27, 53–​54 Spinks, Bryan D., 125, 153n96 Synod of Dort (1618–​1619) and British delegates on perseverance, 59–​92, 197 and King James, 3, 61–​63, 93 as source of turmoil, 93, 122–​123, 163, 204 See also Canons of Dort temporary saints, 60 Tertullian, 68 Thirty-​Nine Articles (1563), 11, 76, 85, 90, 92, 97, 104, 115, 130, 204

University of Cambridge, 2, 16, 195

Vermigli, Peter Martyr, 2, 23, 170n29 Vindiciae Gratiae Sacramentalis (Bedford), 157 Vossius, Gerhardus Joannes, 168, 169, 174, 175, 187 Ward, Nathaniel, 98 Ward, Samuel, 17, 60n2, 84n85, 198 on Augustine, 151–​152 and baptismal regeneration, 141–​142 and letters with Bedell, 148 and letters with Davenant, 141 and letters with Ussher, 148 on obsignation, 153 Westminster Assembly, 18, 163–​166, 181, 191–​194, 198, 205 Westminster Confession of Faith, 162, 180 Westminster Standards, 162, 166 Whitaker, William, 22 on Augustine, 54–​56, 199, 203 last sermon by, 28, 54 White, Peter, 64n8, 80n75, 81n78, 88n94, 94

228

229

index Whitgift, John, 4, 56–​58, 196, 199 and concern for respectable men, 34–​53, 199 and Lambeth Articles, 20, 29, 30–​34, 196 and perseverance controversy, 22–​30 and reexamination of Barret, 27 Wotton, Anthony on liturgical forms, 130 against Roman baptism, 129 as supralapsarian, 115

Yates, John on Augustine, 134 on baptism as sign and seal, 135–​138 as infralapsarian, 115 on irrespective decree, 113 and petition against Montagu, 98 on remission of original sin, 138, 160 against Roman baptism, 130 York House Conference, 99, 100n16, 101

229

230

231

232

233

234