Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England: The Theology and Career of Daniel Featley (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology) 9780197536902, 9780197536926, 9780197536933, 0197536905

Citation preview

Calvinist Conformity in Post-​Reformation England

OXFORD STUDIES IN HISTORICAL THEOLOGY Series Editor

Richard A. Muller, Calvin Theological Seminary

Founding Editor

David C. Steinmetz †

Editorial Board

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 Robert L. Wilken, University of Virginia MORALITY AFTER CALVIN Theodore Beza’s Christian Censor and Reformed Ethics Kirk M. Summers THE PAPACY AND THE ORTHODOX A History of Reception and Rejection Edward Siecienski DEBATING PERSEVERANCE The Augustinian Heritage in Post-​Reformation England Jay T. Collier THE REFORMATION OF PROPHECY Early Modern Interpretations of the Prophet & Old Testament Prophecy G. Sujin Pak ANTOINE DE CHANDIEU The Silver Horn of Geneva’s Reformed Triumvirate Theodore G. Van Raalte ORTHODOX RADICALS Baptist Identity in the English Revolution Matthew C. Bingham DIVINE PERFECTION AND HUMAN POTENTIALITY The Trinitarian Anthropology of Hilary of Poitiers Jarred A. Mercer THE GERMAN AWAKENING Protestant Renewal after the Enlightenment, 1815–​1848 Andrew Kloes THE REGENSBURG ARTICLE 5 ON JUSTIFICATION Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? Anthony N. S. Lane AUGUSTINE ON THE WILL A Theological Account Han-​luen Kantzer Komline THE SYNOD OF PISTORIA AND VATICAN II Jansenism and the Struggle for Catholic Reform Shaun Blanchard CATHOLICITY AND THE COVENANT OF WORKS James Ussher and the Reformed Tradition Harrison Perkins

THE COVENANT OF WORKS The Origins, Development, and Reception of the Doctrine J. V. Fesko RINGLEADERS OF REDEMPTION How Medieval Dance Became Sacred Kathryn Dickason REFUSING TO KISS THE SLIPPER Opposition to Calvinism in the Francophone Reformation Michael W. Bruening FONT OF PARDON AND NEW LIFE John Calvin and the Efficacy of Baptism Lyle D. Bierma THE FLESH OF THE WORD The extra Calvinisticum from Zwingli to Early Orthodoxy K.J. Drake JOHN DAVENANT’S HYPOTHETICAL UNIVERSALISM A Defense Of Catholic And Reformed Orthodoxy Michael J. Lynch RHETORICAL ECONOMY IN AUGUSTINE’S THEOLOGY Brian Gronewoller GRACE AND CONFORMITY The Reformed Conformist Tradition and the Early Stuart Church of England Stephen Hampton MAKING ITALY ANGLICAN Why the Book of Common Prayer Was Translated into Italian Stefano Villani AUGUSINE ON MEMORY Kevin G. Grove UNITY AND CATHOLICITY IN CHRIST The Ecclesiology of Francisco Suarez, S.J. Eric J. DeMeuse CALVINIST CONFORMITY IN POST-​ REFORMATION ENGLAND The Theology and Career of Daniel Featley Greg A. Salazar

Calvinist Conformity in Post-​Reformation England The Theology and Career of Daniel Featley GREG A. SALAZAR

1

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 2022 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. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Salazar, Greg A., author. Title: Calvinist conformity in post-reformation England : the theology and career of Daniel Featley / Gregory A. Salazar. Description: New York, NY, United States of America : Oxford University Press, [2022] | Series: Oxford studies in historical theology series | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021054137 (print) | LCCN 2021054138 (ebook) | ISBN 9780197536902 (hardback) | ISBN 9780197536926 (epub) | ISBN 9780197536933 Subjects: LCSH: Featley, Daniel, 1582–1645. | Calvinism—England— History—17th century. | Calvinism—Doctrines—History. Classification: LCC BX9419.F 43 S25 2022 (print) | LCC BX9419.F 43 (ebook) | DDC 230/.42—dc23/eng/20220107 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021054137 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021054138 DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197536902.001.0001 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America

To Christie, my best friend. “An excellent wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels.” (Proverbs 31:10)

Contents Acknowledgments  List of Abbreviations  Note on Terms, Transcriptions, Translations, and Dates 

Introduction 

ix xiii xv

1

1. The Formation of a Calvinist Conformist 

17

2. Regulating the Reformed Consensus: Chaplaincy, Licensing, and Censorship 

36

3. Anti-​Catholicism: Scripture, Patristic Tradition, and Pastoral Polemicism 

71

4. English Reformed Soteriology: Countering Pelagianism, Arminianism, and Popery 

103

5. Pastoral and Practical Theology: Preaching, Piety, and Ecclesiastical Conformity 

128

6. The Ecclesiology and Polity of an English Calvinist Conformist 

171

7. The “Afterlife” of an English Calvinist Conformist 

209

Conclusion 

230

Appendix: Daniel Featley’s Amendments to William Hart’s English Translation of Francis de Croy’s The Three Conformities (1620)  Bibliography  Index 

235 239 269

Acknowledgments Before recognizing the debt owed to those who gave their time, insights, and guidance, I want to thank those who have graciously left me without any debt. We are incredibly grateful to my and Christie’s parents, who have provided our family with exceedingly generous financial support throughout my master’s and doctoral studies. I trace the origins of my desire to pursue scholarship to my late father, who was an avid reader and keen student of history. Although he passed away shortly following my acceptance to Cambridge and before I began my doctoral studies, his passion for learning inspired me in countless ways. I owe him, and especially my mother, a tremendous debt for the love and support they have given me over the years. The current work is a revision of my doctoral thesis at Cambridge University. Generous scholarships from the History Faculty’s Lightfoot and Archbishop Cranmer Trusts and the Nikaean Ecumenical Trust were of wonderful encouragement in the second and third years of my doctoral work. The Falls Church (Anglican), Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA), Seven Rivers Presbyterian Church (PCA), and the kind support of a number of very generous patrons significantly helped to cover living expenses during my study. Additionally, funds from the Royal Historical Society, Selwyn College, and History Faculty’s Graduate funds—​including the Lightfoot Grant, Archbishop Cranmer Grant, Prince Consort Grant, Member’s History Grant, Archival Grant, and Conference Grant—​generously funded all of my archival, conference, and other research expenses for the whole of my doctoral studies. The archivists and staff of the following libraries served me in numerous ways: the Beinecke Library (Yale), the Bodleian Library (Oxford), the British Library, the British Museum, the Cambridge University Library, the Cornwall Records Office, Corpus Christi College (Oxford), the Doctor Williams’s Library, the Houghton Library (Harvard), the Lambeth Archives, the Lambeth Palace Library, the London Metropolitan Archives, the National Archives, the Norfolk Record Office, the House of Lords Record Office, Queen’s College (Oxford), the Victoria and Albert Museum, and the West Sussex Record Office. I have acknowledged specific assistance received from scholars at various points throughout the work, but others supported me in the form of counsel, encouragement, and guidance, including Hugh Adlington, Alexander Campbell, Paul Cavill, Leif Dixon, Lori Anne Ferrell, Kenneth Fincham, Alan Ford, Andrew Foster, Mark Goldie, Brad Gregory, Polly Ha, Stephen Hampton,

x Acknowledgments Michael Haykin, Mark Jones, Peter Lake, Paul Lim, Judith Maltby, Sears McGee, Noah Millstone, Anthony Milton, John Morrill, Sarah Mortimer, Kate Narveson, Brown Patterson, Hunter Powell, Michael Questier, Richard Rex, Joshua Rodda, Jacqueline Rose, Alec Ryrie, Ethan Shagan, David Smith, John Spurr, Amy Tan, Carl Trueman, Chad Van Dixhoorn, Timothy Wadkins, and Tom Webster. Despite having very busy schedules of their own, these scholars graciously attended to my questions and patiently discussed a variety of issues related to this work. I was very grateful to have had the opportunity to present sections of this work at various conferences and seminars. The members of the London Institute for Historical Research, Cambridge Early Modern British and Irish History seminar, North American Conference on British Studies, Reformation Studies Colloquium, Evangelical Theological Society, Domestic Devotions in the Early Modern World Conference, Puritan Research Colloquium, Vanderbilt University’s Early Modern Religious History seminar, and the Ecclesiastical Historical Society offered helpful responses to papers derived from my work. I could not have had a better supervisor than Alex Walsham. She patiently bore with my worst submissions and tirelessly filled every request I put before her with an efficiency that I doubt is equaled by any other supervisor. Her expertise is unparalleled, and her thoughtful care for me and my family, especially during some incredibly difficult times, matches her passion for early modern history. I have patterned my own teaching and supervision after her. She always directed me to the right people and sources and went out of her way to be wonderfully kind to my family, even having us and her students in her home. Without her oversight, this work would not be what it is today. The corrections and guidance suggested by John Coffey and Arnold Hunt during and following my viva examination, particularly regarding the work’s central arguments and the historiographical developments outlined in the introduction, have improved the work considerably. John Coffey and Crawford Gribben also read significant portions of the revised manuscript and offered wonderfully insightful feedback. Likewise, Richard Muller’s suggested improvements and guidance throughout the publication of this work in this series and remains invaluable. Many thanks as well to the two anonymous readers of the manuscript, Cynthia Read, and the editorial staff at Oxford University Press, who have made the entire publication process a joy and as smooth a course as could be imagined. I prepared this work for publication while serving at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. I am appreciative of the faculty, staff, and students, and especially grateful for my teaching assistant, Paige Vanderwey, for all her hard work and support. A number of individuals assisted me in the editing process, including Mrs. Ele Hawkins, Peter Gurry, Bobby Jamieson, Will Ross, Marjoleine de Blois, Jonathon Beeke, Annette Gysen, and Ian Turner. Laura

Acknowledgments  xi Shelley, likewise, was extremely helpful and skilled in expeditiously preparing the index for publication. Despite the fact that nearly all of my requests were at the last minute and that I insisted that they return my work to me immediately, these friends patiently served me and significantly improved the quality of this work. Nevertheless, any remaining errors are entirely my own. Our friends and our church communities are absolutely incredible. Having the opportunity to study at Tyndale House and be a part of that wonderful community in Cambridge for a little over three years is a privilege that I will always cherish. Christie and I could not have imagined pursuing these studies in a more loving and supportive environment. We are especially grateful to Mateus and Renata Campos, Sam and Gina Fornecker, Jonathan and Jackie Gibson, Peter and Kris Gurry, Brad and Diane Green, Bobby and Kristen Jamieson, Greg and Kate Lanier, Drew and Brittany Melton, Peter and Katie Meyers, Jan Van Niekerk, Will and Kelli Ross, and Steve and Tina Tong. When we moved to Grand Rapids, new friends greeted us with warmth and love. We are especially grateful to Adam and Emily Vedra, Steve and Susan Vanderwey, Seth and Katie Vanderwey, Evan and Jenny Vanderwey, Dale and Trish Bekkering, Jeremy and Marie Visser, Jeff and Ashley Dekker, and David and Shona Murray. Likewise, we have had the privilege of being a part of several great church communities over the last several years. In particular we wish to thank our dear friends at The Falls Church (Anglican), Christ Church (Cambridge), Cambridge Presbyterian Church, Harvest Church (OPC), and Trinity Church (PCA). Outside of these friends, a few dear friends have been with us nearly every step of the way. We are forever grateful for Andy and Laura Andrews, Sam Ferguson, Eric Nickle, Natalie and Ryan Melville, Peter and Elena Salazar, Tracy and Aaron Shoemaker, and John and Judy Smathers. My wife and children are my greatest earthly joy and the ones to whom I owe the greatest earthly debt. My children, Catie-​Claire, John, James, and William remind me that being their dad was immensely more important than my best scholarly moments. Christie’s love, patience, laughter, and support have made all the difference in pursuing this work. Christie, you are my best friend and the one to whom I dedicate this work. I could not imagine pursuing these studies, let alone walking through this life, without you. I love you dearly. My final debt is my greatest of all, to the triune God who has revealed himself supremely through the Son, Jesus Christ, “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). Without his paying my ultimate debt, I would be forever bankrupt, and apart from him I can do nothing (John 15:5). His moment-​by-​moment empowering grace sustained me through my studies, and he alone will keep me and present me before the presence of his glory with great joy. “To the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever” (Jude 24–​26). Soli Deo gloria.

Abbreviations Beinecke BL BM Bodl. CCC CJ CRO CSPD CUL DWL EHR HJ HL HLRO JBS JEH LA LC LJ LMA LPL MPWA NPG NRO ODCC ODNB OED P&P PROB PRRD

QCO Rawl. RH

Beinecke Library, Yale University British Library British Museum Bodleian Library, Oxford Corpus Christi Library, Oxford Journal of the House of Commons Cornwall Records Office Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1603–​1714, ed. M. A. E. Green, J. Bruce, et al. (27 vols., London, 1857–​97). Cambridge University Library Doctor Williams’s Library English Historical Review Historical Journal Houghton Library, Harvard University House of Lords Record Office Journal of British Studies Journal of Ecclesiastical History Lambeth Archives Lord’s Chamberlain Journal of the House of Lords London Metropolitan Archives Lambeth Palace Library The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly 1643–​1652, ed. Chad Van Dixhoorn et. al. (5 vols., Oxford, 2012). National Portrait Gallery Norfolk Record Office F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed., Oxford, 1997). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Online ed.; Oxford, 2004–​16). Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.; Oxford, 2010–​2017). Past & Present Records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury Richard Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520–​ca.1725 (4 vols., Grand Rapids, 2003). Queen’s College, Oxford Rawlinson Collection, Bodleian Library, Oxford Recusant History

xiv Abbreviations SP STC

London, The National Archives, State Papers A. W. Pollard and G. R. Redgrave, eds., A Short-​Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and of English Works Books Printed Abroad, 1475–​1640 (London, 1976–​91). SUL Sheffield University Library TCBS Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society TNA The National Archives TRHS Transactions of the Royal Historical Society V&A Victoria and Albert Museum WSRO West Suffolk Record Office

Note on Terms, Transcriptions, Translations, and Dates Throughout the work, the term “Calvinist conformist” refers to those divines who occupied the established church’s center ground in their commitment to doctrinal Calvinism and the discipline of the Church of England. The term ”Calvinist” will be used more cautiously, and preference will be given to the term “Reformed,” while recognizing too that some divines could have ”Reformed” views on specific issues (for example, the Lord’s Supper), even if there were not Calvinistic in their understanding of predestination, free will, and divine grace. The work also follows the standard scholarly consensus of using the term “anti-​ Calvinists” (rather than “Arminians”) to refer to English divines who opposed Calvinists. For the quotations from English-​ language manuscript sources, contractions and abbreviations have been expanded, but the original spelling has been maintained. Insertions in brackets are my own. Quotations from sources in other languages have been translated into English with modernized spelling in the text of the work, with the quotation in its original language included in the corresponding footnotes. All dates are in the style as follows, 1 January 1600.

Introduction At my returne out of Germany I with foure Merchants of Hamborough, and two of my people comming to Embdea [sic], tooke into our Waggon a Licentiatus in the Civill, or Emperiall Law, who was travelling to Grominga [sic] an University of East Frizeland, and by the way I asking him, what other Universities he had seen, told me, that he came lately from Paris in France, and taking out a Diary which he had about him, shewed me a litle Breviate taken there of a Conference & Dispution between the Jesuites of the Cleremont, and one Doctor Featley of the Church of England, a man that his very Antagonists did give much respect unto; and moreover told me, that most of the Universities thereabouts held him in such reputation and honour, that in their Tables using to hang in their Schooles of the most famous Schoole-​men [including Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus] he viz. Dr. Featley was numbred one . . . [with the honorary title] Doctor Daniel Featleius Acutissim acerrimusque [the sharpest and most piercing].1

In his funeral oration for his friend Daniel Featley, the Reformed divine William Loe related the significant impact that Featley had on the post-​Reformation English Church. Daniel Featley was one of the most fascinating Calvinist conformist figures in post-​Reformation England. The second of five children, he was born to Marian Thrift and John Fairclough on 5 March 1582 in Charlton-​ on-​Otmoor, Oxfordshire. Featley’s nephew and early biographer, John Featley, recounted how Featley’s name gradually developed over time, “varied and altered from Faireclough to Faircley, then to Fateley, and at length to Featley.”2 As a young man, he studied at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, under the tutelage of John Rainolds, the influential divine and puritan representative at the Hampton Court Conference. During his time at Oxford, he quickly advanced within the church, was the youngest translator of the Authorized Version, and was appointed in 1611 to be the chaplain to the English ambassador in Paris, Sir Thomas Edmonds. From 1617 to 1625 he also served as Archbishop George Abbot’s domestic chaplain, during which time he licensed over 430 manuscripts for publication, nearly all of which were theological works. 1 William Loe, A Sermon Preached at Lambeth . . . at the Funerall of . . . Daniel Featley (London, 1645), sig.F3r–​v. 2 John Featley, A Succinct History of the Life and Death of . . . Daniel Featley (London, 1660), sigs. G12r–​H1r. Calvinist Conformity in Post-​Reformation England. Greg A. Salazar, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2022. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197536902.003.0001

2 Introduction In both his chaplaincies, Featley was actively involved in anti-​Catholic disputation and was known as one of the foremost anti-​Catholic polemicists of his day. He was engaged in numerous debates with some of the best-​known Catholic apologists in England and eventually was appointed in 1629 as the second provost of Chelsea College, that influential anti-​Catholic institution founded by James I. He was also an opponent of “Arminianism.” In 1625, when he was elected as a member of convocation, he led a group of forty-​five people in a commitment to oppose anti-​Calvinism and wrote two works against the anti-​Calvinist Richard Montague in 1626. For his services to Archbishop Abbot, Featley was appointed the rector of Lambeth and Acton parishes, where he served as a minister during the 1620s and 1630s. During this time, Featley published his best-​ selling work Ancilla Pietatis (1626), a private devotional work that went through nine English editions and was also published internationally in French and Dutch. Featley was also an active preacher and published Clavis Mystica (1636), a massive nine-​hundred-​page collection of seventy sermons he had preached over the course of his career. As a result of his opposition to anti-​Calvinism and Laudianism, he was reprimanded several times during the 1620s and 1630s, including having seventeen folio sheets struck out of his sermon collection because they opposed Laudian ideals. Nevertheless, in the late 1630s, he was appointed as a royal chaplain to Charles I and preached twice at court in 1639 and in 1641. As a result of his sympathies with royalism and episcopacy, he endured two different attacks on his life. On 10 November 1642, following the battle at Brentford, a group of Parliamentary soldiers quartered at Acton barged into Featley’s church. After breaking down the Acton parish doors, they burned the Communion rails, pulled down the baptismal font, and broke several windows before burning down Featley’s horse stables and barn full of corn.3 Then, on 19 February 1643, a group of soldiers that had been appointed to keep guard at nearby Lambeth House (which had been transformed into a prison) came to Featley’s church for worship in a disrespectful manner. A conflict quickly ensued, wherein the soldiers killed two parishioners and aimed a large cannon at a crowd of laypeople. The signal was never given, however, and eventually the conflict ended.4 Despite these two attacks, Featley was the only royalist episcopalian figure (of roughly fifteen) who accepted his invitation to the Westminster Assembly and “participated meaningfully.”5 Nevertheless, on 30 September 1643 (three months into the assembly), 3 Bruno Ryves, Mercurius Rusticus (Oxford, 1646), sigs.M3v–​M4r. Also see Featley, Succinct History, H9v–​H11r; Daniel Featley, The Gentle Lash (Oxford, 1644), sig.*2r; Chad Van Dixhoorn, “Reforming the Reformation: Theological Debate at the Westminster Assembly, 1643–​ 52” (Cambridge University PhD, 2004), p.349. On similar instances, see The English Revolution III: Newsbooks 1 Oxford Royalist, ed. Peter Thomas (4 vols., London, 1971), I:336–​37. 4 HLRO, main papers, 1/​144, fols.191r, 188r; LJ, V:614–​16; The humble petition of the inhabitants of Lambeth (London, 1643). 5 MPWA, I:14.

Introduction  3 Featley was charged with being a royalist spy, was imprisoned by Parliament, and died shortly thereafter on 17 April 1645. Despite his influence throughout the early Stuart period and the fact that he was the subject of several biographical accounts appearing shortly after his death, Featley’s life and works remain underexplored. Aside from a few essays in edited volumes, Featley has never been the subject of a monograph study.6 This study explores Featley’s theology and multifaceted career as a chaplain, minister, ecclesiastical licenser, court preacher, and Westminster Assembly divine. It then links his story and theology to the broader religious, political, and intellectual history of the period and uses him as a lens through which to analyze Calvinist conformity and Reformed theology in post-​Reformation England.

Historiography, Approach, Method, and Sources To set the scene for this study, we need to survey the major historiographical contributions to our understanding of English Reformed theology from 1590 to 1640. Before the publication of Patrick Collinson’s seminal work The Elizabethan Puritan Movement, the prevailing view among historians was that Anglicans were a via media between Rome and the Continental Reformed churches and that puritans were a Genevan enclave of church discipline in England who, as radical revolutionaries, challenged the status quo and were to blame for the English Civil War.7 While recent scholarship has also raised questions about the utility and legitimacy of “Anglican” as a label before the eighteenth century, 6 Arnold Hunt, “Licensing and Religious Censorship in Early Modern England,” in Andrew Hatfield, ed., Literature and Censorship in Renaissance England (Basingstoke, 2001), pp.127–​46; Hugh Adlington, “Chaplains to Embassies: Daniel Featley, Anti-​Catholic Controversialist Abroad,” in Hugh Adlington, Tom Lockwood, and Gillian Wright, eds., Chaplains in Early Modern England: Patronage, Literature and Religion (Manchester, 2013), pp.83–​102; Jeffrey Foutes, “The Life of Daniel Featley: A Study in Social and Religious Conservatism during Civil War England” (Pepperdine University MA, 1973); Bryan Gadd, “Dr. Daniel Featley: The Faithful Shepherd” (University of Queensland MPhil, 2008); Joshua Rodda, “‘Dayes of Gall and Wormwood’: Public Religious Disputation in England, 1558–​1626” (Nottingham University PhD, 2012); Joshua Rodda, Public Religious Disputation in England, 1558–​1626 (Farnham, 2014); T. Harper Smith and A. Harper Smith, Dr. Featley of Acton, Chelsea & Lambeth (Privately printed, 1990), available only at the British Library (class mark, YK.1993.b.5216). For other sources on Featley’s life, see BL, Stowe MS 76, fols.341v–​343v. 7 Patrick Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Oxford, 1967). Representative works of this view include William Haller, The Rise of Puritanism: The Way to the New Jerusalem as Set Forth in Pulpit and Press from Thomas Cartwright to John Lilburne and John Milton, 1570–​1643 (New York, 1957); R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (London, 1926); Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (London, 1971); Christopher Hill, Society and Puritanism in Pre-​Revolutionary England (London, 1966); Christopher Hill, Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution (Oxford, 1965). Cf. Michael Walzer, The Revolution of the Saints: A Study in the Origins of Radical Politics (Cambridge, MA, 1966). Also see Peter Lake, “The Historiography of Puritanism,” in John Coffey and Paul Lim, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge, 2008), pp.348–​50; John Coffey and Paul Lim, “Introduction,” in John Coffey and Paul Lim, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge, 2008), p.4.

4 Introduction Collinson’s intervention demonstrated that the majority of puritans were vitally integrated into the established church and were seeking to reform it from within.8 Collinson’s work continued along similar lines throughout his career. In his The Religion of Protestants, he famously stated that far from being subversive, puritanism “on its own terms and within its own perspectives [was] as factious and subversive as the Homily of Obedience.”9 He challenged the notion that “sectarianism” “was a natural” product of puritanism’s voluntarist approaches to piety.10 Collinson, however, later qualified some of these suggestions by stressing the divisive potential within puritanism.11 Collinson’s work foreshadowed and was characteristic of the revisionist movement that persisted for the next three decades. One of the early proponents of revisionism, Nicholas Tyacke, argued that “Calvinist doctrine provided a common and ameliorating bond that was only to be destroyed by the rise of Arminianism.”12 The bond of Calvinism produced a “Calvinist consensus” (a term that was not Tyacke’s own, but is often used to encapsulate his argument) that bolstered ties between puritans and established-​church Calvinists.13 Tyacke’s views were fully expounded in Anti-​Calvinists, in which he contended that it was the rise of anti-​Calvinism led by the Durham House group and eventually William Laud in the late 1620s and 1630s that was the innovative challenge to the status quo that caused the English Civil War.14 Tyacke and other historians, like Conrad Russell, highlighted the continuities between puritanism and the English Church before the rise of anti-​Calvinism under Charles I.15 By arguing that anti-​Calvinists were the theological and ecclesiological innovators, these historians effectively inverted the view of the puritans as the revolutionaries against the established church.16 Kenneth Fincham’s Prelate as Pastor built on Tyacke’s work by demonstrating that the differences between opposing camps in the early Stuart period were not simply over issues of predestination but were also over doctrinal positions on 8 Anthony Milton, ed., The Oxford History of Anglicanism, vol. 1, Reformation and Identity, c.1520–​1662 (Oxford, 2017). 9 Patrick Collinson, The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society, 1559–​1625 (Oxford, 1982), p.177. Also see Patrick Collinson, “Sects and the Evolution of Puritanism,” in Francis Bremer, ed., Puritanism: Transatlantic Perspectives on a Seventeenth-​Century-​Anglo-​American Faith (Boston, MA, 1993), pp.147–​66. 10 Collinson, Religion of Protestants, p.252. 11 Patrick Collinson, “The Godly: Aspects of Popular Protestantism,” in Patrick Collinson, Godly People: Essays on English Protestantism and Puritanism (London, 1983), p.18. 12 Nicholas Tyacke, “Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-​revolution,” in Conrad Russell, ed., The Origins of the English Civil War (London, 1973), p.121. 13 Lake, “The Historiography of Puritanism,” p.353. 14 Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism (Oxford, 1987). 15 Conrad Russell, The Causes of the English Civil War (Oxford, 1990); Conrad Russell, Parliaments and English Politics (Oxford, 1979); Conrad Russell, Unrevolutionary England: 1603–​1642 (London, 1990). 16 Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, pp.8, 247.

Introduction  5 preaching, the sacraments, prayer, conformity, and the primary role of bishops. While Calvinists believed the primary duty of a bishop was to be a “preaching pastor,” anti-​Calvinists believed a bishop was “a custodian of order.”17 Following Fincham, Tom Webster’s Godly Clergy explored the social dynamics of clerical puritanism and how voluntary piety was a self-​defining characteristic of the godly in the late Jacobean and Caroline periods.18 Other scholars put forth a different perspective on puritanism and Reformed theology. They rejected Reformed divines’ perceptions of themselves and instead adopted the contrasting viewpoint of the anti-​Calvinists. For example, Peter White, Charles Prior, and Judith Maltby rejected Tyacke’s binary Calvinist/​ anti-​ Calvinist paradigm and partially reinstated the old Anglican/​ puritan model, arguing that the church was a via media between Rome and Geneva.19 Kevin Sharpe, Julian Davies, and Mark Kishlansky argued along similar lines by defending the Laudian and Caroline regimes as merely protectors of orthodoxy and order.20 For these historians, the puritans were revolutionaries and were ultimately the ones challenging the status quo.21 This work rejects the Anglican/​ puritan dichotomy, since many puritans were integrated into the established church, and affirms that while there were anti-​Calvinistic, avant-​garde conformist ministers in Elizabethan and early Stuart church, Reformed divines were the dominant group.22 17 Kenneth Fincham, Prelate as Pastor: The Episcopate of James I (Oxford, 1990), p.5. 18 Tom Webster, Godly Clergy in Early Stuart England: The Caroline Puritan Movement, c.1630–​ 1643 (Cambridge, 1997). 19 Peter White, Predestination, Policy, and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War (Cambridge, 1992), p.11; Peter White, “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” P&P 101 (1983), pp.34–​54; Peter White, “Debate: The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered: A Rejoinder,” P&P 115 (1987), pp.217–​29; Peter White, “The Via Media in the Early Stuart Church,” in Kenneth Fincham, ed., the Early Stuart Church (Basingstoke, 1993), pp.211–​30; Charles Prior, Defining the Jacobean Church: The Politics of Religious Controversy, 1603–​ 1625 (Cambridge, 2005); Judith Maltby, Prayer Book and People in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England (Cambridge, 1998); Nicholas Tyacke, “Debate: The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” P&P 115 (1987), pp.201–​16; William Lamont, “Comment: The rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” P&P 107 (1985), pp.227–​31; Peter Lake, “Calvinism and the English Church 1570–​1635,” P&P 114 (1987), pp.32–​76; Peter Lake, “Predestinarian Propositions,” JEH 46 (1995), pp.112–​13; David Como, “Puritans, Predestination and the Construction of Orthodoxy in Early Seventeenth-​Century England,” in Peter Lake and Michael Questier, eds., Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c.1560–​1660 (Woodbridge, 2000), pp.64–​87; David Como, “Predestination and Political Conflict in Laud’s London,” HJ 46 (2003), pp.263–​94. 20 Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven, 1992); Kevin Sharpe, “The Personal Rule of Charles I,” in Howard Tomlinson, ed., Before the English Civil War: Essays on Early Stuart Politics and Government (New York, 1984), pp.53–​78; Kevin Sharpe, “Archbishop Laud,” History Today 33 (1983), pp.26–​30; Julian Davies, The Caroline Captivity of the Church: Charles I and the Remoulding of Anglicanism, 1625–​1641 (Oxford, 1992); Mark Kishlansky, “Charles I: A Case of Mistaken Identity,” P&P 189 (2005), pp.48–​49. 21 Lake, “Historiography of Puritanism,” p.359. 22 On the links between avant-​garde conformity and Laudianism, see Peter McCullough, “Making Dead Men Speak: Laudianism, Print, and the Works of Lancelot Andrewes, 1626–​1642,” HJ 41 (1998), pp.401–​24; Peter Lake, “Lancelot Andrewes, John Buckeridge, and Avant-​Garde Conformity

6 Introduction As Collinson’s early work foreshadowed revisionism, so Peter Lake’s work foreshadowed post-​revisionism.23 In Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church, Lake demonstrated how moderate puritans negotiated the tension between “their self-​image as ‘puritans’ ” while still maintaining “their active role within the established Church.”24 Moderate puritans argued that the ceremonies were adiaphora, employed antipapal and antiseparatist polemic to defend the established church from its enemies, and used occasional conformity in order to circumvent deprivation from the established church.25 Modified subscription and the connections between moderate puritanism and Calvinist conformity have been major themes of Lake’s work.26 Throughout his career, Lake uncovered the subtle nuances between different kinds of puritans and conformists, and explored the diversity that existed within the Calvinist/​ anti-​ Calvinist 27 paradigm. By demonstrating the diversity between English Reformed divines within the Calvinist consensus, Anthony Milton’s Catholic and Reformed was representative of post-​revisionist scholarship’s nuancing of revisionism.28 He showed how Reformed divines were united together by their anti-​Catholic rhetorical approaches and arguments, and how from 1600 to 1640 a significant transition took place.29 While previously Reformed ministers viewed the established church as aligned with the Continental churches against Rome, Laudians portrayed anti-​Catholicism as “a destabilizing force, which prompted a false set at the Court of James I,” in Linda Levy Peck, ed., The Mental World of the Jacobean Court (Cambridge, 1990), pp.113–​33. 23 Peter Lake, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge, 1982), p.viii. Also see Peter Lake, “Laurence Chaderton and the Cambridge Moderate Puritan Tradition, 1570–​1604” (Cambridge University PhD, 1978). 24 Lake, Moderate Puritans, pp.3–​4. 25 Lake, Moderate Puritans. Also see Peter Lake, “The Significance of the Elizabethan Identification of the Pope as Antichrist,” JEH 31 (1980), p.165; John Coolidge, The Pauline Renaissance in England (Oxford, 1970); Ethan Shagan, “The Battle for Indifference in Elizabethan England,” in Luc Racaut and Alec Ryrie, eds., Moderate Voices in the Europeans Reformation (Aldershot, 2005), pp.122–​44; Peter Lake, “The Dilemma of the Establishment Puritan: The Cambridge Heads and the Case of Francis Johnson,” JEH 29 (1978), pp.23–​35. 26 Peter Lake, “Moving the Goal Posts? Modified Subscription and the Construction of Conformity in the Early Stuart Church,” in Peter Lake and Michael Questier, eds., Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church c.1560–​1660 (Suffolk, 2006), pp.179–​205; Peter Lake, “Robert Some and the Ambiguities of Moderation,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 71 (1980), pp.254–​79. 27 Lake, “The Historiography of Puritanism,” p.356. 28 Anthony Milton, Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought, 1600–​1640 (Cambridge, 1995). Although I was not able to include Anthony Milton’s recent monograph, as it had not yet been released at the time of writing, it promises to build on his previous work. See Anthony Milton, England’s Second Reformation: The Battle for the Church of England, 1625–​1662 (Cambridge, 2021). 29 Milton, Catholic and Reformed, p.543. Also see Alexandra Walsham, “Vox Piscis: Or the Book Fish: Protestantism and the Uses of the Reformation Past in Caroline Cambridge,” EHR 114 (1999), p.596.

Introduction  7 of religious priorities and encouraged the growth of a puritan-​style and word-​ based piety.”30 Milton’s highlighting of the variety of issues that united Reformed divines nuanced previous revisionist interventions and influenced the later work of these historians. For example, Tyacke later admitted that his “concentration on the ‘single issue of predestination’ does now seem excessive” and conceded that he now “would wish to stress more that a nexus of associated orthodoxies were all coming under challenge at this same time.”31 Tyacke’s concession was reflected in the collaborative work he undertook with Kenneth Fincham, Altars Restored, which examined the various altar policies, ceremonial views, and church-​furnishing practices of a wide range of figures.32 With each intervention, a clearer and more detailed account of the various issues that united and divided various Reformed and anti-​Calvinist divines emerged. Peter Lake and his students injected further complexity into the discussion by showing the radical and contentious tendencies of so-​called moderate puritanism. Some moderates maintained their presbyterian convictions, and English Reformed divines engaged in vicious theological disagreements with fellow members of the Calvinist consensus. Lake and David Como explored how “radicalism” and particularly antinomianism tendencies persisted among the godly but were carefully concealed by the “puritan underground.”33 Como examined how antinomianism was a growing tendency reacting against puritan practical divinity and that the roots of various Civil War and post–​Civil War sectarian communities rested within the puritan movement itself.34 They also analyzed the connections between censorship, consensus, and the mechanisms for controlling heterodoxy and heresy within puritanism. In a similar vein, Ethan Shagan’s Rule of Moderation inverted a traditional understanding of “moderation” by suggesting that it was not an irenic ideology delineating a “middle way.” The utilization of “moderation” by seemingly “moderate” figures was, in effect, one of the most coercive tactics employed by figures 30 Milton, Catholic and Reformed, p.529. 31 Nicholas Tyacke, “Introduction,” in Nicholas Tyacke, Aspects of English Protestantism, c.1590–​ 1700 (Manchester, 2001), p.10. 32 Kenneth Fincham and Nicholas Tyacke, Altars Restored: The Changing Face of English Religious Worship, 1547–​c.1700 (Oxford, 2007). Also see Kenneth Fincham, “The Restoration of Altars in the 1630s,” HJ 44 (2001), pp.919–​40. 33 Peter Lake, The Boxmaker’s Revenge: “Orthodoxy,” “Heterodoxy,” and the Politics of the Parish in Early Stuart London (Stanford, CA, 2001); Peter Lake, “Puritanism, Familism, and Heresy in Early Stuart England: The Case of John Etherington Revisited,” in David Loewenstein and John Marshall, eds., Heresy, Literature and Politics in Early Modern English Culture (Cambridge, 2006), pp.82–​107; David Como, Blown by the Spirit: Puritanism and the Emergence of an Antinomian Underground in Pre-​Civil-​War England (Stanford, CA, 2004); Peter Lake and David Como, “‘Orthodoxy’ and Its Discontents: Dispute Settlement and the Production of ‘Consensus’ in the London (Puritan) ‘Underground,’” JBS 39 (2000), pp.37–​70; Peter Lake and David Como, “Puritans, Antinomians and Laudians in Caroline London: The Strange Case of Peter Shaw in Its Contexts,” JEH 50 (1999), pp.684–​715. 34 David Como, Radical Parliamentarians and the English Civil War (Oxford, 2018).

8 Introduction in early modern England. By contending for a self-​moderated church, moderate puritans were essentially stripping ecclesiastical authorities of their right to rule over them.35 These contributions have called for a more nuanced approach to these issues. While Collinson had argued that most puritans were really not sectarian, he granted that there was an “ideological capacity for resistance” from Protestants during the Elizabethan period.36 Likewise, Lake, Como, and Shagan have further uncovered the subversive potential within puritanism. Given that by the 1640s very few puritans remained within the established church, it seems there was at least some “radical” potential within puritanism. However, it is uncertain the degree to which individual puritans and puritanism as a group were “radical” or sectarian and whether the “radical” potential of puritanism was a reaction to the Laudian movement, since it was not until then that conflict significantly escalated. Without denying Lake’s and Como’s overall argument, the self-​censoring tactics that the puritan underground used to quell internal conflicts in private before they became public was not unique to puritanism, but may have been how many England divines would have dealt with internal disputes, regardless of what group they belonged to.37 The application of Shagan’s argument to a puritan framework of liberty of conscience and a self-​moderated church should be understood in the context of why puritans contended with these propositions in the first instance.38 Many puritans were genuinely convinced that the Scriptures mandated that an individual was ultimately obliged to obey his or her conscience instead of the magistrate. Thus, it seems that they were also motivated by a genuine belief that their consciences were to be moderated by the Scriptures. Last, Polly Ha’s English Presbyterianism, 1590–​ 1640 built on Jacqueline Eales’s earlier work and challenged the standard scholarly conviction that Presbyterianism supposedly vanished following the suppression of the Elizabethan classis movement in the 1590s.39 Ha demonstrated how those issues that were pivotal in the 1570s and 1580s—​namely, different discrepancies over doctrine, ceremonies, and perceptions of Continental churches—​continued to 35 Ethan Shagan, The Rule of Moderation: Violence, Religion, and the Politics of Restraint in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2011), pp.149–​83. 36 Patrick Collinson, “The Monarchical Republic of Queen Elizabeth I,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 69 (1987), p.407. 37 Como, Blown by the Spirit, p.21. 38 See, for example, Shagan, Rule of Moderation, p.182. 39 Polly Ha, English Presbyterianism, 1590–​1640 (Stanford, CA, 2010), p.1; Jacqueline Eales, “A Road to Revolution: The Continuity of Puritanism, 1559–​1642,” in Christopher Durston and Jacqueline Eales, eds., The Culture of English Puritanism (Basingstoke, 1996), pp.184–​209. Although I was not able to include Elliot Vernon’s recent monograph, as it had not yet been released at the time of writing, it promises to build on this previous work on English Presbyterianism. See Elliot Vernon, London Presbyterians and the British Revolutions, 1638–​64 (Manchester, 2021).

Introduction  9 be of utmost importance. Contrary to those who sought to position puritans into one particular camp, Ha argued that various puritans’ “theology evolved throughout their careers,” that they “cannot be placed consistently in any one ecclesiological camp,” and that “they should not be forced into artificial subdivisions.”40 Puritans and puritanism no longer fit neatly into any one category. Rather, historians are just beginning to understand the subtle but nevertheless important differences that distinguished the godly from one another and on which issues this cohort were united and divided. In the development of these interventions, there was a gradual refining of our understanding of the range of issues that expose the diversity among Reformed divines. Since the emphasis of post-​revisionism has been to highlight the diversity among Reformed divines, perhaps future fruitful contributions will explore the degrees of continuity and diversity within Reformed theology in post-​ Reformation England. This work aims to make several contributions to the developing historiography. While its arguments are congruent with the lines of revisionist and post-​revisionist scholarship in the last several decades, it aims to refine our understanding of Daniel Featley and Calvinist conformity in post-​Reformation England and build on the conclusions of previous studies. Within the study of English Reformed divines, much attention has been given to both moderate and nonconformist puritan figures, including biographies of well-​known figures like John Owen, John Bunyan, Richard Baxter, John Flavel, William Perkins, and Richard Sibbes, and to even lesser-​known figures like Edward Dering, Thomas Cartwright, Richard Greenham, Laurence Chaderton, John Preston, Arthur Hildersham, and Richard Bernard, to name just a few.41 Nevertheless, although some study had been devoted to Calvinist conformists—​those English Reformed divines who were staunchly committed to the established church and represented 40 Ha, English Presbyterianism, pp.126–​27. 41 Crawford Gribben, John Owen and English Puritanism: Experiences of Defeat (Oxford, 2107); Richard Greaves, Glimpses of Glory: John Bunyan and English Dissent (Stanford, CA, 2002); N. H. Keeble, Richard Baxter: Puritan Man of Letters (Oxford, 1982); Brian Cosby, John Flavel: Puritan Life and Thought in Stuart England (Lanham, MD, 2013); W. B. Patterson, William Perkins and the Making of a Protestant England (Oxford, 2014); Ian Breward, “The Life and Theology of William Perkins, 1558–​1602” (Manchester University PhD, 1963); Mark Dever, Richard Sibbes: Puritanism and Calvinism in Late Elizabethan and Early Stuart England (Macon, GA, 2000); Patrick Collinson, A Mirror of Elizabethan Puritanism: The Life and Letters of “Godly Master Dering” (London, 1964); A. F. S. Pearson, Thomas Cartwright and Elizabethan Puritanism (Cambridge, 1925); Kenneth Parker and Eric Carlson, eds., “Practical Divinity”: The Works and Life of Revd Richard Greenham (Aldershot, 1998); John Primus, Richard Greenham: Portrait of an Elizabethan Pastor (Macon, GA, 1998); Jonathan Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology (Cambridge, 2007); Irvonwy Morgan, Puritan Spirituality: Illustrated from the Life and Times of the Rev. Dr. John Preston (London, 1973); Irvonwy Morgan, Prince Charles’s Puritan Chaplain (London, 1957); Lesley Rowe, The Life and Times of Arthur Hildersham: Prince among Puritans (Grand Rapids, 2013); Amy Gant Tan, “Richard Bernard and His Publics: A Puritan Minister as Author” (Vanderbilt University PhD, 2015).

10 Introduction the church’s majority position between 1560 and the mid-​1620s, before being marginalized by Laudians in the 1630s and puritans in the 1640s—​these figures have been examined merely within the context of more general studies. For example, Stephen Hampton’s Anti-​Arminians explored a network of prominent English Reformed divines in later Stuart England, arguing that they preserved a strong Reformed conformist tradition against Arminianism within the established church.42 Hampton has analyzed one of the only formal, assembled gatherings of early Stuart Calvinist conformist divines and moderate puritans, the 1641 subcommittee of religion—​sometimes known as the Williams Committee—​and written articles on members of this committee, including John Williams, Ralph Brownrigg, Robert Sanderson, and Richard Holdsworth.43 While Dewey Wallace’s Shapers of English Calvinism primarily focused on the various intellectual trajectories within post-​Restoration English Reformed theology, he likewise touched on aspects of conformist Calvinism, particularly in his chapter on the Reformed establishment divine John Edwards.44 In both his Anglicans and Puritans? and his study of Robert Sanderson, Peter Lake explored aspects of Calvinist conformity.45 In the latter article, he persuasively argued that Calvinist conformity was marked by a commitment to Reformed doctrine, “Whitgiftian anti-​Puritanism,” and the monarch’s authority in “things indifferent.” Equally important to divines’ beliefs and actions was their relationships, those whom they “call[ed] their friends and their enemies.”46 Only a handful of biographical monographs have been dedicated to Calvinist conformist figures. While Peter Lake and Kenneth Fincham have written insightful articles on Joseph Hall, only Daniel Steere’s doctoral dissertation has attempted to surpass Richard McCabe’s work as the definitive biography on Hall. Steere’s work neglected aspects of Hall’s theology and falsely maintained that 42 Stephen Hampton, Anti-​Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I (Oxford, 2008). Although I was not able to include Stephen Hampton’s recent monograph, as it had not yet been released at the time of writing, it promises to build on his previous work. See Stephen Hampton, Grace and Conformity: The Reformed Conformist Tradition and the Early Stuart Church of England (Oxford, 2021). 43 Stephen Hampton, “A ‘Theological Junto’: The Lords’ Subcommittee on Religious Innovation,” Seventeenth Century 30 (2015), pp.433–​ 54. Stephen Hampton, “The Manuscript Sermons of Archbishop John Williams,” JEH 62 (2011), pp.707–​25; Stephen Hampton, “Hagiography and Theology for a Comprehensive Reformed Church: John Gauden and the Portrayal of Ralph Brownrigg,” Calvin Theological Journal 50 (2015), pp.181–​215. For Richard Holdsworth, see Stephen Hampton, “Richard Holdsworth and the Antinomian Controversy,” Journal of Theological Studies 62 (2011), pp.218–​50. For an article on another Calvinist conformist, John Davenant, see Ronald Cooley, “John Davenant, The Country Parson and Herbert’s Calvinist Conformity,” George Herbert Journal 23 (1999), pp.1–​13. 44 Dewey Wallace, Shapers of English Calvinism, 1660–​ 1714: Variety, Persistence, and Transformation (Oxford, 2011). 45 Peter Lake, Anglicans and Puritans? Presbyterianism and English Conformist Thought from Whitgift to Hooker (London, 1988). 46 Peter Lake, “Serving God and the Times: The Calvinist Conformity of Robert Sanderson,” JBS 27 (1988), pp.115–​16.

Introduction  11 Hall held a via media view of the English Church. While McCabe’s work remains the definitive biography on Hall, its publication predates many important revisionist and post-​revisionist interventions.47 Alan Ford’s fine study of James Ussher is the only other book-​length biography of a Calvinist conformist figure.48 Given that Ussher and Featley shared confessional similarities, Ford’s work touches on themes similar to those in the present study, including Ussher’s unyielding Reformed convictions, defense of episcopacy, and attempts to navigate the ecclesiastical shifts throughout the period. However, since Ford’s overall aim was to use Ussher’s life as a lens to understand the nature of Protestant identity in Ireland, its focus is entirely different from this study’s. Likewise, while Richard Snoddy’s The Soteriology of James Ussher is not a biography, but rather an examination of the various aspects of Ussher’s applied soteriology, it also briefly highlighted features of Calvinist conformity in Ussher’s life and theology.49 Historians have been divided about whether Featley was a moderate puritan, a Calvinist conformist, or both. For example, while Ann Hughes has labeled Featley a moderate puritan, Kate Narveson has branded Featley a “contented conformist,” and Alec Ryrie claims Featley was both a conformist and a puritan.50 In defining puritanism, some historians, most notably Peter Lake, have argued not only that puritans were a group that their contemporaries would have recognized, but also that puritanism is an ideology that historians can accurately conceptualize.51 Patrick Collinson has argued that “puritanism had 47 Daniel Steere, “‘Quo Vadis?’ Bishop Joseph Hall and the Demise of Calvinist Conformity in Early Seventeenth-​Century England” (George State University PhD, 2000); Daniel Steere, “‘For the Peace of Both, for the Humour of Neither’: Bishop Joseph Hall Defends the Via Media in an Age of Extremes, 1601–​1656,” Sixteenth Century Journal 27 (1996), pp.749–​65; Daniel Steere, “A Calvinist Bishop at the Court of King Charles I,” in Mack Holt, ed., Adaptations of Calvinism in Reformation Europe: Essays in Honour of Brian G. Armstrong (Aldershot, 2007), pp.193–​218; Richard McCabe, Joseph Hall: A Study in Satire and Meditation (Oxford, 1982). Also see Peter Lake, “The Moderate and Irenic Case for Religious War: Joseph Hall’s Via Media in Context,” in Susan Amussen and Mark Kishlansky, eds., Political Cultures and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England: Essays Presented to David Underdown (Manchester, 1995), pp.55–​83; Peter Lake, “Joseph Hall, Robert Skinner and the Rhetoric of Moderation at the Early Stuart Court,” in Lori Anne Farrell and Peter McCullough, eds., The English Sermon Revised: Religion, Literature and Heresy, 1600–​1750 (Manchester, 2001), pp.167–​ 85; Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, “Prelacy and Puritanism in the 1630s: Joseph Hall Explains Himself,” EHR 111 (1996), pp.856–​81. 48 Alan Ford, James Ussher: Theology, History, and Politics in Early-​Modern Ireland and England (Oxford, 2007). 49 Richard Snoddy, The Soteriology of James Ussher: The Act and Object of Saving Faith (Oxford, 2014). 50 Ann Hughes, Gangraena and the Struggle for the English Revolution (Oxford, 2004), p.82; Kate Narveson, “Piety and the Genre of John Donne’s Devotions,” John Donne Journal 17 (1998), pp.111–​ 12; Alec Ryrie, Being Protestant in Reformation Britain (Oxford, 2013), p.7. 51 Lake, Boxmaker’s Revenge, p.390. Also see Peter Lake, “Defining Puritanism—​Again?,” in Francis Bremer, ed., Puritanism: Trans-​ Atlantic Perspectives on a Seventeenth-​ Century Anglo-​ American Faith (Boston, MA, 1993), pp.3–​29; Peter Lake, “Puritan Identities,” JEH 35 (1984), pp.112–​23; Peter Lake, “‘A Charitable Christian Hatred’: The Godly and Their Enemies in the 1630s,”

12 Introduction no real existence” but lies “in the eye of the beholder.”52 Although the present work places Featley squarely in the Calvinist conformist camp, it also examines the issues involved in defining Calvinist conformity in post-​ Reformation England. It explores how “moderation” in early modern England was both a modifier (i.e., moderate puritans) and (as Shagan explored) a form of coercion.53 Regarding “moderate” as a modifier, some ambiguity cannot be avoided. At certain times and in certain situations, Featley seemed sympathetic to moderate puritan principles, while at other times he appeared to be more closely aligned with conformists. These different emphases should be viewed as tactical accommodations within the fixed parameters of Featley’s Calvinist conformist convictions, which were designed to enable Featley to navigate the changing political and ecclesiastical terrain of the early Stuart period.54 The work explores whether Featley’s tactical accommodations bolster Shagan’s argument that seemingly “moderate” figures in the early modern period were most vicious toward extremists on the margins—​particularly as Featley addressed Roman Catholics, separatists, and anti-​Calvinists. The present work shares the methodological convictions of the “Cambridge School” of intellectual historians, including John Pocock and Quentin Skinner, which has emphasized that it is crucial to understand figures and ideas on their own terms—​that is, within their original historical context.55 Though Skinner largely avoided religious themes, some historians have applied this contextual approach to the study of early modern religious history.56 There are advantages afforded by engaging with these issues through the lens of a biographical study. For example, the more restricted parameters of a biographical study enable a historian to assess these issues in a more focused way as they apply to an individual. One is forced to compare and contrast various in Christopher Durston and Jacqueline Eales, eds., The Culture of English Puritanism (Basingstoke, 1996), pp.145–​83. 52 Patrick Collinson, “Introduction,” in Patrick Collinson, From Cranmer to Sancroft (London, 2006), p.xiii; Patrick Collinson, The Puritan Character: Polemics and Polarities in Early Seventeenth-​ Century English Culture (Los Angeles, 1989). Also see Patrick Collinson, Richard Bancroft and Elizabethan Anti-​puritanism (Cambridge, 2013), p.218. 53 Lake, Boxmaker’s Revenge, pp.398–​99; Shagan, Rule of Moderation, p.19. 54 I am grateful to John Coffey for this suggestion and for encouraging me to develop this idea further. 55 Quentin Skinner, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” History and Theory 8 (1969), pp.3–​ 53; Quentin Skinner, Visions of Politics, vol. 1, Regarding Method (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Quentin Skinner, Foundations of Modern Political Thought, vol. 2, The Age of Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978); J. A. Pocock, “The History of Political Thought: A Methodological Enquiry,” in Peter Laslett and W. G. Runciman, eds., Philosophy, Politics and Society (Second series; Oxford, 1972), pp.183–​202; J. G. A. Pocock, Political Thought and History: Essays on Theory and Method (Cambridge, 2009), pp.123–​42. 56 Alister Chapman, John Coffey, and Brad Gregory, eds., Seeing Things Their Way: Intellectual History and the Return of Religion (Manchester, 2009).

Introduction  13 vantage points on one figure and the complexities involved in interpreting conflicting accounts. This will be done by comparing and contrasting three kinds of sources on Featley’s life. First, there are Featley’s own works. Featley was prolific, writing over twenty major works in a wide variety of genres—​devotional, homiletical, catechetical, biographical, and, most importantly, polemical—​over four different decades. Many of these publications arose from his polemical exchanges with Catholics, anti-​Calvinists, and separatists. There is a wealth of manuscript sources that pertain either to events related to Featley’s life or are written by Featley himself—​ including those analyzing Featley’s manuscript notebook of letters and treatises housed at the Bodleian Library in Oxford.57 Although Featley’s notebook is an especially important source for understanding his life and works, his handwriting at times was quite atrocious. As the post-​Restoration historian Thomas Fuller said, Featley’s “wifes son hath since communicated to me his Pocket-​Manual of his memorable observations, all with his own hand; but alas to be read by none but the writer thereof.”58 Although references to Featley’s manuscript notebook appear sporadically throughout the secondary literature, there has been no thorough examination of this important manuscript. Second, this work will examine sources by the range of opponents Featley debated—​Catholics, anti-​Calvinists, Anabaptists, and Presbyterians. While these viewpoints undoubtedly portray Featley in a negative light, they provide valuable insights into Featley’s life and theology. Furthermore, by tracing out common threads arising from Featley’s opponents’ perspectives, this study attempts to understand Featley through the eyes of his adversaries. Third, by examining Featley through the lens of his post-​Restoration biographical accounts, the final chapter seeks to contribute to understanding larger methodological issues surrounding the construction of confessional identity in the post-​Restoration period and the challenges of relying on sources that have an obvious agenda. In short, this work will contribute to our understanding of how to weigh the various perspectives in historical research by engaging printed and manuscript works from a wide range of vantage points, and following Lake’s counsel to “imaginatively inhabit the positions and polemical claims of each group in turn, not to distribute marks for theological subtlety and rightness from the standpoint of one of the parties to dispute.”59

57 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47. Featley’s other manuscript notebook is Bodl., Rawl. MS C.753. 58 Thomas Fuller, The History of the Worthies of England (London, 1662), sig.Xxx1v. On Fuller see W. B. Patterson, Thomas Fuller: Discovering England’s Religious Past (Oxford, 2018). 59 Lake, “Predestinarian Propositions,” p.115.

14 Introduction

Structure, Arguments, and Themes The present work’s overall aim is twofold. First, it uses Featley’s career to trace the fortunes of a Calvinist conformist divine as he navigated the shifting ecclesiastical terrain of post-​Reformation England. By exploring the various roles he played in the post-​Reformation church, it examines his priorities and political maneuvers and the politics of religion in post-​Reformation England. In particular, it explores a number of broader historical-​theological themes, including the role and dynamics of ecclesiastical patronage, the ecclesiastical politics of licensing works for publication, the links between a minister’s pastoral motivations and polemical engagements, and the survival strategies ministers used to weather the significant changes in the ecclesiastical terrain. In this way, it uses Featley’s life to trace the career of English Reformed conformist thought and its struggle to define the ecclesiastical center ground. It offers a more nuanced perspective of these issues, and its conclusions contribute to and qualify the existing religious, political, and theological themes of the historiographical narrative. Second, it examines Featley’s convictions as representative of the theological ideals and career of conformist Calvinism. Much attention rightly has been given to demonstrating how puritans were staunchly committed to a rigorous system of theological principles and volunteer piety, earning them the label “hot Protestants.” However, this emphasis could obscure the fact that English Reformed divines were also committed to a distinct set of doctrines and ecclesiastical practices. Throughout his life, Featley maintained a consistent commitment to a set of theological priorities and convictions, which were characteristic of other Calvinist conformist divines. These theological commitments included (among others) intransigent anti-​Catholicism, Reformed soteriology, a sensitivity to crypto-​Catholicism, robust preaching, fervent prayer, an upholding of the magistrate’s right to overrule one’s private conscience on “things indifferent” (especially when this pertained to the English Church forms enshrined in the Book of Common Prayer), a settled aversion to Protestant sectarianism, and an unwavering commitment to episcopacy, royalism, and pedobaptism. While these qualities are not unique to Calvinist conformist divines—​indeed some were shared by puritans, others by Laudians—​collectively they are a portfolio of the priorities and principles, the theological bounds and constraints, that were typical of Calvinist conformist divines. While emphasizing the continuity between Calvinist conformist divines, this study seeks to avoid giving agency to Calvinist conformity as a completely uniform theological position or homogenizing Calvinist conformist divines. And while this study is aware of discontinuities that existed between Calvinist conformist figures and will highlight these differences where appropriate, it is by no means a comprehensive, comparative

Introduction  15 analysis of various Calvinist conformist divines; rather, it is an examination of Featley’s thought and career as a representative of that tradition. Chapter 1 analyzes the first thirty-​five years of Featley’s life, exploring how Featley’s theological convictions and the features that underpin the major themes of his career were formed and nurtured during his early years in Oxford, Paris, and Cornwall. There he emerges as an ambitious, young, Calvinist conformist divine in pursuit of preferment; a shrewd minister who attempted to position himself within the ecclesiastical spectrum; and a budding polemicist whose polemical exchanges were motivated by a pastoral desire to protect the English Church. Chapter 2 examines Featley’s role as an ecclesiastical licenser and chaplain to Archbishop George Abbot in the 1610s and 1620s. It offers a reinterpretation of the view that Featley was a benign censor, explores how pastoral sensitivities influenced his censorship, and analyzes the parallels between Featley’s licensing and his broader ecclesiastical aims. Moreover, by exploring how our historiographical understandings of licensing and censorship have been clouded by Featley’s attempts to conceal the fact that an increasingly influential anti-​Calvinist movement was seizing control of the licensing system and marginalizing Reformed licensers in the 1620s, this chapter (along with Chapter 7) addresses the broader methodological issues of how to weigh and evaluate various vantage points. Chapter 3 analyzes the theological publications resulting from Featley’s debates with prominent Catholic leaders, giving attention to Featley’s use of Scripture and patristic tradition in these debates. Chapter 4 examines the theological publications resulting from Featley’s debates with influential anti-​ Calvinist leaders. It considers his unyielding Reformed soteriology, and his sensitivity to crypto-​Catholicism. It also explores the place of Featley’s polemical engagements against anti-​Calvinism within international Reformed Protestantism. Chapters 3 and 4 also explore the pastoral motivations that underpinned his polemical exchanges and how Featley strategically issued these polemical publications to counter Catholicism and anti-​Calvinism and to circulate his own alternative version of orthodoxy at several crucial political moments during the 1620s and 1630s. Chapter 5 focuses on how the themes of prayer and preaching in his devotional work, Ancilla Pietatis, and his collection of seventy sermons, Clavis Mystica, were complementary rather than contradictory. It builds on several major themes of the work by examining how pastoral and polemical motivations were at the heart of his pastoral theological works. These works also reveal that Featley continued to be an active opponent—​rather than a passive bystander and victim—​of Laudianism, and how he positioned himself politically to resist being reprimanded by an increasingly hostile Laudian regime. This chapter also gives

16 Introduction attention to other theological commitments Featley held in pastoral ministry, including robust preaching, fervent prayer, and the magistrate’s right to overrule one’s private conscience on “things indifferent,” particularly regarding the established forms of the Book of Common Prayer. Chapter 6 explores the events of the 1640s surrounding Featley’s participation at the Westminster Assembly and his debates with separatists. It gives attention to several of Featley’s theological convictions that becomes especially important in the 1640s—​his unwavering commitment to episcopacy, royalism, and pedobaptism and his repulsion of Protestant sectarianism. Additionally, it explores how Featley’s pursuit of the middle way was both a self-​protective survival instinct—​a rudder he used to navigate his way through the shifting political and ecclesiastical terrain of this period—​and the means by which he moderated two polarized groups (decidedly convictional Parliamentarians and royalists) in order to reoccupy the middle ground, even while it was eroding away. Finally, Chapter 7 examines Featley’s “afterlife” by analyzing the reception of Featley through the lens of his post-​1660 biographers. It addresses the major methodological issue of the work—​namely, the problem of working with slanted sources. The main biographical source for this work is the biography of Featley’s nephew, John Featley, which has its own political and ecclesiastical agenda. In short, this chapter will explore how John Featley and other post-​Restoration biographers depicted him retrospectively in their biographical accounts in the service of their own post-​Restoration agendas. In short, this work examines Featley’s multifaceted theology and career and links him to the broader historical context of post-​Reformation England. By exploring the roles Featley played in the post-​Reformation English Church and seeking to build on and contribute to the theological, historical, and political historiographical interventions that shaped this pivotal period, it highlights the principal themes, theological priorities, and ideals related to Daniel Featley and Calvinist conformity in post-​ Reformation England. This study also analyzes how Featley’s political sensibilities were representative of the tactical accommodations that Calvinist conformists utilized as survival strategies to manage their shifting historical contexts. Likewise, it examines the links between a minister’s pastoral sensitivities and his polemical engagements, and how ministers positioned themselves, their opponents, and their biographical subjects through print. Finally, this work seeks to understand how historical figures and sources influence contemporary historical perspectives by underlining the importance of carefully scrutinizing figures and source agendas. Its conclusions contribute to and refine the developing religious, political, and theological scholarship on post-​Reformation England.

1

The Formation of a Calvinist Conformist This chapter analyzes the events of the first thirty-​five years of Featley’s life, focusing on the individuals and theology that influenced him throughout the decade before he took up his service as Archbishop Abbot’s chaplain in 1617. Many of the features that underpin the major themes of Featley’s life were formed and nurtured during Featley’s later years in Oxford (1607–​11), as an ambassador’s chaplain in Paris (1611–​13), and as a pastor in Northill (1613–​ 17). Following these formative years, Featley emerged as a budding polemicist, a keen networker, and a politically savvy divine. By exploring Featley’s polemical exchanges, Featley’s personal relationships—​especially his relationships within French Reformed Protestantism—​and the motivations behind his early publications, this chapter draws out several theological convictions and themes of Featley’s early life that were foundational for Featley’s later career.

Emergence as a Polemicist Daniel Featley grew up in Oxford. His father was a servant at Magdalene College, where Daniel became a chorister on 7 June 1590. According to his first biographer, John Featley, Daniel was a “studious and ingenious” youth; at age twelve, he received great “applause by the Latine and Greek verses which he frequently, wittily, and elegantly composed.” According to John, when Featley’s father later became a cook at Corpus Christi, Oxford, he “gained an opportunity to prefer” Daniel to be admitted as a scholar there on 13 December 1594. Daniel graduated with a bachelor’s degree on 13 February 1601, and on 20 September 1602 was appointed as a probationary fellow of Corpus. In both his bachelor’s and master’s degrees he completed “his Exercises to the Admiration of the University.”1 Featley was rising in the ranks. During his master’s degree, “He was made Terrae-​ filius at the Act, and gained such honor, that his fame grew high in both the Universities.” Following this he studied divinity, giving careful attention “to the Fathers, Councils, [and] School-​men.”2



1 Featley, Succinct History, sig.H2v; CCC, MS B/​1/​3/​1. Also see Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.40v. 2 Featley, Succinct History, sig.H3r.

Calvinist Conformity in Post-​Reformation England. Greg A. Salazar, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2022. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197536902.003.0002

18  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England In 1607, during his final years at Oxford, Featley was entangled in a conflict with an emerging anti-​Calvinist faction at Corpus Christi. The conflict was spawned by the fact that the leading puritan and recently deceased president of Corpus Christi, John Rainolds, had aided Featley by assigning him as tutor to several scholars at the college, which meant Featley would also receive the desirable financial remuneration that accompanied tutoring.3 In response, several anti-​ Calvinists—​Walter Browne, Bryan Twyne, and Thomas Jackson—​sought to have these scholars reassigned to tutors in their camp by appealing to Thomas Bilson, the bishop of Winchester, a visiting alumnus of Corpus.4 To avoid losing his pupils, Featley appealed to the newly appointed Corpus president, John Spencer. In these letters, Featley communicated the fierceness of his opponents, how “the stormes of discontents . . . seemed to be allayed” against him, when his opponents took “exception against [his] late sermon” and reported him to the president.5 Apparently Twyne, Browne, and Jackson all united against him. Featley related that “Mr. Twyn every where exclameth against me” and that Twyne “was very importunate with me I think by the advise of Mr Browne without whome he is thought to do nothing” in making his case before Bilson.6 Nevertheless, Featley fended them off and avoided being discharged from the university.7 There are several notable features of Featley’s defense. First, Featley thwarted his opponents by appealing to several influential Reformed authorities. In his own plea to Spencer, Featley claimed that he was merely acting on Rainolds’s wishes by upholding “the virtue of Dr. Rainolds deputation” and asked “whether [he] might keepe that which was given [to him] by lawfull authority and is not taken away by the like.”8 According to Featley, Rainolds had “appointed Mr Twyne scholar to Mr Baily and Mr. Jackson to Mr. Hatt.”9 Rainolds was instrumental in advancing Featley during his early days, and it seems that Featley attempted to continue to draw on Rainolds’s patronage even after his death. It is noteworthy that Featley’s appeal was written to Spencer, Rainolds’s successor. Featley’s aim was not merely that Spencer would uphold Rainolds’s desire for Featley as a tutor, but that he, as Rainolds’s replacement, would likewise continue to provide patronage for Featley at Corpus. Featley appears to have viewed this conflict as an opportune time to establish the patronage of and protection from other notable Reformed divines. 3 Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism (Oxford, 1987), pp.64–​65. Also see Rosemary O’Day, Education and Society, 1500–​1800: The Social Foundations of Education in Early Modern Britain (London, 1982), pp.115–​17. 4 Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, p.65. 5 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.59v. 6 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.55r. 7 Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, p.65. 8 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.55r. 9 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.55v.

The Formation of a Calvinist Conformist  19 In addition to Bilson and Spencer, Featley sought the support of the dean of Gloucester, Thomas Morton, and the bishop of Gloucester, Henry Parry. Featley went to great lengths to gain their support, writing nearly twenty letters to these four Reformed leaders in order to obtain protection from his enemies and to vindicate himself of their charges.10 In a letter to Henry Parry, Featley mentioned that it was actually Parry’s support that ultimately secured him favor with James Montague, the dean of Worcester, relating that Montague “was possessed strongly by the adversaries part before he received your Lordships letter.”11 Featley explained that although “the 15 of the next moneth is the critical day for this suite,” he was hopeful of a favorable outcome since he planned to “goe together with other ammunition of arguments [and] with your Lordships [Parry’s] letter,” confidently asserting, “I doubt not to obteyne the victory by the same meanes.”12 Featley also appealed to Thomas Morton for help; years later he acknowledged the “thanks I owe to your Worshipful” “for your late extraordinary kindness” in “retaining me in my place from whence fury and malice armed with authority though made wrongfully yet by grace fully had removed me.”13 The outcome was indeed favorable. In what appears to be one of his final letters to Bilson, Featley thanked him for his “favour in reviving my dead hope and restoring me to my former place of seniority” and protecting him from the “wrongfull though powerfull opposition.”14 Featley’s correspondences indicate that he avoided deprivation through drawing on the patronage and support of Reformed leaders. As a young divine who had just lost his chief patron and mentor, he seems to have recognized that he was vulnerable and therefore needed the protection of older, prominent divines to prevent his dismissal from Oxford. Previous explorations of these events, especially by Nicholas Tyacke, have focused on the contrasting “theological alignment of the two groups”—​the Calvinist/​anti-​Calvinist divide at Corpus Christi.15 Although this conflict was between two seemingly doctrinally divergent groups, the dispute was, however, not over a theological issue, but rather about who would be granted instructional and pastoral oversight. One of the students affected by this dispute was Walter Raleigh, the badly behaved son of Sir Walter Raleigh.16 Featley wrote three letters 10 See Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols.55r–​56v, 59v–​60v (John Spencer); fols.58r–​59r, 60v–​62r (Thomas Morton); fols.58v, 60v, 62r–​v, 163r–​164v, 192v–​193v (Henry Parry); fols.63r–​v, 166r–​168v, 176r–​ 179v, 230r–​v (Thomas Bilson). 11 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.62r. 12 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.62v. 13 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.49v. 14 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.63r–​v. 15 Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, pp.64–​67. Also see Nicholas Tyacke, “Religious Controversy during the Seventeenth Century: The Case of Oxford,” in Nicholas Tyacke, Aspects of English Protestantism, c.1530–​1700 (Manchester, 2001), p.262. 16 Mordechai Feingold, “The Humanities,” in Nicholas Tyacke, ed., History of the University of Oxford, vol. 4, Seventeenth-​Century Oxford (Oxford, 1997), p.296; Adlington, “Chaplains,” p.88; Mark

20  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England to Sir Walter, which indicate that during this conflict Featley nearly lost pastoral supervision over Raleigh’s son. In one letter Featley vowed “not onely to keep safe this treasure, but also by [his] best endeavours to brighten” and give the “best care and love to your sonn and most ernest prayers unto Almighty God for your and his welfare.”17 Featley saw his role as more than imparting or enforcing information, but as exercising pastoral care to shape this young scholar’s character. Featley’s adversaries, however, challenged the integrity of Featley’s commitment by “scatter[ing] speeches in the colledg very false and iniurious against” him, claiming to Sir Walter that Featley “had taken no care of your sonne in that dangerous time and that you were forced of your owne accord to send down your man for him.”18 Featley attempted to “cleare [him] self from any uniust calumniations,” and succeeded in gaining Raleigh’s favor and kept his son as a pupil.19 Although it is customary to conceive of conflicts between Reformed divines and anti-​ Calvinists as primarily doctrinal in nature, this episode indicates that a chief concern in this conflict centered on who would be chosen to shape the young Corpus scholars through their teaching and tutelage. Moreover, it is possible that this dispute was also about Featley’s basic assumption that he was the worthiest person to succeed Rainolds.20 Featley’s power struggle with the anti-​Calvinists continued throughout his career—​this was especially the case during the 1620s, when Featley’s impact as an anti-​Catholic polemicist was diminished after he was replaced by several anti-​Calvinists (including Francis White and William Laud), who provided a more charitable appraisal of Catholicism at the time of the Spanish Match. The parallels between Featley’s attempt to secure protection from older divines and the protection that he himself gave to the young Walter Raleigh suggests that he was committed to a vision of training that involved older, more experienced divines protecting and shaping the younger generation. He was both a benefactor and recipient of patronage, one who was motivated to protect, support, and nurture young divines, as he himself had received from an older generation. Featley’s interactions with anti-​ Calvinists anticipated some of his later debates with these figures, chiefly his assaults on Richard Montague in 1626.21 They also anticipate Featley’s attempt to hinder his previous Oxford nemesis Thomas Jackson from obtaining the presidency at Corpus Christi in 1628. Featley remained invested in his college throughout his career, keeping up with Nicholls and Penry Williams, “Sir Walter Raleigh (1554–​1618),” ODNB; Ian Donaldson, “Benjamin Jonson (1572–​1637),” ODNB.

17

Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.54v. Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.56v. Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols.56v–​57v. 20 I owe this suggestion to Mordechai Feingold. 21 This will be addressed in Chapter 4. 18 19

The Formation of a Calvinist Conformist  21 the college’s affairs and donating copies of his books to the library.22 Writing to the English Reformed divine John Prideaux in the late 1620s, Featley explained that Jackson had “bene cast into the troubled waters at CCC that upon an inundation of praeferment sweeping you away he might more easily swime to your chaire there to spawne young Arminians.”23 Although the anti-​Calvinist Richard Neile worked behind the scenes to secure this post for Jackson, to Featley’s delight, the anti-​Calvinists were unsuccessful, and John Holt was elected instead.24 Featley regarded Jackson as a lifelong opponent, testifying at William Laud’s impeachment “that Dr Jackson did worke many things for the Arminians, & was accounted a great father of Arminianism.”25 While much scholarly attention has been paid to analyzing the Calvinist/​anti-​Calvinist feud of the mid-​1620s (between the anti-​Calvinist Durham House group and the English Reformed divines associated with George Abbot), it seems that these anti-​Calvinist ministers and Reformed divines sparred in their early days at university and that later interactions may have been colored by these early exchanges. Following his time in Oxford, Featley’s polemical abilities continued to develop during his tenure as an embassy chaplain to the English ambassador in Paris, Sir Thomas Edmonds. Hugh Adlington published a detailed account of Featley’s activities as an embassy chaplain, making use of the Edmonds papers in the British Library. In this work, Adlington argues that Featley’s role as Edmonds’s chaplain was not merely pastoral. Rather, his polemical abilities and understanding of the political and diplomatic terrain made him, and other embassy chaplains like him, strategic assets within foreign embassies.26 In what follows, I build upon Adlington’s insights to delineate the ways in which Featley’s polemical and pastoral activities before, during, and after his years in Paris were interconnected.27

22 Featley donated a copy of his Clavis Mystica: a key opening divers difficult and mysterious texts of Holy Scripture (London, 1636) to the college library. CCC, MS D/​2/​1. 23 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.16r. 24 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.16r. Jackson was eventually elected president in 1631. A. J. Hegarty, “Thomas Jackson (bap.1598–​1640),” ODNB. 25 The manuscripts of the House of Lords, addenda 1514–​1714, vol. 9 (new series), ed. M. F. Bond (London, 1962), p.440. Also see Thomas Jackson, Treatise of the Divine Essence and Attributes (London, 1629), sig.*3r; Tyacke, “Religious Controversy during the Seventeenth Century,” p.269; D. E. Kennedy, “King James I’s College of Controversial Divinity at Chelsea,” in D. E. Kennedy, ed., Grounds of Controversy: Three Studies of Late 16th and Early 17th Century English Polemics (Melbourne, 1989), p.115. 26 Adlington, “Chaplains,” pp.83–​102. For the Edmonds papers, see BL, Stowe MS 171–​174. On the role of embassy chaplains, see William Gibson, A Social History of the Domestic Chaplain, 1530–​ 1840 (London, 1997), pp.57–​59; Mark Netzloff, “The Ambassador’s Household: Sir Henry Wotton, Domesticity, and Diplomatic Writing,” in R. Adams and R. Cox, eds., Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture (Basingstoke, 2010), pp.155–​71. 27 Since the accounts of the Paris debates were not published until the 1630s, they will be explored in Chapter 3.

22  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England Featley secured the prestigious position of an ambassador’s chaplain in 1611 via the recommendation of his Oxford colleague John King, who served as the university’s vice chancellor, before becoming the bishop of London that same year.28 As an ambassador’s chaplain, Featley preached regularly before Edmonds in the embassy chapel—​at one point giving a scathing critique of the recent Catholic convert Benjamin Carrier, who, in Featley’s mind, had a “Laodicean temper in religion” and was ensnared in “wavering unsettledness, fearfull lukewarmnesse, and temporizing hypocrisie.”29 Moreover, between 1611 and 1613, Featley debated with the Catholic apologists D. Stevens, Richard Smith, and Christopher Bagshaw and had remarkable success. During the first debate a Scottish Catholic was converted to Protestantism, and in each of the two later debates (both initiated by wavering Protestant laypeople in need of credible replies to Catholic assaults), Featley managed to “save the day” by assuaging the Protestants’ doubts.30 Although these debates are the earliest printed evidence of Featley’s anti-​ Catholic activities, an analysis of his Oxford notebook reveals that Featley’s anti-​ Catholic polemicism began during his student days and developed throughout his career. Featley engaged in a substantial amount of polemical writing during his student years and seems to have acquired an interest in anti-​Catholic polemic from an early age. For example, in 1601, shortly after his graduation from Oxford with a BA, he compiled handwritten notes on William Whitaker’s work Ad Rationes decem Edmundi Campiani Iesuitae (1581).31 This was Whitaker’s reply to the Jesuit Edmund Campion’s work Rationes decem quibus fretus, certamen aduersarijs obtulit in causa fidei—​a list of ten reasons why appealing to Scripture

28 Daniel Featley, Sacra nemesis (Oxford, 1644), sig.K1v. Also see Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols.35r–​v, 40r–​v, 51v. 29 Featley, Clavis mystica, sigs.Xxx2v, Xxx3r. Also see Benjamin Carier, A Treatise written by M. Doctour Carier (Saint-​Omer, 1614); George Hakewill, An answere to a treatise by Dr. Carier (London, 1616); Michael Questier, “Crypto-​Catholicism, Anti-​Calvinism and Conversion at the Jacobean Court: The Enigma of Benjamin Carier,” JEH 47 (1996), pp.45–​64; Michael Questier, Conversion, Politics and Religion in England, 1580–​1625 (Cambridge, 1996), pp.36, 42, 47–​49, 52, 95; Newsletters from the Archpresbyterate for George Birkhead, ed. Michael Questier (Cambridge, 1998), p.28. 30 For Featley’s first conference, see Daniel Featley, Transubstantiation Exploded (London, 1638), sigs.B8v–​B11v; for his second, with “D. Stevens” and subsequently Christopher Bagshaw, see Featley, Transubstantiation Exploded, sigs.L7r–​N5v; for his final debate, against Richard Smith, see Daniel Featley, The Summe and Substance . . . of a Disputation Between M. Dan. Featley, Opponent, and D. Smith, appended to Daniel Featley, The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome (London, 1630), sigs.Rr3r–​Vv3v; Featley, Transubstantiation Exploded; Myrth Waferer, An Apologie for Daniel Featley (London, 1634), especially sig.O2r–​v. For Catholic replies, see Edmund Lechmere, The Conference Mentioned by Doctour Featly in the End of His Sacrilege (Doway, 1632), especially sig.A2r–​v ; John Lechmere, The Relection of a Conference Touching the Reall Presence (Doway, 1635), especially sig. Oo3r–​v. 31 Bodl., Rawl. MS C.753, fols.3r–​8r. Also see Bodl., Rawl. MS C.753, fol.1r. For books Featley was reading in 1604–​5, see Bodl., Rawl. MS C.753, fols.145v–​151v.

The Formation of a Calvinist Conformist  23 alone was not sufficient in matters of controversy.32 In his study of this work, Featley acknowledged Whitaker’s reputation as a formidable anti-​Catholic polemicist and evidenced his desire to learn from someone of Whitaker’s pedigree.33 A comparison of Featley’s early unpublished anti-​Catholic treatises with his anti-​Catholic works published in subsequent decades reveals that throughout his career Featley wrote on various subjects related to the Catholic/​Protestant dispute: that the Protestant Church existed before Luther, that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation, that there is no true sacrifice of Christ in the mass, that good works do not merit eternal life, and that the Gunpowder Plot was immoral.34 The overlap between Featley’s manuscripts and his first published polemical works reveals that even if concerns about Catholicism waxed and waned for others, Featley was exercised about a particular set of polemical concerns throughout his career, from beginning to end.

Early Pursuit of Preferment Featley also pursued preferment by establishing personal relationships and bidding for ecclesiastical patronage through print publications. Featley’s early polemical activities were partly motivated by a desire to advance his career, and his early preferment was a result of his successful defense of the English Church. For instance, it was no coincidence that John King recommended Featley to be appointed as Edmonds’s embassy chaplain. King was a significant Reformed figure in the Jacobean church, and, like the puritan Laurence Chaderton at Cambridge, he was an ideal person to advance promising young Reformed divines to prestigious posts.35 Featley’s early polemical activity was instrumental in his later appointment as one of the fellows of Chelsea College. While Chapter 5 will explore Featley’s influence on Chelsea College in more detail, it can be noted here that in his early days Featley corresponded with several senior figures comprising the original group of fellows at Chelsea College, including Thomas Morton, Robert

32 For the controversy between Whitaker and Campion, see William Whitaker, Ad Rationes decem Edmundi Campiani (London, 1581); William Whitaker, An answere to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian (London, 1606); Edmund Campion, Rationes decem quibus fretusi (Henley-​on-​ Thames, 1581); Edmund Campion, Campian Englished ([Roven?], 1632); Edmund Campion, A Jesuit Challenge: Edmund Campion’s Debates at the Tower of London in 1581, ed. James Holleran (New York, 1999), pp.45–​46; Peter Milward, Religious Controversies of the Jacobean Age: A Survey of Printed Sources (London, 1978), pp.56–​59. 33 On Whitaker’s anti-​Catholicism, see Lake, Moderate Puritans, pp.93–​115. 34 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols.13r–​14v, 70r–​77v, 102r–​110v, 168v, 169v–​173v, 185v–​191r, 224v–​ 228r. For some of Featley’s other early anti-​Catholic writings, see Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols.111r–​ 113v, 139v–​154v, and 228v–​229v; and Bodl., Rawl. MS C.753, fols.30r–​30v and 32v–​34v. Since these themes are similar to those in his later anti-​Catholic writings, they will be covered in Chapter 3. 35 Lake, Moderate Puritans, p.38.

24  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England Abbot, and John Spencer. As in the case of his appointment with Edmonds, it is possible that these men advanced Featley’s involvement in this esteemed group of anti-​Catholic polemicists. Featley also pursued preferment through connecting himself with prominent ministers, particularly as the youngest translator of the Authorized Version. Nearly all translator lists for the Authorized Version, including Richard Bancroft’s in the British Library, contain a minister from Oxford named “Mr. Fairclough.”36 Fairclough was Featley’s original last name, and it was used at his ordination as a minister and a deacon.37 Because of this confusion over Featley’s original last name, there has been some debate about whether Featley was a translator of the Authorized Version. For example, some historians have doubted his involvement, arguing that he was too young—​being only twenty-​six years old, much younger than the other translators—​and observing that John Featley did not mention his involvement.38 Nevertheless, when one considers Featley’s personal connections (chiefly as Rainolds’s protégé) and other evidence, it seems that he was indeed a translator.39 Featley’s funeral orator William Loe mentioned that Featley was trained at Oxford under Rainolds.40 As his mentor, Featley highly esteemed Rainolds, calling him the “Phoenix of our age.”41 Rainolds’s emphasis on logic, method, and disputation clearly had an influence on Featley.42 Rainolds appears to have secured Featley’s place as a translator for the new version. Featley was also in close contact with other translators, including John Spencer. As a translator, Featley, along with Rainolds, was part of the First Oxford Company, which translated the

36 BL, Harleian MS 750, fol.1r. He is listed as “Fareclaw” in BL, Add. MS 4254, fol.146r. Also see LPL, MS 98; David Daniell, The Bible in English (New Haven, 2003), pp.427–​60, 487–​98. 37 Featley, Succinct History, sigs.G11v–​H1r; Alexander McClure, Translators Revived (New York, 1853), p.145; Featley, Succinct History, sig.G11v. 38 McClure, Translators, p.145. For other explanations, see William Poole, “Early Hebraism and the King James Translators (1586–​1617): The View from New College,” in Mordechai Feingold, ed., Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord: Scholarship and the Making of the King James Version of the Bible (Leiden, 2018), pp.66–​67; Geoffrey Day, John Harmar, translator (Winchester, 2015), pp.142–​ 43; Gordon Campbell, Bible: The Story of the King James Version, 1611–​2011 (Oxford, 2011), p.285; David Norton, The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today (Cambridge, 2011), pp.57–​58. For recent scholarship on the Authorized Version, see Kenneth Finchham, “King James Bible: Crown Church People,” JEH 71 (2020), pp.77–​97. 39 Mordechai Feingold, “Birth and Early Reception of a Masterpiece: Some Loose Ends and Common Misconceptions,” in Mordechai Feingold, ed., Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord: Scholarship and the Making of the King James Version of the Bible (Leiden, 2018), p.7. Also see Thomas Roebuck, “Miles Smith (1552/​53–​1624) and the Uses of Oriental Learning,” in Mordechai Feingold, ed., Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord: Scholarship and the Making of the King James Version of the Bible (Leiden, 2018), p.332. 40 Loe, Sermon, sig.E3v–​E4r. 41 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.53r. 42 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.114r–​v ; Bodl., Rawl. MS C.753, passim. For Rainolds’s anti-​Catholic polemicism, see Mordechai Feingold, “The Reluctant Martyr: John Hart’s English Mission,” Journal of Jesuit Studies 6 (2019), pp.627–​50.

The Formation of a Calvinist Conformist  25 major and minor prophets.43 Mordechai Feingold relates that these translators would gather three times per week at Rainolds’s room in Corpus Christi, even meeting there up until the last week of Rainolds’s life.44 Featley’s description of the translation process likewise suggests that he was personally involved. He related that “the time they [the translators] spent in it was much, and their care & diligence extraordinary.” Rainolds, in particular, pursued his “work with the intention of spirit and vigilance, that hee thereby much impaired his strength.”45 Another window into Featley’s involvement in the translation project is obtained through one of Featley’s letters to Miles Smith, the bishop of Gloucester and member of the revision committee for the entire Bible.46 Featley relates that he had gone through your Lordships translated copy according to DA and HAs47 directions observing that in such orthographical criticismes proper to DR [Dr. Rainolds] as they thought fit interlining those sentences that were to be written in a diverse letter and examining all the differences of marginal quotations. In the whole I find no deficiency save of 10 or 12 lines untranslated which I have supplyed and dedicated to Dr. Arry [i.e., Henry Airay] as I understood it was your Lordships pleasure.48

Several observations arise from Featley’s comment. First, Featley’s reference to the “directions” for translation confirms the common scholarly assumption that the translators followed prescribed “rules for translation.”49 Second, Featley’s reference to Rainolds indicates that the latter had considerable influence over the translation of the Old Testament prophetical books. Finally, Featley’s communication of his decision to the wider network of translators indicates that the translators conceived of their own individual translations as subject to the approbation of the other translators as a group. The translators for this subcommittee also appear to have completed most of the translation work before Rainolds died.50 During Rainolds’s final days, Featley 43 CCC, MS 303, fol.123r; John Milton, The Divorce Tracts of John Milton, ed. Sarah van den Berg and W. Scott Howard (Pittsburgh, 2010), p.449; Mordechai Feingold, “John Rainolds [Reynolds] (1549–​1607),” ODNB. 44 Feingold, “John Rainolds,” ODNB. Also see Mordechai Feingold, “John Rainolds: Critic and Translator,” in Mordechai Feingold, ed., Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord: Scholarship and the Making of the King James Version of the Bible (Leiden, 2018), pp.105–​59. 45 Clement Cotton, A Complete Concordance (London, 1631), sig.A5v. 46 Campbell, Bible, p.52. 47 The identity of these two divines is unknown. 48 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.52v. I owe the suggestion that Dr Arry is Henry Airay (1560–​1616), provost of Queen’s College Oxford, to Arnold Hunt. 49 BL, Harleian MS 750, fols.1v–​2r. 50 CCC, MS 303, fol.123r. I am grateful to Julian Reid, archivist at Corpus Christi, for supplying me with a transcription this manuscript and to Arnold Hunt for alerting me to this manuscript and providing another transcription.

26  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England visited him twice. His second visit was the Sunday before Rainolds died, where in “fynding him weake, [Featley] did reade . . . some prayers,” a commentary on “our spiritual union with Christ” from Hebrews (both by the moderate puritan divine Edward Deering), and various other portions of Scripture.51 Rainolds died the following Thursday, 21 May 1607. As evidence of the closeness of Featley’s relationship with Rainolds, despite his young age, Featley preached Rainolds’s funeral sermon.52 Although Featley’s desire to preach Rainolds’s funeral sermon was motivated by a genuine desire to honor his mentor, he also understood the personal advantages afforded by undertaking this task. This pattern of obtaining preferment through nurturing personal relationships continued beyond his years in Oxford. For example, following his time in Paris and a brief season in Oxford, “He was invited by Mr. Ezekiel Ascot (one of his Pupils) to accept the Rectory of Northill Cornwall.”53 In 1613, immediately following his three-​year term as Edmonds’s chaplain, Featley returned to Oxford for a short stint to take up his BD degree, but promised Edmonds that he would return to France to continue working in Edmonds’s service.54 Despite leaving, Featley sought to preserve his valuable connection with Edmonds, even while pursuing a more attractive option. He wrote to Edmonds on 10 August 1613 from London that, although he “desired nothing more to performe my promise to your Lordship by rendring my self to your honours service,” his circumstances had changed. He had been offered “a benefice in Mr [Ezekiel] Arscots gifte” at Northill in Cornwall. He claimed that he planned to stay briefly in Cornwall, find “a painfull preacher” to take his place, and then “returne into France to finish my course with your Lordship.”55 Nevertheless, Featley spent four years in Cornwall and left this benefice in 1617 to pursue an even more attractive opportunity in London, working as a chaplain to Archbishop Abbot. When promotions came that superseded his current commitments, as a skilled networker Featley managed to maintain good relations with those who had been influential in his previous advancement. Featley’s season in Cornwall appears to have one of the most lonely and difficult times of his career. Writing to George Abbot, Featley confessed he wanted “to be nere your grace and the university,” blaming himself for making this decision of “accepting this benefice rather than returning into France accounting to your Grace better advise” in order “to relieve my private wants.”56 Evidently, Featley 51 CCC, MS 303, fol.123v. 52 Thomas Fuller, Abel Redivivus: Or, the dead yet Speaking. The Lives and Deaths of the Moderne Divines (London, 1651), sigs.Qqqq2v–​Rrrr1v; Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols.129r–​139r; McClure, Translators, p.145. 53 Featley, Succinct History, sig.H4r. 54 Hunt, “Daniel Featley,” ODNB. 55 BL, Stowe MS 174, fol.152r–​v. Featley possibly owned this property until 1639. See CRO, BRA MS 1260/​1. 56 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.41r.

The Formation of a Calvinist Conformist  27 longed to be near other ministers with academic inclinations. He expressed his hope to Robert Abbot that God would “remove me out of this barren & thirsty soyle and settle me nere the wellsprings of knowledge, that I may quench my thirst of controversy-​learning.”57 For these reasons, Featley again actively sought a more influential position back in London (ideally serving George Abbot), writing nearly a dozen letters to a number of divines, including Thomas Morton, Robert Abbot, and George Abbot. For example, Featley asked Robert Abbot “to put his Grace in minde of me” and sought employment with Robert Abbot to escape his current circumstances, asking “if your Lord’s affection be the same [as] it seemed to me at Oxford I should account my present liberty happily exchanged into your Lord’s service.”58 Moreover, when George Abbot’s former chaplain, Richard Mocket, retired from his post, Featley asked Thomas Morton to inquire about the position on his behalf.59 Featley’s extensive correspondence with George Abbot and pursuit of employment paid off, for Featley began serving as the archbishop’s chaplain in the Michaelmas term of 1617.60 Evidently, Featley was not content with an ordinary ministerial position, but desired a position of influence in the English Church. As his nephew summarized, “His great renown suffered not his Candle to continue under a bushel; for George Abbot . . . perswaded him to be his Domestick Chaplain, and to leave Northill to accept of Lambeth Rectory, although the Revenues thereof exceeded not the other.”61 Of course, the comments of Featley’s nephew are a positive gloss on Featley’s transparent ambitions and therefore should be read with some caution. Nevertheless, although a comfortable living was important to Featley, given the choice, he much preferred influence and prestige over a lavish lifestyle.

Positioning within the Ecclesiastical Mainstream Featley’s establishment of influential connections was linked to his desire to position himself securely within the ecclesiastical mainstream. This is apparent in Featley’s relationship with John Rainolds, and especially as the orator at Rainolds’s funeral. By positioning himself first as Rainolds’s closest protégé at Corpus Christi and then as the preacher of Rainolds’s funeral sermon, Featley effectively signaled himself to be Rainolds’s successor. Featley’s positioning of himself is likewise made obvious in that nearly all the early letters analyzed in this

57 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.41v. 58 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols.40r, 41v. 59 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.50r. 60 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols.44v–​45r and 50v–​51r. For Featley’s other correspondences with Abbot and his secretary Mr. Baker, see Bodl., Rawl. MS, fol.39v, 41r, 42r, 44r–​v, and 49v. 61 Featley, Succinct History, sig.H4r.

28  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England chapter were written to the most prominent English Calvinist conformist divines of his day: Thomas Morton, Thomas Bilson, John King, John Prideaux, George Abbot, Robert Abbot, Henry Parry, and John Spencer. Many of these men were also fellows of Chelsea College and, like Featley, were some of the staunchest anti-​ Catholic polemicists in England.62 As the youngest translator of the Authorized Version, Featley also positioned himself as a competent translator of God’s word. A major theme in Featley’s life was a desire to establish connections with influential divines. Thus, his early attempts to integrate himself into this network appear to have been a deliberate attempt to align himself with those champions of anti-​Catholicism, Reformed theology, and conformity—​following chiefly in the footsteps of his mentor, John Rainolds. As a young divine, Featley deliberately located himself as a member of the Calvinist conformist camp to secure an easier path to preferment. Featley also positioned himself theologically through his printed publications. For example, Featley’s earliest printed work was a biographical relation of the Calvinist conformist John Jewel. Jessica Martin has linked Featley’s preferment in Paris with the publication of this book, focusing on the literary aspects, intended audience, and overall aims of the work.63 Probing the motivations underpinning Featley’s publication and contextualizing these in relation to his overall pursuit of preferment in his early years offer further insights regarding his work.64 Featley’s great esteem for Jewel shines throughout his work. Featley wrote, “If rare and admirable qualities of our Ancestors do deserve a thankfull acknowledgement of posteritie then more deservedlie ought the singular naturall endowments and supernatural graces of this reverend Prelate live and flourish in perpetuall memory.” Indeed, although the English Church “hath brought forth some famous Martyrs, many most worthie Doctours and Pastours,” “yet such a Iewel in all respects, such nature with such grace, so heavenlie learning in so heavenlie a life, such eminent gifts in such eminent place . . . have not been frequentlie found in these later times.”65 Featley acknowledged that he wrote the work to bolster Jewel’s reputation and publically defend him. In a letter presenting his work to Thomas Morton (who commissioned the work), Featley said he wrote the work “to shew that though I reverence in hart our famous prelate,” he 62 T. Falkner, An Historical and Descriptive Account of the Royal Hospital, and Royal Military Asylum, at Chelsea (London, 1805), p.7. Also seeThomas Fuller, The Church History of Britain; From the Birth of Jesus Christ to the Year 1648 (London, 1656), sig.Gggg2v; Kennedy, “King James,” pp.103–​ 4, 113. 63 Jessica Martin, Walton’s Lives: Conformist Commemorations and the Rise of Biography (Oxford, 2001), pp.149–​52, 167, 194–​98. 64 Featley’s biography was an abridgment of Laurence Humphrey’s Latin biography, published in 1573. Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.209v (also see fols.194–​208v); Daniel Featley, The Life of . . . Iohn Iewel, in The Works of . . . Iohn Iewel (London, 1609), sigs.¶¶r–​¶¶6v; Laurence Humphrey, Ioannis Iuelli Angli, Episcopi Sarisburiensis vita & mors (London, 1573). 65 Featley, Iohn Iewel, sig.¶¶r.

The Formation of a Calvinist Conformist  29 did so in spite of “the hate I have incurred for publik defending him against some who sought with their moyst and impure breath to stayne that sylver vessel of gods temple.” Nevertheless, although he hailed Jewel as a role model, as Featley made clear in his letter to Morton, “I am not of all his opinions.”66 Featley viewed Morton as a kind of literary agent, saying, “If you can find in your hart to put it so weak and feeble as it is to the torture of the presse I can say no more of it then it deserves.”67 Just as Morton helped facilitate the publication of this work, Chapter 2 will explore how Featley likewise acted as a literary agent or licenser for numerous divines in his career. Moreover, by alluding to Psalm 45:14 he express his hope that his work on Jewel would serve the English Church, saying, “I shall accounte my self thrise happy if the kings daughter who is to be brought in to the king in raiment of needlework may make any use of this drawne work.”68 The relation was counted as influential, as Thomas Fuller later incorporated it in his Abel Redivivus (1651).69 During Featley’s early years he also wrote a Latin biography of his mentor, John Rainolds, which he delivered at Rainolds’s funeral. This biography was later translated into English and, like his biography on Jewel, was published in Fuller’s Abel Redivivus. Featley’s biography of Rainolds portrays him as part of a golden lineage of godly divines. Featley recalled how Rainolds was “bred up in the same Colledge of Corpus Christi” as John Jewel and Richard Hooker, each of whom Featley claimed could not “be parrallelled.”70 This accords with Featley’s statement in his biography of Jewel, where commenting on Jewel’s pedigree, he noted that Jewel was “borne at Buden, in the Parish of Berinber . . . a fertile soile of many good wits, and two most eminent and yet fresh in our memorie, to wit, Doctour Rainolds, and Master Hooker.”71 Featley’s esteem for Rainolds’s refutation of Catholicism is apparent. In his biography of Rainolds, Featley related that, after his conversion from Catholicism, Rainolds prevailed over the Catholic polemicist John Hart, “who tooke the heart of boldnesse to challenge the learnednest of both Universities to try the Doctrine of our Church, by the touchstone of Scripture and Faith.”72 Featley portrayed Rainolds as an anti-​Catholic champion, who after defeating Hart, was asked by Queen Elizabeth “to read an extraordinary Divinity Lecture in Oxford; in which he grappled with a more renowned Champion of the Roman Church”—​namely 66 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.209r. 67 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.209v. 68 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.209v. 69 Fuller, Abel Redivivus, sigs.Ppp3r–​Rrr1v (for Featley’s authorship, see sig.A3v). Also see Allan Pritchard, English Biography in the Seventeenth Century (Toronto, 2005), pp.145–​69. I owe this suggestion to Arnold Hunt. 70 Fuller, Abel Redivivus, sig.Oooo3r. 71 Featley, Iohn Iewel, sig.¶¶r. 72 Fuller, Abel Redivivus, sig.Pppp1r.

30  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England Robert Bellarmine.73 As Featley recalled, “Never were any lectures in our memory so frequented as these in that university nor any in Cambridge, save those of Dr. Whitaker, the great light of the other University as Reynolds was of this; on these golden tapers were the eyes of all that loved the truth fixed.”74 In short, Featley heralded Rainolds as a role model and sought to pattern his own anti-​Catholic career after his mentor. Featley’s portrayal of these diverse figures (Rainolds, Jewel, and Hooker) as embodying a similar churchmanship highlights the motivations that underpinned his account. For indeed there were significant ecclesiological differences between these figures. For example, Peter Lake has argued that Richard Hooker was presented by post-​Restoration Anglicans as the “founder of Anglicanism.”75 Jewel was a soteriologically Reformed, but also a staunch defender of English conformity. Finally, Rainolds, was soteriologically Reformed, but was a “moderate puritan” who at times attempted to evade conformity. Featley appears, however, to have glossed over Rainolds’s nonconformist tendencies since these were at odds with Featley’s more robust defense of conformity. For example, in his summary of Rainolds’s participation at the Hampton Court Conference, he indicated that Rainolds made a “profession and promise of all conformity.”76 Yet Mordechai Feingold has shown that when Richard Bancroft and James required divines to subscribe the 1604 canons, Rainolds successfully evaded subscription, “writing numerous letters to clarify his religious views in the hope that he would thereby privately satisfy the king and Bancroft in his conformity without the need to endure public subscription.”77 As subsequent chapters will demonstrate, in contrast to Rainolds, Featley adopted a stauncher conformist position, one that resembled John Whitgift’s conformist ideals against those who would separate from the Church of England. Nevertheless, this work will also flesh out the complexity of Featley’s theological position, particularly how he defended conformity while simultaneously disregarding and evading anti-​Calvinist Church authority. Thus, it is significant that although Rainolds and Featley differed according to the principle of

73 Fuller, Abel Redivivus, sig.Pppp1v. 74 Fuller, Abel Redivivus, sig.Pppp2r. 75 Lake, Anglicans and Puritans, pp.228–​29. 76 Fuller, Abel Redivivus, sig.Pppp4r. For the Hampton Court Conference and Rainolds’s contribution to it, see William Barlow, The summe and substance of the conference, which, it pleased his excellent majestie to have with the lords, bishops, and other of his clergie . . . .at Hampton Court. Ianuary 14, 1603 (London, 1604), sigs.G3r–​G4r; Henry Jacob, A Christian and Modest Offer of a Most Indifferent Conference (London, 1606); Patrick Collinson, “The Jacobean Religious Settlement: The Hampton Court Conference,” in Howard Tomlinson, ed., Before the English Civil War (Basingstoke, 1983), pp.27–​51; Hunt, “Laurence Chaderton and the Hampton Court Conference,” pp.207–​28; Frederick Shriver, “Hampton Court Revisited; James I and the Puritans,” JEH 33 (1982), pp.48–​71; C. M. Dent, Protestant Reformers in Elizabethan Oxford (Oxford, 1983). 77 Feingold, “John Rainolds,” ODNB.

The Formation of a Calvinist Conformist  31 conformity, in practice both Rainolds and Featley engaged in evasion strategies throughout their careers. Finally, in his biographies of Rainolds and Jewel (as related in Fuller’s Abel Redivivus), Featley portrayed both these divines as stalwarts who contended for the Reformed faith against Catholicism.78 Of course, this accords with Featley’s own aspirations to defend the English Reformed faith against the encroachments of Rome and indicates that Featley was to some degree fashioning these figures in his own image. In short, Featley’s churchmanship was in large measure an amalgamation of that of his biographical subjects. Through his biography of Jewel and delivery of Rainolds’s funeral oration, Featley aligned himself with those well-​known divines with whom he confessionally identified. His biographies thus give expression to where he viewed himself within the spectrum of ecclesiastical priorities and possibilities. Furthermore, the writing of his biography of Jewel was both sensible and advantageous. Since his biography was commissioned by another sympathizer with Jewel, Featley firmly align himself in print as a worthy successor of preserving Calvinist conformity in England. Featley’s biographical accounts tell us as much about Featley’s own ecclesiastical priorities and aims as they do about the figures themselves. Similarly, the final chapter of this work will explore the import of John Featley’s posthumous biographical account of his uncle that retrospectively reconstructed the events of Daniel Featley’s life in using post-​Restoration categories. It can be argued further that, in like fashion, Thomas Fuller, Izaak Walton, and others drew on Featley’s biographies to advance their own agendas. Ultimately, Featley understood the impact that biography could have on one’s legacy. When George Paule sought Featley’s advice on whether to write a biography of Richard Bancroft following his death, Featley encouraged Paule not to do so since some believed that Bancroft had Catholic inclinations, citing rumors that he entertained “romish priests in his house.” Featley instructed: “Pictures must be seen at a convenient distance but nerer lives are best described by them that are nere unto them as you were to those prelates whose virtues and graces you commend to the world.” He continued, “I persuade my self that it will come to passe that my Lord Bancroft . . . shall be better thought of by posterity then by those in the age wherein he lived.”79 In essence, Featley argued that it would be better for Bancroft’s legacy if his biography was composed by someone who knew him more intimately. This fits well with Featley’s perception of himself as biographer; as one who was intimately connected with Rainolds, he clearly regarded himself as ideally positioned to be his biographer.



78 Fuller, Abel Redivivus, sigs.Yyyy2v, Zzzz1r. 79

Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.19v.

32  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England

Featley and French Reformed Protestantism Featley’s positioned himself internationally through the relational connections he made during his time in Paris. In particular, Featley forged a relationship with the French Huguenot minister Pierre du Moulin, in the context of his role as Edmonds’s chaplain, which continued well beyond the early 1610s.80 An analysis of this relationship within the context of du Moulin’s dispute with the German-​French Protestant Daniel Tilenus (and James’s mediation of that conflict) provides an opportunity to locate Featley as a theologian within the wider world of post-​Reformation international Protestantism and to draw out parallels between Featley’s English and international activities in their theological, political, and ecclesiastical contexts. During Featley’s time living in a foreign country, he and du Moulin developed a close friendship. Featley wrote to du Moulin from his new pastoral post in Cornwall shortly following his departure from France that although he “lived as a man banished from my company yet I alwaies found home in your company.” Being back in England, he “endure[d]‌a kind of banish[men]t in being deprived of your sweete society.”81 du Moulin’s reciprocation of affection is reflected in Featley’s printing of a commendatory letter du Moulin wrote to John King (on Featley’s behalf), where he lamented that Featley’s leaving Paris was “grievous a thing” to him, as he felt “pluckt out of his [Featley’s] bosome.”82 James’s quelling of the dispute between du Moulin and Daniel Tilenus regarding the imputation of Christ’s active obedience in his humanity made a significant impression on Featley. In the context of similar debates thirty years later at the Westminster Assembly, Featley printed (in his Sacra Nemesis) James’s letter to the French Reformed Synod of Privas in 1612, where he encouraged them to resolve the dispute between du Moulin and Tilenus. According to James, it should “be altogether buried with those that depend upon it, and be left in the grave with the napkin and the linnen cloths wherein the body of Christ was wrapt” since it was a “altogether new” dispute “unheard of in former ages,” by “any Councell,” “the fathers,” or “the schools.”83 Moreover, it was these “infinite controversies which seem to tend to no other end, then to disturb the peace of the Church.”84 Indeed, debates between Protestants were divisive since “by too much wrangling . . . [divines would] seem to cut in two the living child, which the tender-​hearted mother would not endure; or divide the seamlesse coat of Christ, 80 For a biography of du Moulin by his son, also named Peter, see Pierre du Moulin, The Novelty of Popery (London, 1662), sigs.**3r-​*******2r. Also see Daniel Borvan, “Fighting for the Faith: Pierre du Moulin’s Polemical Quest” (Oxford University DPhil, 2019). 81 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.48v. 82 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.M2v. 83 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.G4r. 84 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.G3v.

The Formation of a Calvinist Conformist  33 which the cruell souldier would not suffer.”85 For this reason James worked closely with Thomas Edmonds, the Duke of Bouillon, writing dozens of letters, to keep the dispute private and bring it to a swift resolution.86 It is impossible to know whether Featley played any active role in bringing the du Moulin /​Tilenus debate to a peaceful end. However, Edmonds’s heavy involvement in mediating the disputes, Featley and du Moulin’s lifelong friendship, Featley’s later references to the dispute, and the strong parallels between how James quelled the du Moulin /​Tilenus dispute and how Featley subdued later intra-​Protestant disputes (as we will see, in his capacity as George Abbot’s chaplain in the 1620s) all indicate that Featley may have had some role in executing James’s vision of Protestant unity during his Paris chaplaincy. Brown Patterson has argued that James’s attempts to control doctrinal disputes through minimizing the differences that divided Protestants (and eventually Catholics) were part of his larger ecclesiastical and political goals of pursuing political peace in Europe and the reunion of Christendom.87 However, a comparison of Featley’s two chaplaincies (one domestic, one international) highlights how Featley’s mechanisms for achieving a Protestant consensus were learned in an international context and then further employed in the English Church. For example, Featley related that James instructed the divines to “above all” “keep [their dispute] from the presse, and adde not fuell to this fire by polemicall tractates.” Instead, they ought to keep a “faithfull silence” and “strive to preserve charitie” and “the unitie of the spirit in the bond of peace” for “the publique good of the Church.”88 As we will see in Chapter 2, these were the very same instructions that Featley and his fellow mediator Henry Mason gave to William Chibald and an unnamed puritan divine as they attempted to mediate that dispute in the 1620s. Since his method mirrored James’s approach of avoiding public polemics (particularly in print) between quarreling divines, it seems that Featley’s skill in wielding these mediatorial mechanisms was shaped, at least in part, during his chaplaincy in Paris.

85 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.G4r. 86 SP 14/​67, fols.128r, 131r, 135r; SP 14/​70, fols.70r–​74v, 81r; SP 78/​56, fols.235r–​45v, 303r; SP 78/​ 58, fols.75r–​77v, 270r–​v, 230r–​v ; SP 78/​59, fols.130r–​131r; SP 78/​60, fol.145r; SP 78/​61, fols.68r–​69r, 91r–​v ; BL, Stowe MS 173, fols.1r–​2r, 64r–​65r; BL, Stowe MS 174, fols.15r, 209r, 291r–​92r, 297r–​298r, 347r; LPL, MS 3472, fols.122r–​123v. Also see W. B. Patterson, King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge, 1997), pp.155–​95. 87 Patterson, King James; W. B. Patterson, “Pierre du Moulin’s Quest for Protestant Unity, 1613–​ 1618,” in R. N. Swanson, ed., Unity and Diversity in the Church (Oxford, 1996), pp.235–​50; also see Brian Armstrong, “The Changing Face of French Protestantism: The Influence of Pierre du Moulin,” in Robert Schnucker, ed., Calviniana (Kirksville, MO, 1988), pp.131–​49; Brian Armstrong, “Pierre du Moulin and James I: The Anglo-​French programme,” in M. Magdelaine et. al, eds., De l’humanisme aux lumières: Bayle et le protestantisme en l’honneur d’Elisabeth Labrousse (Paris, 1996), pp.17–​29. 88 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.G4r.

34  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England Additionally, during this time, Featley may have also received a similar education in James’s policies on print censorship and the practices that, as we will see, he would also readily employ in his capacities as Abbot’s domestic chaplain. For example, when the French Dominican Nicolas Coëffeteau wrote against James’s An Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance (1609), du Moulin wrote his own work, Defence of the Catholique Faith, defending James.89 In a letter to Edmonds, James asked the ambassador to relay to du Moulin that although he “receaved” a personal copy (from du Moulin) of his Defence, James “request[ed] him to reforme some places” in that “booke,” which “giveth a cleare contrary interpretacion to the text of Scripture, then that which we give in our booke.”90 The problem, of course, was that du Moulin’s work had already been published. Indeed, James said that if he had known there could be disagreement between him and du Moulin before the printing of the book, he would “have advised” him to “send us a written coppie thereof, that we might first have revised it” “before it had bene published.”91 Instead, James attached to this letter a list of requested revisions to twelve pages, including du Moulin’s use of Cyprian and Gregory the Great, which du Moulin presumably made.92 As we will see in Chapter 2, James’s prescription of editorial amendments to bring du Moulin’s work into conformity with the orthodox religious consensus was identical to Featley’s modus operandi in his role as a licenser and censor of printed works from 1617 to 1625. It reveals that many of the mediating mechanisms used to preserve James’s religious orthodox consensus—​quelling intra-​Protestant disputes and print censorship—​ were likely employed both internationally and domestically by Featley in both his chaplaincies. Featley’s early years as an ambassador’s chaplain may also have been a training ground for his later role censoring works and mediating similar intra-​Protestant disputes as an archbishop’s chaplain in England, and certainly shaped his understanding of how Protestants should resolve doctrinal disputes even to the end of his life.

Conclusion This chapter has traced the most important themes of Featley’s early life, exploring how he emerged as a budding polemicist, an ambitious young divine in pursuit of preferment, and a shrewd minister who attempted to position himself early within the ecclesiastical spectrum firmly within the Calvinist conformist 89 James I, An apologie for the Oath of allegiance (London, 1609); Pierre du Moulin, A Defence of the Catholicke Faith, trans. John Sanford (London, 1610); Patterson, King James, p.158. 90 SP 78/​58, fol.272r–​v. 91 SP 78/​58, fol.272r. 92 SP 78/​58, fol.274r.

The Formation of a Calvinist Conformist  35 camp. In exploring how his early polemical exchanges helped to advance Featley’s career, and also how these early conflicts were foundational for the later disputes in which he engaged, this chapter has attempted to unearth the origins of some of the most important theological convictions and features of Featley’s life that will be explored throughout this work. In short, Featley’s student years were foundational for his later career. During these early years, Featley’s polemical interests and personal relationships were kindled, and his position within the English Church was firmly established. Moreover, within the context of the friendships he built with French Reformed Protestants (most notably Pierre du Moulin), Featley’s ongoing relationship with international Reformed divines was cultivated and later sensibilities for resolving intra-​Protestant polemical disputes were formed. As in his later years, pastoral issues were at the heart of his polemical exchanges; these motivated Featley to attack his opponents. In short, Featley emerged as a divine with a deep desire to influence and protect the English Church through polemical writing. He understood that pursuit of this aim required a careful navigation of a shifting and complex ecclesiastical context. During this time, Featley established his lifelong practice of using the medium of print to bid for ecclesiastical patronage, to position himself within the church, and to give expression to his religious priorities.

2

Regulating the Reformed Consensus Chaplaincy, Licensing, and Censorship

Following his service in Cornwall, in 1617 Daniel Featley became one of George Abbot’s domestic chaplains. A letter from Featley to his Calvinist conformist colleague Thomas Morton reveals that when the warden of All Souls College, Oxford, Robert Hovenden, died, and Featley’s friend Richard Mocket left his service as Abbot’s chaplain to succeed Hovenden, Featley asked Morton to inquire about the position on his behalf. Although Featley said he was content in Cornwall, he wondered if his “experience beyond the sea,” his “particular correspondencies with the greatest clerks in those parts,” or his proficiency “in the controversies of religion” might be useful to Abbot. If so, he would “resigne [his] liberty” and serve as Abbot’s chaplain.1 The precise details of how Featley secured the post are not clear. William Loe said that Featley “was recommended by the University of Oxford” for the chaplaincy (potentially a reference to Featley’s Oxford tutor John Prideaux), though John Featley claimed that Abbot personally “sent for him” and “perswaded him to be his Domestick Chaplain.”2 Nevertheless, Featley’s comments in his letter reveal that he viewed his international experience and reputation as a polemicist as qualities that could procure advancement. Featley advanced himself throughout his career, and since an archbishop’s chaplaincy was natural preparation for potential bishops, it is not surprising that he pursued the role.3 This position involved him serving as an ecclesiastical licenser, in which he authorized manuscripts for publication throughout his tenure. Several scholars have fruitfully explored the themes of licensing and censorship. Two historiographical camps challenged the older view that the government used licensing to silence radical voices through a “system of control” of church and state.4 Peter Lake, Suellen Towers, and Nicholas Tyacke argued that 1 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.50r. 2 Loe, Sermon, sig.E4v; Featley, Succinct History, sigs.H4v–​H5r. 3 Kenneth Fincham, “The Roles and Influence of Household Chaplains, c.1600–​c.1660,” in Hugh Adlington, Tom Lockwood, and Gillian Wright, eds., Chaplains in Early Modern England: Patronage, Literature, and Religion (Manchester, 2013), p.27. 4 Christopher Hill, “Censorship and English Literature,” in Christopher Hill, Collected Essays of Christopher Hill, vol. 1, Writing and Revolution in 17th Century England (Amherst, 1985), pp.32–​ 33; Frederick Siebert, Freedom of the Press in England, 1476–​1776 (Chicago, 1952). For details on this view, see Mary Morrissey, “Episcopal Chaplains and Control of the Media, 1586–​1642,” in Hugh Calvinist Conformity in Post-​Reformation England. Greg A. Salazar, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2022. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197536902.003.0003

Regulating the Reformed Consensus  37 Laudian licensers censored their Reformed opponents’ works.5 By contrast, Sheila Lambert, Blair Worden, Kevin Sharpe, and Ian Green challenged this notion, arguing that the government possessed little ability or desire to stipulate what was printed.6 Interestingly, the same historians who were polarized over whether anti-​Calvinism challenged the status quo appear to be divided on the issues of censorship in England. Views of censorship appear to be closely related to competing perceptions of anti-​Calvinists or Reformed divines as revolutionaries. In the most sophisticated treatment of early Stuart censorship, Anthony Milton has demonstrated that both Reformed divines and anti-​Calvinists used censorship as a weapon against their opponents as they battled to establish their own theological positions as the established orthodoxy of the English Church.7 Arnold Hunt analyzed the mechanisms that licensers used when censoring texts, using Featley as a test case.8 Milton and Hunt have analyzed Featley’s licensing activities in considerable detail, and this chapter is indebted to their interventions. Nevertheless, it will build on their work by focusing on Featley’s licensing activities, setting Featley’s licensing within the context of his wider career and examining the motivations that drove Featley’s censorship. It will argue for a reinterpretation of Featley as a benign censor, explore how pastoral sensitivities compelled him to hinder some works from being published, and analyze the parallels between Featley’s licensing and his broader ecclesiastical aims. It will show how he continued to strengthen his ties with international Reformed Protestants by using his position to facilitate the publication of international works, especially those of French Reformed divines, in England. Finally, this chapter will examine how Featley’s censorship—​particularly his attempts to veil Adlington, Tom Lockwood, and Gillian Wright, eds., Chaplains in Early Modern England: Patronage, Literature, and Religion (Manchester, 2013), p.76. 5 Lake, “Calvinism and the English Church,” p.34; S. Mutchow Towers, Control of Religious Printing in Early Stuart England (Woodbridge, 2003), pp.277–​81; Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, pp.101, 184. Also see Annabelle Patterson, Censorship and Interpretation: The Conditions of Writing and Reading in Early Modern England (Madison, WI, 1984). 6 Sheila Lambert, “State Control of the Press in Theory and Practice: The Role of the Stationers’ Company before 1640,” in Robin Myers and Michael Harries, eds., Censorship and the Control of Print in England and France, 1600–​1910 (Winchester, 1992), pp.1–​32; Sheila Lambert, “Richard Montagu, Arminianism and Censorship,” P&P 124 (1989), pp.36–​68; Blair Worden, “Literature and Political Censorship in Early Modern England,” in A. C. Duke, and C. A. Tamse, eds., Too Mighty to Be Free: Censorship in Britain and the Netherlands (Zutphen, 1987), pp.45–​62; White, Predestination, Policy, and Polemic, pp.287–​307; Sharpe, Personal Rule of Charles I, pp.644–​730; Ian Green, Christian’s ABC: Catechisms and Catechizing in England, c.1530–​1740 (Oxford, 1996). For an extremely helpful introduction and treatment of the primary sources related to censorship, see Cyndia Susan Clegg, Censorship and the Press, 1580–​1720, vol. 1, Background, 1557–​1579, 1580–​1639 (London, 2009). I am indebted to Anthony Milton’s overview of this historiography: Anthony Milton, “Licensing, Censorship and Religious Orthodoxy in Early Stuart England,” HJ 41 (1998), pp.625–​27, 650–​51. Also see Glenn Burgess, Absolute Monarchy and the Stuart Constitution (New Haven, 1996), p.7. 7 Milton, “Licensing,” pp.633, 650–​51. 8 Hunt, “Licensing,” pp.127–​28.

38  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England who was in control of the licensing system in the 1620s—​has clouded our own historiographical understandings of licensing and censorship, and will evaluate whether chaplains could exert significant influence in their roles.

Featley’s Chaplaincy and Authorization of Printed Works Licensing books for the press originated in the Elizabethan period. Attempting to control the regulation of books in England, a 1559 stipulation demanded that all printed works be licensed by an official authority.9 As need for a more centralized system grew, the 1586 Star Chamber Decree stipulated that the bishop of London and archbishop of Canterbury should oversee the licensing of works. Nevertheless, since neither of them could license all printed works while continuing their other duties, in 1588 Archbishop Whitgift appointed twelve London clergymen to the task. Eventually this task was entrusted to the bishop of London and the archbishop’s chaplains, who, theoretically, acted as agents of their overseers.10 But, as most chaplains did not confer with their overseers when authorizing books, they effectively became the “linch pin” of this rather “cumbersome system.”11 Chaplains decided whether to license a proposed manuscript by perusing the work and recommending changes. They then sent it to the wardens at Stationers’ Company, who ensured that all revisions were in place before approving the work and passing it along to the clerks. These clerks confirmed that the chaplains’ and wardens’ authorization signatures were made and added the work to the Stationers’ Register.12 A close examination of the original manuscript of the French work Panegyrique a tres grand et tres-​Galles (1624) by Gilbert Primrose—​the Scottish Minister of the Wallon Church in London, one of Prince Charles’s chaplains, and later Canon of Windsor—​that was submitted to be licensed confirms this practice, but also suggests that there may have been other parties involved in the licensing of work, beyond those recorded in the Stationers’ Register. For example, although neither Sir William Alexander, first Earl of Sterling, nor Sir Edward Conway, Secretary of State, is mentioned in the Stationers’ Register, they were involved in the approving of this work for publication, alongside Featley.13 At the end of the work Alexander wrote, “I have read over this book by Directione

9 Visitation Articles and Injunctions of the Period of the Reformation, 1559–​1575, ed. W. H. Frere (3 vols., London, 1910), III:24; Hunt, “Licensing,” p.128. 10 Hunt, “Licensing,” pp.128–​31. 11 Milton, “Licensing,” p.627. 12 Milton, “Licensing,” p.627. 13 A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers, 1554–​1640, ed. Edward Arber (5 vols., London, 1875–​94), IV:122.

Regulating the Reformed Consensus  39 from his Majestie and doe conceave that it is worthie to be published.”14 This is followed by a recommendation by Conway stating, The Iudgment of Sir William Alexander (to whome this booke hath bin referred) deserves to give it approbation. I have suddainely (at the request of the Author) looked over the heads, and doe finde nothing to give impediment to the publishing of it; And therefore doe humbly recommend it to my Lordes Grace of Canterbury’s examination and wisdome.15

Conway’s recommendation is followed by a final imprimatur from Featley, stating, “I allow this Panegyrick to be printed in French and translated also into English.”16 The work was printed in French, but an English translation was never published—​though this manuscript appears to have been in Charles I’s library and may have been a gift to the king from Primrose.17 Given that the work is recorded to have been owned by John Primrose (presumably following his father’s death in 1642), before being bequeathed in 1868 to Felix Slade, the authors may have been able to reacquire from licensers and printers the manuscripts that they submitted for publication. Moreover, Conway’s mention of Primrose’s asking him to look over the manuscript reveals that authors could garner the support of influential individuals outside the licensing system in order to aid the publishing of their works. This licensing system had other limitations. Additional material could be inserted after a chaplain’s perusal, and some works could be printed without a license.18 Another defect was the licenser’s own limitations—​namely, the difficulty of carefully reading the vast number of manuscripts produced while carrying out his other chaplaincy duties.19 Between 1618 and 1625, Featley licensed roughly one work per week for a total of 434 manuscripts. This calculation is based on combing through the Stationers’ Register, the standard source used to identify licensers of publications.20 He was an active licenser indeed; according to Cyndia Susan Clegg, in 1624 alone, Featley and Thomas Goad licensed 53 percent of all approved printed works.21 Although Featley was one of the more thorough 14 BL, Add. MS 27936, fol.64r. 15 BL, Add. MS 27936, fol.64v. 16 BL, Add. MS 27936, fol.64v. 17 Gilbert Primrose, Panegyrique a tres-​grand et tres-​puissant prince, Charles Prince de Galles (London, 1624). For the suggestion that the work was a gift from Primrose, see the cataloger’s notes on the inside cover of BL, Add. MS 27936. 18 Milton, “Licensing,” p.627. 19 Hunt, “Licensing,” p.131; Lambert, “Richard Montagu,” p.67; Milton, “Licensing,” p.627. 20 Transcript, III:613–​ IV:200; Cyndia Susan Clegg, Press Censorship in Jacobean England (Cambridge, 2001), p.64. Also see W. W. Greg, Licensers for the Press, &c. to 1640: A Bibliography Index Based Mainly on Arber’s Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers (Oxford, 1962), pp.34–​35. 21 Cyndia Susan Clegg, Press Censorship in Caroline England (Cambridge, 2008), p.66.

40  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England licensers—​as compared to Samuel Harsnet and the “careless” licenser Thomas Worrall—​he licensed some works with minimal corrections.22 As Abbot’s chaplain, Featley was one of his “trusted lieutenants,” acting with a significant measure of the archbishop’s authority.23 Featley served the archbishop’s agenda, which was to preserve the appearance of a unified Reformed Church against the encroaching Catholic enemy. Featley executed this by moderating intrapuritan disputes, publishing conversion tracts of recent Catholic converts, and publishing and engaging in anti-​ Catholic polemic. He also preached in a variety of settings, including the consecration ceremony of several bishops at Lambeth Palace.24 As a reward for his labors, Featley received several preferments, including a handsome living directly beside Abbot’s Lambeth Palace residence. He also received the rectory of All Hallows Broadstreet—​this he exchanged for the rectory at Acton due to “the thickness of the London air.”25 Featley was not Abbot’s only chaplain, however; according to Kenneth Fincham, from 1614 to 1623, George Abbot had sixty-​one domestic chaplains (though never more than eight at one time), many of whom were notable Reformed divines who received preferment throughout their careers, including Thomas Vicars, Sebastian Benefield, and Thomas Goad.26

The Aims and Limitations of Featley’s Licensing and Censorship Part of the difficulty of tracing Featley’s censorship is, as Arnold Hunt has commented, because “effective censorship is invisible.”27 As a licenser, Featley attempted to edit texts without drawing attention to his redacting activities. For example, the title page of the English translation of the anti-​Catholic treatise Three Conformities (1620)—​which sought to demonstrate the continuities between Catholicism and paganism, Judaism, and “Auncient Heresies”—​by the French divine Francis de Croy simply says, “seen, perused, and allowed.”28 By comparing two prepublication manuscript copies with the printed version, 22 Milton, “Licensing,” p.630. Cyndia Susan Clegg, Press Censorship in Elizabethan England (Cambridge, 1997), p.64; Clegg, Press Censorship in Caroline England, p.39. 23 Fincham, “The Roles and Influence of Household Chaplains,” p.27. Chapter 3 will argue that Featley may have been the true author of George Abbot, A Treatise of the Perpetuall Visibilitie and Succession of the Church in all Ages (London, 1624). 24 Featley, Clavis Mystica. 25 Featley, Succinct History, sigs.H5v. 26 Fincham, “The Roles and Influence of Household Chaplains,” p.12; Fincham, Prelate as Pastor, p.197. LPL, MS 1730, fol.8r–​v lists forty-​nine domestic chaplains. 27 Hunt, “Licensing,” p.127. 28 Francis de Croy, The three conformities, trans. William Hart (London, 1620). Featley licensed De Croy’s work: Transcript, III:663.

Regulating the Reformed Consensus  41 however, Featley’s amendments can be seen.29 Although Hunt mentions there were differences between the printed and manuscript versions and that Featley amended potential attacks on the established church, his wider focus on early Stuart censorship necessarily precluded him from providing an in-​depth analysis of the precise nature or extent of Featley’s amendments.30 Thus, a closer look is warranted. An examination of Featley’s censorship of de Croy’s Three Conformities (1620) reveals several things. First, although Hunt and Milton highlighted the “essentially benign” characteristics of Featley’s censorship, he was more aggressive than previously assumed, albeit limited by his own time constraints.31 For example, in a section where de Croy attacked vestments, Featley added a parenthetical note stating, “not that we thinke it unlawfull to use a comely white roabe in the celebration of Gods service: but on the contrary we hold the use thereof as fit and decent.”32 Featley inserted similar parenthetical notes in two other places in the vestments chapter, as well as notes in the chapters on benefices and tithes, organs, and priestly garments.33 Each of Featley’s parenthetical notes imposes a completely different meaning on the original text than that intended by the author.34 Moreover, he cut an entire four-​page section labeled “Of Archbishoperickes, Bishoprickes and Other Popish dignities.”35 Featley’s concern was that de Croy depicted ecclesiastical hierarchy as being “according to this paterne and modell . . . of the auncient Romanes” rather than Scripture.36 In this section de Croy linked Catholic polity—​and likewise the polity of the established church—​ with their Pagan “ancestors,” demonstrating how hierarchical ecclesial structure “is drawen out of the decrees and traditions of Pompilius, who “ordained under him severall orders and ranks of inferiors.”37 In this scheme, “The Pope [was the] Emperour of the Popedome,” “the four Patriaurches” were “the Senators and Patricians,” “the primates” were “kings, for as these ought to beare rule and comaund over three Duckes at least, in like manner also should the primates have rule over three Archbishopes.”38 While he sanitized other sections, Featley 29 The only notable difference between the two copies is that the Yale version has some extra prefatory material and the Cambridge copy is missing pp.221–​24 of the Yale copy. 30 Hunt, “Licensing,” p.132. Also see Milton, “Licensing,” p.629. 31 Hunt, “Licensing,” p.132; Milton, “Licensing,” p.629. I am grateful to Arnold Hunt for our subsequent conversations on this topic and clarification regarding his and Milton’s agreement with this point about Featley’s licensing. 32 De Croy, Three conformities, sig.C3v (compared with Beinecke, Osborn MS b280, pp.24–​25; CUL, Add. MS 30, fol.13r). 33 See appendix. 34 Hunt, “Licensing,” p.134. 35 Beinecke, Osborn MS b280, pp.20–​ 24; CUL, Add MS 30, fols.11r–​ 12v. Also see Hunt, “Licensing,” p.132. 36 Beinecke, Osborn MS b280, p.21; CUL, Add MS 30, fol.11r. 37 Beinecke, Osborn MS b280, pp.21; CUL, Add 30 MS, fols.11v–​12r. 38 Beinecke, Osborn MS b280, p.23; CUL, Add MS 30, fol.12r.

42  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England decided to cut this section out completely since he could not tolerate this lengthy assault on the established church. In short, Featley’s licensing was more than a rubber-​stamping exercise; he actively amended works, changing them so that they aligned with his own view of the established church. It is also notable where Featley’s corrections appear. The majority of his amendments were at the beginning of the work, with only one correction made in the latter two sections of the work. Although these chapters also posited views contrary to those of the established church, there is no evidence that Featley made any modification to de Croy’s attacks on processions, confirmation, and funerals. As the records of the Stationers’ Register indicate that Featley was licensing around one work a week (on top of his other chaplaincy duties), he simply did not have the time to read through and thoroughly edit the entire work. Consequently, although Hunt argued that Featley “was surprisingly respectful of . . . ‘authorial intention,’ ” and therefore allowed works to be published with minimal corrections, a more probable explanation is that he did not have the luxury of time to sanitize this work from all antiestablishment criticism.39 This interpretation accords with what we know about licensing since its inception in the Elizabethan period; given their other priorities, one issue the authorities faced was the limitations of time and energy in regulating print. Finally, the two prepublication manuscripts were virtually identical: written in an identical hand, on identical paper, and even in the same structure and formatting. This indicates that there may have been some awareness among readers of the licenser’s redaction activities and that some may have been so zealous to obtain uncensored versions of foreign anti-​Catholic polemic works that they were willing to invest significant time and energy to create and circulate copies of the unadulterated text. It is also worth noting that Featley’s licensing of two French works—​de Croy’s Three Conformities and Gilbert Primrose’s Panegyrique a tres grand et tres-​ Galles—​was part of his broader interest in licensing the works of international (particularly French) Reformed Protestants during his tenure as Abbot’s chaplain. Unsurprisingly, the Protestant whose works he supported and disseminated more than any other foreign writer were those of his friend Pierre du Moulin. Prior to taking his post as chaplain, Featley made a commitment to du Moulin to commend him to George Abbot. In particular, he “faithfully promise[ed] to take advantage of all occasions to wrap you in more bonds of love & kindness of My Lordship of Canterbury” “and speake honourably of you.”40 Featley’s personal endorsement of du Moulin may have been a contributing factor in his being invited 39 Hunt, “Licensing,” p.134. This is not to argue that Featley never displayed a respect for authorial intent. See, for example, Featley’s marginal notes in Nicholas Byfield, The Rule of Faith (London, 1626), sig.A4r. 40 Bodl., Rawl. MS 47, fol.49r.

Regulating the Reformed Consensus  43 by James to England in 1615 and receiving immediate preferment. Likewise, both before and during his chaplaincy he worked to see that du Moulin’s works got into print. For example, a few years prior to becoming Abbot’s chaplain, he wrote to du Moulin, “I assure you of my knowledge [that] no mans works more exercise the presse then yours.”41 Moreover, during his chaplaincy he licensed five different English translations of du Moulin works. These included a work on suffering, a book on logic, a series of four devotional treatises (entitled Coales from the altar), and two works—​entitled The Iesuites shifts, and evasions (1624) and The buckler of the faith (1620), a translation of his French work Bouclier de lay foy—​which defended the Reformed confession of faith of the French Reformed Church against the Jesuit priest Jean Arnoux.42 While it is not clear who translated the latter two works, since each of the former three works were translated by a different person, du Moulin had multiple divines promoting his works in England. Promotion cut both ways, as Featley sent du Moulin English works as well, including a treatise of his fellow chaplain, Henry Mason, “as an earnest of that most hartie and unfeigned affection” for him.43 Featley likely facilitated the printing of du Moulin’s two polemical works against the Jesuit Arnoux during the early 1620s as ways of showcasing anti-​ Catholic debates from international Reformed divines that mirrored his disputes with Catholics during his Parisian debates. In this way, he licensed du Moulin’s works to demonstrate that English anti-​Catholic polemic was aligned with the international anti-​Catholicism of Reformed churches.44 Featley also licensed two other works by Gilbert Primrose when he was a French minister, namely his The Christian mans teares (1625) and The righteous mans evils and the Lordes Deliverance (1625).45 Since, as we will see, authors sometimes had a personal connection with those who licensed their works, Featley probably used his licensing role as a way of strengthening and promoting the network of French Calvinists he met during his tenure as an embassy chaplain. Featley’s licensing of du Moulin’s anti-​Catholic works were part of his wider enterprise of ushering anti-​Catholic polemical works into print. Indeed, a significant feature of Featley’s tenure as Abbot’s chaplain was that he licensed a number of anti-​Catholic polemical works. These include the puritan Thomas Taylor’s five anti-​Catholic sermons on the Gunpowder Plot, entitled A Mappe of Rome 41 Bodl., Rawl. MS 47, fol.49r. 42 Pierre Du Moulin, A preparation to suffer for the Gospell of Iesus Christ, trans. Abraham Darcie (London, 1623); Pierre Du Moulin, The elements of logick, trans. Nathanael De-​lawne (London, 1624); Pierre Du Moulin, Coales from the altar; or Foure religious treatises to kindle deuotion in this colde age, trans. Nicholas Metcalfe (London, 1623); Pierre Du Moulin, The Iesuites shifts (London, 1624); The buckler of the faith (London, 1620); Arber, ed., Transcript, III:651, IV:84, 102, 105, 125. 43 Bodl., Rawl. MS 47, fol.49r. 44 Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.448–​528. 45 Gilbert Primrose, The Christian mans teares (London, 1625); Gilbert Primrose, The righteous mans evils and the Lordes Deliverance (London, 1625); Arber, ed., Transcript, IV:122, 127.

44  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England (1619), and Thomas Taylor’s The Kings Bath (1620), “a devotional work” on “the baptism of Christ” that also included “condemnations of popery.”46 Aside from a brief period in the mid-​1620s, when Featley was hindered from licensing anti-​ Catholic works by royal policy on account of the Spanish Match, Featley’s top priority as a licenser was the numerous anti-​Catholic works he approved. The publication trends surrounding the Spanish Match are an example of how the rubric for what constituted subversion was far from fixed and could fluctuate with the political circumstances of the day.47 Featley capitalized on the transition by sending anti-​Catholic works to the press, thereby contributing to the drastic spike of anti-​Catholic literature in 1624. For example, in 1624 he licensed several anti-​Catholic works against the Jesuit polemicist John Fisher, including Thomas Bedford’s Luthers Predecessors, Francis White’s A Replie to Jesuit Fishers Answere, Anthony Wotton’s Runne from Rome, and Thomas Gataker’s Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation. He also licensed George Carleton’s A thankfull remembrance of Gods mercy, which incited memories of the Gunpowder Plot.48 As we will see in Chapter 3, Featley was motivated by the belief that he had a pastoral duty to protect the English Church and that anti-​Catholic works helped shield the Church of England from harmful theology that might lead people astray. Previous historiography also has tended to assume that licensors would censor works to make them conform to a recognized standard of orthodoxy. Featley’s priorities, however, were multidimensional and complex. Featley had to balance his threefold commitment of advocating for the publication of anti-​ Catholic works, censoring antiestablishment criticism, and fulfilling his chaplaincy. Featley’s apparent solution was to censor the beginning of a work (cutting out any major problematic sections) and then, because of his time constraints, to allow some antiestablishment criticism to pass into print because the work ultimately focused on the dangers of popery. This same pattern is noticeable in the example of Featley’s approval of Edward Elton’s seditious book Gods Holy Minde (1624)—​a puritan practical divinity work expounding moral principles from the Ten Commandments.49 Featley examined only the first fifty-​two pages of it, believing that it was not contrary to the English Church’s doctrinal standards.50 However, the latter part of the work contained multiple problematic passages—​ particularly Elton’s rejection of James’s “Book of Sports” and condemnation of 46 Transcript, III:659; 661. Also see Transcript, IV:110–​33; Towers, Control of Religious Printing, pp.40–​41. 47 Milton, “Licensing,” p.632. Also see Thomas Cogswell, The Blessed Revolution: English Politics and the Coming of War, 1621–​1624 (Cambridge, 1989), pp.40–​46, 281–​94. 48 Thomas Bedford, Luthers Predecessors (London, 1624); Francis White, A Replie to Jesuit Fishers Answere (London, 1624); Anthony Wotton, Runne from Rome (London, 1624); Thomas Gataker, Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation (London, 1624); George Carleton, A thankfull remembrance of Gods mercy (London, 1624). Transcript, IV:78, 112, 115–​16, 118. 49 We will return to this discussion later in the chapter. 50 Daniel Featley, Cygnea cantio (London, 1629), sig.B3v.

Regulating the Reformed Consensus  45 Protestants marrying Catholics—​resulting in James’s command that all printed copies be burned. Of course, our previous analysis indicates that if Featley had had more time, he could have censored these critiques. This incident illustrates the complexity of his priorities: his duty to facilitate the publishing of anti-​ Catholic polemic together with his time constraints outweighed his commitment to censoring antiestablishment criticism. Furthermore, we will examine James’s different priorities, which indicate that there was not an entirely uniform Jacobean established-​church position overseeing the licensing of works.

Featley’s Licensing of Puritan Works Daniel Featley was also an avid licenser of puritan publications, possibly motivated in part by his close connection with John Rainolds.51 Featley was the licenser of choice for many puritans between 1618 and 1624. He licensed dozens of works by notable puritan ministers, including works by Samuel Ward,52 Richard Bernard,53 Stephen Denison,54 Nicholas Byfield,55 William Gouge,56 and Thomas Gataker.57 This also indicates that authors could choose who licensed their work, an often-​neglected feature of our understanding of the nature of censorship. Moreover, as Anthony Milton has shown, an indication of Featley’s willingness to work with puritans was that he licensed two of Thomas Cartwright’s posthumous works: A Plaine Explanation of the whole Revelation of Saint John (1622) and Confutation of Rhemists’ New Testament (1618).58 The latter work incurred significant opposition from John Whitgift, who believed that approving Cartwright’s work would perpetuate Presbyterian ideas in England. Featley, however, was willing to approve it “with such corrections as I shall adde thereunto 51 Hunt, “Licensing,” p.131. 52 Samuel Ward, Jethros Justice of peace (London, 1618); Samuel Ward, The Life of faith (London, 1621); Samuel Ward, The happinesse of practice (London, 1621); Samuel Ward, The Life of Faith in Death (London, 1622); Samuel Ward, Woe to drunkards (London, 1622); and Samuel Ward, All in All (London, 1622). See Transcript, III:625, IV:40, 49, 60, 69. 53 Richard Bernard, The seaven golden candlesticks (London, 1621); Richard Bernard, Looke Beyond Luther (London, 1623); Richard Bernard, The Iles of Man (London, 1626); Richard Bernard, Ruth’s Recompence or a Commentary upon the book of Ruth (London, 1628). See Transcript, IV:49, 104, 169, 175. 54 Stephen Denison, A Compendious Chatechisme (London, 1621); Stephen Denison, The new Creature (London, 1619); Stephen Denison, The monument or tombstone (London, 1620); Stephen Denison, An exposition on the first chapter of the second Epistle of Peter (London, 1622). See Transcript, III:620, 641, 662, V:62. 55 Nicholas Byfield, The Pattern of wholesome words (London, 1618); Nicholas Byfield, The promises (London, 1619); Nicholas Byfield, The Marrow of the Oracles of God (London, 1619). See Transcript, III:622, 631, 642. 56 William Gouge, Of domesticall duties eight treatises (London, 1622). See Transcript, IV:41 and 154. 57 Transcript, III:637, 643, 655, 659, 660, 661, 668, IV:52, 57, 87, 92, 106, 109, 148. 58 Milton, “Licensing,” p.646; Transcript, IV:79 and 147.

46  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England for ye press.”59 Reflecting on Featley’s licensing of Cartwright’s work, Milton has argued, Featley was “massaging incipiently Presbyterian writings in order that they might be able to come within the charmed circle of orthodoxy.”60 It is also significant to note what he edited in these puritan publications. In 1618, the year of the Synod of Dort, Featley softened the puritan Paul Baynes’s statement on the unconditionality of the doctrine of election as found in his Commentarie on Ephesians: “God cannot have such a conditional decree: I will elect all, if they will believe.”61 Featley, according to his usual practice, inserted a lengthy marginal note that clarified the relationship between election and man’s inability to fulfill God’s requirements.62 As some English Reformed divines took a “softer” position on predestinarian issues, Featley was potentially trying to avoid infighting among these figures over the particulars of predestination.63 Featley was well aware that discrepancies over specific doctrinal issues could divide various Reformed factions. Featley also licensed several works by the puritan minister Ezekiel Culverwell, including The way to a blessed estate in this life (1622) and A ready way to remember the Scriptures (1637).64 Featley’s priorities can be traced by looking at the amendments he made to a third work of Culverwell’s—​namely his Treatise of Faith (1623).65 For example, when Culverwell urged readers who possessed good works “to raise up their iudgement of their estate, not upon a peece or part therof, but on the whole worke ioyned together,” Featley added this qualifying phrase: “I say not in a sanctified manner, but in a common sort.”66 Featley’s insertion is clearly contrary to the natural meaning of the text; Culverwell’s desire was to reinforce that although genuine faith is accompanied by an increasingly sanctified life of good works, good works could also dwell within those who will “perish.” For Culverwell, this meant it was all the more necessary to “raise up their iudgement of their estate . . . on the whole worke ioyned together.”67 As Hunt has noted, similar concerns over issues of assurance underpinned 59 Milton, “Licensing,” p.646. 60 Milton, “Licensing,” p.646. 61 Paul Baynes, A Commentarie upon the First Chapter of the Epistle of Saint Paul, written to the Ephesians (London, 1618), sigs.H3v–​H4r. Nicholas Tyacke has pointed out that Featley and the stationer Nathaniel Newberry teamed together to license and publish all but one of Paul Baynes’s fourteen posthumous publications. See Transcript, III:618, 624–​28, 630–​31, 640, 656, 661, 667; Nicholas Tyacke, “The Fortunes of English Puritanism, 1603–​40,” in Nicholas Tyacke, Aspects of English Protestantism, c.1530–​1700 (Manchester, 2001), p.116. 62 Baynes, A Commentarie upon . . . the First Chapter . . . of . . . Ephesians, sigs.H3v (for similar marginal comments, see sigs.G2v, N4v, O4r, O7v, T8v). Hunt first noted that Featley regularly used marginal notes to clarify or redeem potentially “harmful” clauses. Hunt, “Licensing,” p.132. 63 The British Delegation at the Synod of Dort (1618–​1619), ed. Anthony Milton (Woodbridge, 2005), p.xxxi. 64 Transcript, IV:85, 132. 65 Ezekiel Culverwell, Treatise of Faith (London, 1623); Transcript, IV:86. 66 Culverwell, A Treatise of Faith, sig.D9v. 67 Culverwell, A Treatise of Faith, sig.D9v.

Regulating the Reformed Consensus  47 the censoring of the puritan minister George Throgmorton’s Treatise of Faith (1624).68 In each case, Featley added phrases that undercut the text’s natural meaning in order to avoid perpetuating the error of extreme introspection that could lead to despair. Featley believed this error was often repeated in many godly circles. Featley sought to help his readers avoid the dangers of these more “voluntaristic” approaches to private devotion; in his estimation, these approaches falsely encouraged the reader to find assurance of salvation by identifying internal evidences of grace. He used his role as licenser in a pastorally sensitive way, adding cautionary clauses in a preemptive attempt to protect his readers. Moreover, since the changes Featley made concerned fine theological distinctions and pastorally challenging scenarios, it is apparent that licensers were attuned to contemporary theological debates and prevailing pastoral issues. As argued by Anthony Milton, when authors approached licensers, they were seeking the approval and legitimation of their works. But the licensing process was a two-​way street; in exchange for Featley’s legitimation of a work, proclaiming it to be essentially “orthodox,” the licenser would modify the text to make it less controversial or according to his liking. Although Featley’s amendments might change the tone or meaning of portions of the author’s work, this was a small price to pay for receiving a consensual stamp of approval from a designated authority.69 Authors understood that their relationship with Featley (as one of Abbot’s domestic chaplains) would afford them some “political protection.”70 Featley’s smoothing over of controversial passages contributes to the difficulty of determining where the religious consensus of the period lay. Nevertheless, this study of one of the Jacobean period’s most notorious licensers has given us a clearer understanding of the connections between the motivations and mechanisms that underpinned censorship and the construction of religious consensus. Milton argued that although areas of agreement existed among Reformed authors, the extent to which there was a uniform set of religious beliefs in the Jacobean period has been overstated. Our understanding of Jacobean moderate puritanism is partly owing to the control of the licensing system by established church Reformed divines like Featley. Historians are left assuming that licensers made amendments to works with the author’s consent—​unless, of course, we read about complaints from disgruntled authors in subsequent accounts. It is a testimony to Featley’s effectiveness as a censor that the Jacobean church is so often regarded as a united religious body.71 Given that we have so few original

68 George Throgmorton, A Treatise of Faith (London, 1624), sig.F3v; Transcript, IV:123; Hunt, “Licensing,” p.133. 69 Milton, “Licensing,” p.651. 70 Fincham, “The Roles and Influence of Household Chaplains,” p.27. 71 Milton, “Licensing,” pp.651, 631.

48  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England manuscripts to compare with the published texts, it is possible that other redaction practices existed.

Moderating Intrapuritan Disputes and Working with Catholic Converts This chapter now turns to Featley’s mediation of an intrapuritan dispute sparked by an unnamed puritan who publicly attacked William Chibald’s A Tryall of Faith (1623)—​a work that advocated bolstering one’s faith through self-​examination. In his accusations, the unknown minister claimed Chibald was positing Socinian, Pelagian, and popish theology, particularly in his doctrine of justification.72 Since this dispute has been covered in some detail by Peter Lake, this section will focus primarily on Featley’s objectives in mediating the dispute, recognizing that they mirrored his censorship activities.73 Though Chibald was reluctant to publish a response to the minister’s initial accusations, he eventually wrote two other works in an attempt to defuse the escalating conflict.74 Featley licensed all of Chibald’s works in the dispute and wrote a preface for Chibald’s Apology in which he argued that Chibald’s initial work was attempting “to inforce the necessitie of repentance” rather than “to detract from the Dignity and Excellency of faith.”75 He vouched for the soundness of Chibald’s work saying, “I finde no poisonous weede to lurke under his wholesome leaves.” Featley said he was “perswaded” that Chibald was “desirous to give satisfaction” to the “moderate examiners of his tenets” (i.e., Featley and John King’s chaplain, Henry Mason) as well as his “violent, and priudicat obiecters.”76 Likewise, Mason said that after reading Chibald’s work he saw “no cause why” Chibald could “not safely send it abroade into the world with his fellowes, that have seene the light already” since his “conclusion” “is sound and orthodox.”77 Beyond this, Featley argued that discussion of further “subtilties” was “needlesse, and unprofitable,” and he urged all toward repentance and restoration.78 Likewise, in his preface to the same work, Mason commented, “Sober minds may differ from you and 72 William Chibald, A Tryall of Faith (London, 1623); William Chibald, A Defence of the Treatise called a Tryal of Faith (London, 1623), “to the reader,” sigs.A2v–​A3r, B3r. For a similar intrapuritan dispute, see Lake and Como, “ ‘Orthodoxy’ and Its Discontents,” pp.37–​70; Lake, Boxmaker’s Revenge, pp.221–​42. 73 See Lake, Boxmaker’s Revenge, pp.190–​217. 74 Chibald, Defense and William Chibald, An Apology for the treatise, called the trial of Faith (London, 1624). 75 Chibald, Apology, sig.A6v. Also see Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols.30r–​31v; Transcript, IV:66, 90, 105, 146, 154. 76 Chibald, Apology, sig.A7v; Fincham, Prelate, p.197. 77 Chibald, Apology, sig.a2v. 78 Chibald, Apology, sig.a1r–​v.

Regulating the Reformed Consensus  49 you from them, without breach of charity or love; and fierie spirits will dissent from you, if it be for no other cause, but only for that Salamanders caunot live out of the fire.”79 Featley’s willingness to defend Chibald’s work (that advocated for a level of bolstering of one’s faith through self-​examination), while at the same time adding cautionary clauses about these same issues to Ezekiel Culverwell’s and George Throgmorton’s works (as noted previously), demonstrates that Featley held in tension his commitment to addressing pastoral issues regarding assurance and his desire to maintain unity among Reformed divines. Featley and Mason were probably the two “learned divines” who Chibald said organized a “conference” and acted as moderators “for [the] pacification” of the dispute. During this conference, Chibald unsuccessfully attempted to convince his accuser that he was not guilty of the charges brought against him.80 Lake has argued that, as Abbot’s and King’s chaplains, Featley and Mason were part of a wider effort to preserve harmony in the godly community, and, by urging puritan ministers to cooperate with like-​minded establishment Reformed divines, they encouraged puritans to continue to minister within the confines of the established church. By serving as mediator between puritans and the established church and smoothing over any disagreements, Featley’s mediatorial role mirrored his ecclesiastical licensing activities. Just as he “massaged” puritan works so that they could be printed with few quibbles from establishment authorities, so Featley “massaged” these puritan relationships so that they could continue to coexist with minimal internal conflicts. Featley desired to maintain unity by focusing on the fundamental doctrines of Reformed orthodoxy upon which all parties could agree.81 During this period, Featley not only cultivated relationships with puritans, but with Catholics as well. Michael Questier has argued that Abbot and his chaplains continued to promulgate anti-​Catholic rhetoric in England during the Spanish Match negotiations—​when direct attacks on Catholicism were prohibited—​by publishing the accounts of recently converted Catholics (including Fernando Tejeda and John Gee).82 In The Foot out of the Snare, John Gee listed 150 works “printed, reprinted, or dispersed” by Catholics during the negotiations, which Parliament used as ammunition for James to curb Catholic publishing.83 79 Chibald, Apology, sigs.a2v–​a3r. 80 Chibald, Defense, sig.C3r; Lake, Boxmaker’s Revenge, pp.219–​20. 81 Lake, Boxmaker’s Revenge, 220–​21, 232–​33, 242, 245, and 404. 82 Michael Questier, “John Gee, Archbishop Abbot, and the Use of Catholic Converts from Rome in Jacobean Anti-​Catholicism,” RH 21 (1993), pp.347–​60. For other conversion tracts, see Christopher Musgrave, Musgraves Motives (London, 1621); Thomas Robinson, The Anatomie of the English Nunnery at Lisbon in Portugall (London, 1623); and Lewis Owen, The Running Register (London, 1626). Also see Michael Questier, “Clerical Recruitment, Conversion and Rome, c.1580–​ 1625,” in Claire Cross, ed., Patronage and Recruitment in the Tudor and Early Stuart Church (York, 1996), pp.76–​94. 83 John Gee, The Foot Out of the Snare (London, 1624), sigs.R4r–​S4v; SP 14/​165, fol.111r–​v.

50  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England Although Featley understood the value of directly attacking Catholic doctrine, he also indirectly undermined Catholicism by working with Catholic converts. According to William Loe, Featley “was the meanes under God” for converting the Catholic Fernando Tejeda.84 Featley wrote the preface for Tejeda’s account of his conversion and licensed Tejeda’s work.85 Featley described Catholic converts as “arrows taken out of the Romish Quiver, drawne to the head against the Romish faith”—​thus acknowledging the immense value of using former Catholics to discredit the popish religion. Indeed it is testimony to the value of such adherents that Featley’s preface is immediately followed by a brief statement signed by himself and ten other London ministers.86 Tejeda was useful in “translatinge and printing the English lyturgie into Spanish.”87 Featley and Thomas Goad, another one of Abbot’s chaplains, were also involved with John Gee’s conversion tract, The Foot Out of the Snare. In these indirect alternatives to the hard-​line approach, former Catholics rehearsed their exodus from the enslavement of Catholicism and provided advice how other Catholics could also find liberty within the confines of Protestantism.88 As Featley dissuaded many doubting Protestants from converting to Catholicism during his tenure as an embassy chaplain in Paris and as Abbot’s chaplain, he undoubtedly took pleasure in using Catholic converts against his Roman enemies. Under the direction of Abbot, Featley employed other strategies for uniting more ecumenically minded Catholics against Rome. At Abbot’s request, Featley pursued a relationship with Marc Antonio De Dominis, the Catholic archbishop of Spalato who was then undertaking his doctoral degree at Oxford.89 In 1616, when De Dominis came to England with the goal of pursuing ecumenical relations, several English leaders, including King James and Abbot, befriended him and even gave him preferment and doctoral degrees from both Oxford and Cambridge University. The details of De Dominis’s ecumenical endeavors are published in his monumental De Republica Ecclesiastica. The publishing of De Dominis’s De Republica ecclesiastica was held up until portions were revised regarding church government.90 Nevertheless, James gave his support to the work, and De Dominis continued to receive preferment at court, both of which events demonstrate that censorship did not necessarily mean disfavor.91 According to John Featley, De Dominis “was so pleased” following his encounter with Featley 84 Loe, Sermon, sig.E4v. Also see Transcript, IV:89. 85 Fernando Tejeda, Texeda Retextus (London, 1623), sigs.A3r–​A4v; Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols.32v–​33v. 86 Tejeda, Texeda Retextus, sig.A4v. 87 SP 14/​154, fol.110r. 88 Questier, “John Gee,” pp.347–​60. 89 Featley, Succinct History, sig.H4v. 90 SP14/​90, fols.14r–​v, 96r–​v. 91 Patterson, King James and the Reunion of Christendom, pp.220–​59.

Regulating the Reformed Consensus  51 at Oxford “that he not onely” thanked Abbot for Featley’s “gallant deportment,” but gave Featley “a Fellowship, or Brothers place in the Savoy, whereof he was then Master.”92 Featley maintained ongoing correspondence with De Dominis, writing two very brief letters to the archbishop.93 By sending Featley to befriend De Dominis, Abbot sought to capitalize on De Dominis’s momentary hostility toward Catholicism. It seems that Featley’s more charitable anti-​ Catholic position—​ namely, that although Rome was an idolatrous church, it nevertheless contained true believers—​was more palatable to De Dominis than an entirely dismissive and thoroughly apocalyptic strand of anti-​Catholic polemic. Speaking of ministers like Featley, he said: The more moderate English Protesta[n]‌t that are not Purita[n]s, urge not much the heresy of the Roman Church, nor from that ground free themselves from the foule spot of schisme, but they urge fiercely idolatry, and obtruding of new articles of fayth, by which meanes they will have . . . the Catholike Church, to have fallen from the true faith, and hereby chiefely they defend the equity of their separation.94

Featley and Abbot understood and utilized the potential appeal of this slightly more charitable stance, since John Gee’s conversion tract also adopted this approach.95 The hopes of Featley and Abbot were short-​lived, however. In 1622, De Dominis began writing of the heretical doctrines of the English Church in his Second Manifesto (1623).96 Featley was outraged and attacked De Dominis, referencing him in the preface to Tejeda’s Texeda Retextus: “Let no weake Christian be scandalised at the revolt of so many now a dayes to Popish errors and superstitions.” Featley claimed that for every “Italian Apostate, we have a Spanish Convert; for a loose Bishop, we have a strict Augustine Monke; for the former lately left Christ, to follow his preferments in the Court of Antichrist; the latter hath left all his hope of preferments in this world, and stript himselfe of all his temporall means, to follow Christ naked.”97 While courting De Dominis, in 1615 Abbot also corresponded with Cyril Lukaris, patriarch of Alexandria, with the purpose of strengthening formal ties between the English and Greek Orthodox Churches against a common Roman 92 Featley, Succinct History, sig.H5r. 93 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.9r–​v. 94 Marc Antonio De Dominis, M. Antonius de Dominis (Saint-​Omer, 1623), sig.C6r–​v. 95 Questier, “John Gee,” p.354. 96 Patterson, “Marc Antonio De Dominis,” ODNB. 97 Tejeda, Texeda Retextus, sigs.A3r, A4r. Also see Featley’s preface to Richard Crankenthrope, Vigilius Dormitans (London, 1631), sig.A2v.

52  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England enemy. In 1617 Lukaris sent his young protégé Metrophanes Kritopoulos to study theology at Abbot’s undergraduate college in Oxford, Balliol.98 Featley befriended Kritopoulos during his doctoral studies in Oxford, and Featley’s Oxford notebook contains a letter from Lukaris to Abbot (and Abbot’s response), as well as a letter from Featley to Metrophanes Kritopoulos.99 Featley affectionately called Kritopoulos “the choice flower of all the Greeks” who had come to England and “the marrow of pleasant Attica, of piety, modesty, [and] humanity.”100 He mentioned in Sacra Nemesis that he himself had written “many” letters, not only to Cyril, but to “diverse others” in the Greek church.101 This reveals, of course, that Featley’s international network extended well beyond Reformed Protestants and included European converts from Catholicism and Greek Orthodox divines who were deemed useful to establishing the English Reformed church against Catholicism. Similarities exist between Featley and Thomas Goad. Goad became a chaplain of Abbot’s in 1611. He probably secured this position because Abbot and Goad’s father (previously Reformed provost at King’s College, Cambridge for forty years) were both at Guildford Free School together.102 Goad was influential in this post, and at the Synod of Dort in 1618 Goad replaced Joseph Hall, who was “indisposed in health.”103 Featley and Goad were kindred spirits, both licensing Reformed and anti-​Catholic works. Like Featley, Goad also received a DD in 1615 from Oxford—​which indicates that Abbot desired that his chaplains have elite credentials—​and, in his licensing role, excised seemingly controversial portions of Reformed works.104 For example, in a letter to his patron Sir Roger Townsend, John Yates recalled how Goad, after approving a manuscript copy of his work, “looked it [over] againe and according to their usuall manner, altered two severall leaves, and commanded the stationer and printer, to see the former went out and the latter condition to go with the books.” Goad, likewise, encouraged him to shift his position on a doctrinal matter, which saved him some embarrassment.105

98 Kenneth Fincham, “George Abbot (1562–​1633),” ODNB; Patterson, King James and the Reunion of Christendom, p.205. 99 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols.6r–​8v, fol.11v. For other letters from Featley and Abbot to Cyril and Kritopoulos, see BL, Harleian MS 823, fols.239r–​242v. 100 Patterson, King James and the Reunion of Christendom, p.205. 101 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.K4r–​v. 102 Thomas Fuller, Historie of the Worthies of England (London, 1662), sig.X2r; Hugh Pigot, Hadleigh (London, 1860), p.167. Goad gave his library and “the golden Medaile given [to him] att the Synod of Dort” to King’s College TNA, PROB 11/​183, fol.66r. On Goad see Richard Newcourt, Repertorium ecclesiasticum parochiale Londinense (2 vols., [London], 1710), II:443. 103 SP 105/​95, fol.48v. Fuller, Worthies, X2r; Pigot, Hadleigh, p.169. 104 Pigot, Hadleigh, p.168. 105 NRO, MF/​RO 27/​3 no.422. Also see Matthew Reynolds, Godly Reformers and Their Opponents in Early Modern England, 1560–​1643 (Woodbridge, 2005), p.121.

Regulating the Reformed Consensus  53 Goad and Featley engaged in various joint polemical activities, even coauthoring an attack on Richard Montague in their work Pelagius Redivivus (1626).106 Goad was also Featley’s assistant in his debate with the Jesuits George Fisher (alias Musket) and John Percy (alias Fisher), and they together assuaged the doubting Protestant Francis Cartwright.107 Like Featley, Goad wrote a number of anti-​Catholic polemical works, including The Dolefull Even-​Song (1623), in which he used eyewitness accounts to retell the famous “Fatall Vesper” incident, the collapsing of a massive makeshift Catholic pulpit that killed ninety people.108 Goad edited The Friers Chronicle (1623), “a compendium of widely scattered and vile incidents, largely drawn from Huguenot sources, designed to blacken the Roman church.”109 Likewise, both Featley and Goad worked with Catholic converts, like John Gee and Marc Antonio De Dominis. Indeed, Goad translated some of De Dominis’s works and modified some of De Dominis’s more problematic positions on church unity.110 Finally, in addition to their coauthorship of Pelagius Redivivus (1626), Featley and Goad headed up the parliamentary attack against the anti-​Calvinist Richard Montague.111

The Anti-​Calvinist Challenge to Control of the Licensing System Toward the end of James’s reign, an influential anti-​Calvinist party increasingly received preferment and eventually seized control of the licensing system. On several occasions anti-​Calvinist ministers attempted to discredit the archbishop’s chaplains. Before Featley’s arrival, anti-​Calvinist ministers targeted Featley’s predecessor, Richard Mocket. With his approval of works by Stephen Denison and Pierre du Moulin, Mocket’s licensing activities prefigured Featley’s.112 However, it was Mocket’s own work, Doctrina et politia ecclesiae Anglicanae (1616), that triggered both his and Thomas Goad’s royal censure.113 106 William Prynne, Anti-​Arminianisme (London, 1630), sig.n*3r. 107 Daniel Featley, The Romish Fisher Caught and Held in His Owne Net (London, 1624), sigs.H1r–​ T3r; Francis Cartwright, The life, confession, and heartie repentance of Francis Cartwright (London, 1621), sig.D2r–​v. Also see Peter Lake with Michael Questier, The Anti-​Christ’s Lewd Hat: Protestants, Papists and Players in Post-​Reformation England (New Haven, 2002), p.97. 108 Thomas Goad, The Dolefull Even-​Song (London, 1623); Allen, “Thomas Goad,” ODNB. On the “Fatall Vesper” incident, see Alexandra Walsham, “‘The Fatall Vesper’: Providentialism and Anti-​ popery in Late Jacobean London,” P&P 144 (1994), pp.36–​87. 109 Thomas Goad, The Friers Chronicle (London, 1623); Allen, “Thomas Goad,” ODNB. 110 Marc Antonio De Dominis, A Declaration of the Reasons Which Moved Marcus Antonius De Dominis (Edinburgh, 1617), sig.A2v; Richard Neile, Marcus Antonius De Dominis (London, 1624), sig.L2r. Also see Questier, “John Gee,” p.350; Elizabeth Allen, “Thomas Goad (1576–​1638),” ODNB. 111 Daniel Featley, Pelagius Redivivus (London, 1626). 112 Clegg, Press Censorship in Jacobean England, p.65. 113 Clegg, Press Censorship in Jacobean England, p.64. For a manuscript account of Mocket’s work, see LPL, MS 178, fols.94r–​139r.

54  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England According to Peter Heylyn, Mocket’s book attempted to boost the English Church’s international reputation “amongst Forrein Nations.” In 1617, however, his “much biassed [stance] toward those of Calvin’s Plat-​form” caused the work to be publicly burned; this was because “his Extracts out of the Book of Homilies were conceived to be . . . framed according to his own [Reformed] Judgment” and because he omitted from the Thirty-​nine Articles “the first Clause of ” the twenty-​first article.114 Thomas Fuller claimed that Mocket’s censure was part of a ploy to discredit Archbishop Abbot, “against whom many bishops began then to combine.”115 Although Abbot continued to exercise influence in the 1610s, Ken Fincham has shown that Abbot’s influence on James diminished because of his opposition to the Spanish Match.116 Abbot’s control over the licensing process was also affected. During the negotiations from 1622 to 1623, Francis Cottington was appointed to assist with the licensing of news books. This was a tactical move by the government to undo the archbishop’s control of the licensing given that many of the works confirmed Abbot’s opposition to the marriage.117 As this anti-​Calvinist attack seems to be the primary cause of Mocket’s dismissal from Abbot’s service, and given that Featley had considerable correspondence with Mocket prior to his arrival, it appears that Featley was aware of the polarized climate facing him as he entered the archbishop’s service. Writing to Mocket, he spoke of the “the disastrous condition” Mocket “initiate[d]‌.” As for the “inferior planets against” him, he took confidence in Abbot’s ability to diffuse them, saying, “I feare not their effort because I hope my superior planets gravitory aspect towards me changes not to pluck some of them from their orbes or at least disclose them to be but blazing stars.” He was confident that though “there are many devises in the braine of man,” “the counsel of the Lord shall stand whose goodness is greater to us than our enemies malice be against us.”118 Mocket possibly even helped prepare Featley during the years before his transition in rather practical ways, perhaps even sending him potential manuscripts that were due to be licensed. In one letter, Featley “excuse[d]” himself for “not abrige[ing] the homilies because being my self have bene abridged of my time.”119 Featley found a kindred spirit in Mocket, expressing his gratitude to him saying, “When any occasion shall offer itself of testifying my true affection you shall perceive then how great interest you have in my obliged desires and devoted affections.”120 114 Peter Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus (London, 1669), sig.L2v; Peter Heylyn, Examen Historicum (London, 1659), sig.N6r. Also see Clegg, Press Censorship in Jacobean England, p.215. 115 Fuller, Church History, sig.Iiii4r. Also see Clegg, Press Censorship in Jacobean England, pp.106, 108–​9, 203. 116 Kenneth Fincham, “Prelacy and Politics: Archbishop Abbot’s Defense of Protestant Orthodoxy,” Historical Research 61 (1988), p.52. 117 Clegg, Press Censorship in Jacobean England, p.64. 118 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.44v. 119 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.52r. 120 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.52r.

Regulating the Reformed Consensus  55 Featley endeavored to counter the transition from Reformed to anti-​Calvinist control over the licensing system through his own licensing of anti-​Calvinist works. For example, Hunt and Milton have noted that Featley “struggled in vain” to modify and “Protestantise” the more overtly popish passages of a sermon delivered in the 1620 Hilary Term, entitled The Communion of Saints (1621); this sermon was given by the anti-​Calvinist minister Edward Maie.121 Maie had been the chaplain at Lincolns Inn from 3 February 1616 until 23 October 1621, when a Mr. Digges and a Mr. Sherfield “were intreated” to read Maie’s Communion of Saints “to consider” “the scandalles and indiscreet passages therein.” At the following meeting, he was “absolutely discharged” from his chaplaincy by the entire council.122 In Christ on His Throne (1622), Church of England convert Richard Sheldon described the changes Featley attempted to make to Maie’s Communion of the Saints, particularly the section pertaining to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. However, Featley’s interactions with Maie’s work were different from his modifications of the works of other puritan figures. This difference illustrates that Featley was beginning to lose control over what was printed, particularly when a work’s content accorded with the beliefs of the anti-​Calvinist party. When Maie originally offered the work to Featley, it contained the phrase “the makers of Christs body.” Featley “strictly required” Maie to delete this since it was “likely to give just offense.” In place of this phrase, Featley “expresly required” that Maie insert “they make up the mysticall body of Christ by the holy Ghost.”123 Rather than following Featley’s directions, however, Maie printed the work as he originally wrote it, without “presenting [it] . . . to Authority” or excluding the crypto-​popish phases.124 When confronted about his lack of compliance, Maie promised that he would “give full satisfaction” in the second printing. Instead of correcting the phrase, however, he added a page-​long “marginall Comment of certain annotations familiar with the Papists.”125 In response, Featley recalled copies of The Communion of Saints, at which time Maie “yeelded . . . to insert by way of parenthesis” the words “to weet, in a sacramentall and mysticall sense.” Despite this concession, Maie managed to insert his own “popish” slant with the words “they make the mysticall bodie of Christ” (omitting the key word “up”).126 121 Milton, Catholic and Reformed, p.70; Milton, “Licensing,” pp.628–​29. Hunt, “Licensing,” pp.134–​35. Also see Transcript, IV:56. My analysis in what follows is heavily indebted to Milton, “Licensing.” 122 The Records of the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn: The Black Books, ed. W. P. Blaidon and R. F. Roxburgh (3 vols., London, 1897–​69), II:179, 224–​25; Milton, Catholic and Reformed, p.70. 123 Richard Sheldon, Christ on His Throne (London, 1622), sig.A3v; Edward Maie, A Sermon of the Communion of Saints ([First impression] 1621), sig.B4r. Also see Milton, “Licensing,” pp.628–​29; Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.70, 199. 124 Sheldon, Christ on His Throne, sigs.A3v, A4v. 125 Sheldon, Christ on His Throne, sigs.A4r. 126 Sheldon, Christ on His Throne, sig.A4r; Edward Maie, A Sermon of the Communion of Saints ([Second impression] London, 1625), sig.C2r.

56  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England It is important to remember that Featley ultimately demanded these changes because he “violently suspected” that the work “fauour[ed] Papism.”127 According to Milton, Featley had valid concerns, since part of Maie’s motivation for publishing his sermon was to promote reunion with Rome.128 To counter this, Featley attempted to add several qualifying passages that would draw the reader back to the Scriptures rather than church tradition. He wanted Maie to include the words “setting aside the efficacie of inspired Scripture,” to qualify his claim that “the preaching of Laicks can convert no more, than a good morall sentence out of Seneca,” since they “were wilfully left out in the first Impression.”129 Accordingly, Maie added a marginal reference to Hebrews 13:17: “I speake not of God’s extraordinary operation.”130 Given Featley’s close relational ties with puritan ministers, it is no wonder that he opposed a work that, as Milton notes, was “vehement in its anti-​puritanism” and was “suffused with outspoken sacramental and sacerdotal utterances as extreme as anything published at the height of the Laudian decade.”131 Indeed, the very ministers whom Maie tried to marginalize in the established church were those Featley was seeking to keep within the institution. The Maie episode is indicative of the transitions that occurred in Featley’s licensing career during the 1620s. Featley’s struggles to amend Maie’s work reveal that he was losing the licensing control that he once possessed. Although Featley attempted to modify the work using his favored censorship tactics—​inserting parenthetical notes, saving clauses and lengthy marginal notes and encouraging authors to modify problematic passages—​he did so with little success. Featley’s goal was to modify Maie’s work so that it mirrored Featley’s own, more overtly Protestant, version of orthodoxy. In this instance, however, Featley’s endeavors were unsuccessful, unlike his previously unchallenged censoring. Furthermore, the tone of Featley’s negotiations with Maie (as described by Sheldon) are noticeably different from the seemingly amicable, cooperative, and collaborative way he modified the works of his puritan colleagues. Noticeable is the hostile way in which Sheldon portrayed Featley as “strictly” and “expressly requiring” Maie to amend his work, and Maie’s blatant disregard of Featley’s “authority” by publishing the work without making the required changes.132 This hostility appeared again when Featley attempted to hinder the anti-​Calvinist Richard Montague from printing crypto-​popish statements. Montague related in a letter



127 Sheldon, Christ on His Throne, sigs.A4v–​a1r. 128 Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.351–​52. 129 Sheldon, Christ on His Throne, sig.a2r.

130 Maie, Communion of Saints [first impression], sig.C1r. 131

Milton, “Licensing,” p.628.

132 Sheldon, Christ on His Throne, sigs.A3v, A4v.

Regulating the Reformed Consensus  57 to John Cosin that Featley “told me once, if I did not correct my booke voluntarily, I should be forced.”133 These examples challenge Deborah Shuger’s view that Featley was not “a doctrinal policeman” in his licensing role.134 In contrast to Shuger’s opinion, Featley’s role might be best conceptualized as that of a doctrinal policeman. Indeed, the litmus test of whether Featley allowed a work was whether it accorded with his own doctrinal rubric, though, of course, we can only establish this claim through our knowledge of his licensing activities. Thus, Featley’s approach to anti-​Calvinist works was different from his licensing of works produced by like-​minded Protestant colleagues. Although Featley built bridges between puritans, establishment Reformed divines, and even ecumenical Catholics (like De Dominis), there is no indication that he attempted to capitalize on any shared affinity that he may have possessed with anti-​Calvinist ministers during Featley’s tenure as a licenser. While sometimes Featley was an “essentially benign” censor and made changes “with the author’s consent,” at other times he was more aggressive.135 Featley exercised benign censorship when he licensed works that accorded with his theology. His approach and methods, however, were more heavy-​handed when dealing with those who disagreed with his own theology, and particularly those producing (in his estimation) harmful doctrinal positions. For those who disregarded his authority and pursued alternative standards of orthodoxy, his aggressive approach was in many ways similar to that of a Laudian censor (i.e., pursuing his own agenda and at times abandoning concern for the author’s intent). This is significant for the broader religious landscape and historiography because it suggests that Jacobean Reformed licensers may not have been as “mild-​mannered” as previously assumed, though further research will need to substantiate this suggestion. Since previous studies have examined Featley’s licensing in isolation from his broader career, they have missed key underlying motivations for his licensing activity. By examining Featley’s conflict with Maie, together with his debates over the Eucharist with the Catholic Richard Smith (discussed in Chapter 3), Featley utilized his role as licenser not simply to counter Catholicism, but as part of his larger desire to snuff out crypto-​popery in anti-​Calvinist works and 133 John Cosin, The correspondence of John Cosin, ed. G. Ormsby (2 vols., Durham, 1869–​72), I:50. J. S. Macauley’s appendix notes ten letters that Ornsby misdated in his Correspondence of John Cosin. J. S. Macauley, “Richard Montague, Caroline Bishop, 1575–​1641” (Cambridge University PhD, 1965), Appendix IV, “Corrections in the Dating of the Montague-​Cosin Correspondence.” Here I am departing from Hunt’s interpretation that this exchange shows that Featley was executing “a compromise deal” made “in consultation with” Montague. See Hunt, “Licensing,” p.135. For other letters between Montague and Cosin, see BL, Add. MS 4274, fols.97r–​103r. 134 Deborah Shuger, Censorship and Cultural Sensibility: The Regulation of Language in Tudor-​ Stuart England (Philadelphia, 2008), p.256. 135 Milton, “Licensing,” pp.650, 629.

58  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England to prevent the spread of crypto-​Catholicism in England. As we will see, many of these themes surfaced again as he struggled to hinder the publication of Richard Montague’s Appello Caesarem.136 In his correspondence with John Cosin, Montague reveals that he was well aware of Featley’s determined desire to prevent him from publishing his work. Featley, Thomas Goad, Joseph Hall, Nathaniel Ward, and John Prideaux drafted a petition to the House of Commons in which they opposed Montague’s work and outlined his heterodoxy in twenty-​one articles.137 Montague was anxious about who would license his work, as he knew both Featley and Goad would work to prevent its publication.138 This is why Montague specifically requested of John Cosin that “no puritan” license Appello Caesarem.139 Montague was upset with Francis White for showing a prepublished version of his work to Featley; Montague stated, “It was ill don for the Deane to communicate the papers, especially to one of the faction, as that Dr. is,” since “the Brethren . . . will have intelligence.”140 Montague devised other strategies to facilitate the publication of his work, encouraging the Durham House group members to read the unpublished manuscript, provide guidance, edit various sections, and add points to make the work more palatable to the English reader.141 In short, it seems that the Durham House group was engaged in a process of self-​censorship; their goal was to avoid problems that could surface after the work’s publication. Additionally, Montague believed an approbation from Francis White would protect him and help ease the work into print.142 By calling on an authoritative and trusted figure such as Francis White, who could provide a moderating gloss on the contents of Appello Caesarem, Montague employed the same strategy as Featley and his puritan colleagues.143 In short, both sides of the divide employed parallel strategies. Montague had a particular disdain for Featley, referring to him (privately) as “that urchin” and “hobby-​horse Featley.” He believed they were entangled in a battle, saying, “The Dr’s quarrell and mine is determined.”144 Because Featley and Thomas Goad opposed his work, Montague wanted them disbarred from their licensing roles, desiring that Featley and his “fellowe” be removed “from his Lord and Master that he do no such further hurt.”145 These anti-​Calvinist colleagues 136 Cosin, Correspondence, I:46–​47. 137 BL, Add. MS 25278, fols.138r–​140v. It was Nathaniel Ward (not Samuel) who was a signatory. See SP 14/​166, fol.199r. On Joseph Hall’s involvement, see Cosin, Correspondence, I:50. 138 Cosin, Correspondence, I:35, 49, 51. 139 Cosin, Correspondence, I:33. 140 Cosin, Correspondence, I:42. 141 Cosin, Correspondence, I:37, 46–​47. Manuscripts of the House of Lords, p.437 records that “Dr Featley said that Dr White told him that 5. or 6. Bishops had perused Montagues appeale.” 142 Cosin, Correspondence, I:56. For White’s approbation, see Bodl., Rawl. MS C.573, fols.21r–​93v. 143 Milton, “Licensing,” pp.630, 633. 144 Cosin, Correspondence, I:100, 69, 46. 145 Cosin, Correspondence, I:44 (also see I:46).

Regulating the Reformed Consensus  59 made plans to discredit them and have Featley in particular removed from his licensing role, saying, “it will never be well till the King” drives Featley and Goad out of Lambeth house.146 Featley’s battle with anti-​Calvinism came to a head in 1625 when Richard Neile, Cosin, and Montague orchestrated James’s royal reprimand to Featley for his licensing of William Crompton’s Saint Austins Summes and Edward Elton’s Gods Holy Minde.147 Featley’s account of the conference with James is given in Cygnea Cantio; it is framed as a friendly debate in which James corrected Featley. An analysis of other anti-​Calvinists’ accounts of the event, together with Featley’s licensing career following the conference, reveals that Featley’s reprimand was more serious than he let on. This in turn implies that Featley’s actions and activities of 1625 were much more of a threat to royal and anti-​Calvinist ideals than is at times portrayed. When Featley arrived before James, he found the king “to be very much displeased” that as licenser he “permitted” the printing of a work that was “not conformable to the discipline of the Church of England.”148 This surprised Featley since he had previously licensed books by Elton and found him to be a compliant and conforming minister, even noting that Lancelot Andrewes, who was “no favourer of nonconformants,” did not appear to have any troubles with him.149 When Featley received Elton’s manuscript, he only “perused” the first fifty-​two pages of the work. Being “confident that there was nothing contrary to the discipline or doctrine of the Church of England,” he put his “approbation” there—​in this case he did not put his mark at the usual “last page of the booke” where licensers “usually set our hands, if wee allow the whole booke.”150 Featley also claimed that he “made a stop” of his review when he learned that Elton had died. What seems to be his final excuse to James, Featley wrote, “the booke tooke the libertie to flie out of the Presse without license.”151 This latter claim is highly suspect given that the Stationers’ Register records Featley licensed Elton’s work on 7 October 1624.152 As we will see, this claim also sounds remarkably similar to his other response to James when the king was angered over the printing of Featley’s work against the Jesuit John Fisher (Fisher Catched in His Owne Net [1623]).153 This work was published during the Spanish Match negotiations, 146 Cosin, Correspondence, I:40. 147 William Crompton, Saint Austins Summes (London, 1625); Edward Elton, Gods Holy Minde (London, 1625). I am grateful to Peter Lake for our discussions on this episode and sharing with me a draft of an unpublished article entitled “Play It Again, Solomon: James I, the Burning of Edward Elton’s Book and the Doctrinal Tenor of the Late Jacobean Church.” 148 Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sig.B3r. 149 Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sig.B3r–​v. 150 Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sig.B3v. 151 Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sigs.B3v–​B4r. 152 Transcript, IV:124. 153 See p.131.

60  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England precisely when anti-​Catholic works were banned. Like the Elton work, although Featley claimed his work was licensed and published without his knowledge, the Stationers’ Register lists Featley as the licenser.154 Following the publication of Elton’s work, James was made aware that it had a number of seditious passages, and so the king commanded that all copies of Elton’s work be publicly burned.155 As indicated in a letter from John Chamberlain to Joseph Mede, Elton’s book was burned with “a little book of Mr. [Stephen] Dennison’s . . . for containing schismatical doctrine of the Lord’s-​day and administration of the sacrament.”156 The book burning took place on 13 February 1624; its intent was to purge “all the errors discovered in that [work] Posthumous,” which was reportedly “the greatest holocaust that hath beene offered in this kinde in our memorie.”157 Elton’s work was the last work to be burned in the several public book burnings performed during James’s reign.158 Surviving manuscript copies indicate eight reasons why Elton’s book was burned; included as reasons were (1) he argued that “no lawfull recreation [be] allowed” on the Sabbath, and (2) he argued that a Protestant should not “have any familiarity with Papists, much lesse to marrie with them.”159 This latter point was particularly problematic since it directly opposed Charles’s proposed marriage to the Catholic French queen, Henrietta Maria.160 Additionally, Elton’s reference to recreation was opposed to James’s royal declaration, commonly known as the “Book of Sports.”161 James’s original declaration on the lawfulness of recreation was directed at puritans in Lancashire who (like Elton) prohibited “recreations, and honest exercises upon Sundayes and other Holy dayes, after the afternoone Sermon.”162 Apart from the reasons given, the fact that three extant accounts outlined these reasons indicates that the event was a fairly well-​known affair. Anti-​Calvinists were clearly pleased with the incineration of Elton’s books. Richard Montague delighted in Featley’s censuring and the burning of Elton’s work, saying, “Were not the Dr’s braynes made of the papp of an apple that would allowe such stuff to the presse? It is well that 154 Featley, Romish Fisher, sig.*3v. 155 BL, Harleian MS 3142, fol.53v; William Prynne, A Briefe Survey and Censure of Mr Cozens his Couzening Devotions (London, 1628), sig.O1v. Also see Stephen Lewkowicz, “Elton’s An Exposition of the Ten Commandments of God (1623): A Burnt Book?,” in William Todd, ed., The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America (New York, 1977), pp.201–​8. 156 Court and Times of James I, ed. T. Birch (2 vols., London, 1848), II:498. 157 Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sig.B4r. 158 On the common links between these book burnings, see Clegg, Press Censorship in Jacobean England, pp.68–​89. 159 BL, Harleian, MS 3142, fol.53r–​v. Also see CUL, MS Gg 1/​29, fol.33r–​v ; CUL, Baker MS Mm 1/​ 43, pp.513–​14. 160 Milton, “Licensing,” p.629. 161 Elton, Gods Holy Minde, sigs.I5v–​I6r, K4r; I8r–​v. 162 James I, The Kings Maiesties Declaration to His Subiets, Concerning Lawfull Sports to be used (London, 1618), sig.A3v.

Regulating the Reformed Consensus  61 the books made a fire, though not all, I doubt. But they are not burned that made the books.”163 Thomas Gataker was also imprisoned for writing a commendatory preface for Elton’s book.164 He called the work “a worthy Monument of this nature,” saying that the work was written “for the better reformation of our errours” in prayer and practice.165 This was a case in which Gataker’s attempt to provide a moderating gloss on a potentially seditious book backfired.166 Mollifying this situation was next to impossible, as Gataker later revealed in his A Discours Apologetical (1654). There he explained that his imprisonment was ultimately because anti-​ Calvinists wanted to discredit Featley and Archbishop Abbot; his imprisonment was linked with the “busines [of] others far greater then my self, even the Archbishop,” whom the attacks “were aimed at,” by “some great ones near about his Majesty.”167 It is not surprising that Gataker felt the sting of the attack given that he preached the funeral sermon for Featley’s wife, Joyce Featley, as well as receiving preferment from Featley.168 This anti-​Calvinist affront to Featley and Abbot was one of many in this period. In addition to censuring Mocket’s book, Laud orchestrated the burning of David Pareus’s work.169 Anti-​Calvinists had also attacked other books licensed by Featley, including Henry Finch’s anonymously published work Calling of the Jewes (1621), which resulted in Finch’s imprisonment.170 Richard Neile brought this book to James’s attention, suggesting that the book taught “the Jewes should have a Regiment above all other kingdomes”; this caused James to be “so fierce as he would admit no Apology” until George Abbot eventually intervened to secure Finch’s release from prison.171 As a final example, Richard Neile and Samuel Harsnett orchestrated the suppression of John Davenant’s commentary on the epistle of James.172 These incidents are evidence of the growing dominance of anti-​Calvinists at court during this period, with figures such as Finch and Gataker caught in the middle of anti-​Calvinist attempts to discredit Abbot and his chaplains.173 163 Cosin, Correspondence, I:61 (also see I:53, 57, 59). 164 Thomas Gataker, A Discours Apolgetical (London, 1654), sig.H3r. 165 Elton, Gods Holy Minde, sig.A4r–​v. 166 Milton, “Licensing,” pp.630, 631; Diane Willen, “Thomas Gataker and the Use of Print in the English Godly Community,” Huntington Library Quarterly 70 (2007), pp.342–​64. 167 Gataker, A Discours Apolgetical, sig.H3r. 168 Thomas Gataker, Saint Stevens last will and testament (London, 1638); Gataker, A Discours Apolgetical, sig.H3r. 169 Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, sig.N4r–​v. 170 Henry Finch, The Calling of the Jewes (London, 1621). Transcript, III:660; SP 14/​ 120, fols.144r–​146v. 171 William Gouge, A Learned and Very Useful Commentary on the Whole Epistle to the Hebrewes (London, 1655), b1v–​b2r. 172 On Davenant, see James Ussher, The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, ed. C. R. Elrington (17 vols., Dublin, 1847–​64), XV:402–​5; Bodl., Tanner MS 71, item 41. 173 Como, Blown by the Spirit, p.77.

62  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England Elton’s work was not the only subject of Featley’s conference with James. The second half of Cygnea Cantio describes Featley’s licensing of the English clergyman William Crompton’s Saint Austins Summes—​a work that rebuked the Catholic priest James Anderton (alias John Brereley)—​and according to James, it went against the grain of the established church’s views.174 In his defense, Featley claimed that he licensed the book “out of respect” for the Duke of Buckingham, seeing this was to whom Crompton dedicated the work.175 This did not satisfy James, who pointed out that it was no honor to him when “the Arians in Polenia” dedicated their Racovian Catechism (1613) of “damnable heresies” to him, for which James had the work publicly burned.176 Featley explained that, upon discovering “many errors” throughout Crompton’s work, he “purge[d]‌those errors” with the moderate puritan Alexander Cook’s “helpe and advise” since he had recently written on the subject.177 Featley actually deleted three whole sections of the work “because they crossed the doctrine and discipline established in this Kingdome.”178 He supported this claim by showing the king the original unedited manuscript copy containing the three problematic sections. In short, the first section attacked jure divino episcopacy. The second attacked “the unlawfulnesse of anie contract of matrimonie between parties of different Religion”—​an affront that (like Elton’s) opposed Charles’s marriage and royal foreign policy. And the third attacked the “mariage of an innocent partie after divorce for adultery.”179 That Featley admitted to deleting entire sections of Crompton’s work supports our analysis of Featley’s removing the section on archbishops in Francis de Croy’s work and reveals that this was his customary practice with particularly problematic sections. While James commended Featley for removing these sections, he was angry that Featley left untouched four seemingly seditious sections. In James’s estimation, Featley should have thrown the book out entirely. Interestingly, in the remainder of Featley’s conference with James, the two proceeded to debate the validity of Crompton’s four supposedly seditious sections, with Featley seeming to take Crompton’s side. These debated points were as follows: whether the sign of the cross was received in AD 160 (Featley’s argument) or at the church’s 174 Crompton, Saint Austins Summes; Transcript, IV:121. On Crompton, see Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxonienses (2 vols., Oxford, 1691), I:23; Kathleen Lynch, Protestant Autobiography in the Seventeenth-​Century Anglophone World (Oxford, 2012), pp.31–​72. Also see A. F. Allison, “Who Was John Brereley? The Identity of a Seventeenth-​Century Controversialist,” RH 16 (1982–​83), pp.17–​ 41; Robert Dodaro and Michael Questier, “Strategies in Jacobean Polemic: The Use and Abuse of St Augustine in English Theological Controversy,” JEH 44 (1993), pp.432–​49. 175 Crompton, Saint Austins Summes, sig.F1r. 176 Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sigs.C2v–​ C3r; Clegg, Press Censorship and Jacobean England, pp.77, 244. 177 Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sig.C3r. 178 Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sig.C3v. 179 Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sigs.C3v–​D1r.

Regulating the Reformed Consensus  63 inception (James’s argument);180 whether women could baptize in cases of necessity (James thought this was contrary to Augustine);181 whether “Christ as a man was subject to some kind of ignorance” (affirmed by Featley and denied by James);182 and whether it is possible that children be saved who die without ever receiving baptism.183 A comparison of Featley’s attack on Richard Montague (discussed in Chapter 4) with this account reveals that James and Featley chiefly disagreed about the use of Augustine as an authoritative source. As we will see, this dispute was ultimately indicative of the kinds of debates taking place over the relationship between Augustinian orthodoxy and its bearing on established church doctrine. The goal of Crompton’s work—​namely “to prove . . . that the present Religion of the Church of England, is the same which was taught by the Fathers of the Primative Church; especially by S. Austin, whose Religion . . . was undoubtedly the Religion of all the other Fathers”—​was no longer considered the normative view of Augustine.184 For example, when Featley and James debated whether dying children could be saved without being baptized, James argued that since this was “a knowne error” in Augustine, one must observe a number of “caveats in reading Augustine, and other Ancient Fathers”185 and ultimately consider the “unanimous consent of the Fathers.”186 As Quantin has argued, this was not new, as James was employing the basic hermeneutical principle of other Reformation divines.187 Nevertheless, it reveals a rising trend away from universal acceptance of Augustinian theological positions, toward an increased skepticism of Augustine and particularly his doctrine of grace. An analysis of the Stationers’ Register reveals that Featley licensed other works—​such as Matthew Sutcliffe’s The vindication of Saint Augustines “Confessions” from the Wicked (1626)—​that attempted to rescue Augustine from the discrediting attacks of anti-​Calvinists and Catholics.188 As the works of Crompton and Elton were similar to numerous other anti-​ Catholic polemical works that Featley licensed without complaint from royal or ecclesiastical authorities, it is clear that while the content of these works remained the same, politically a shift was taking place over who controlled the king’s ear.189 Featley seems to have deliberately glossed over this in his account. 180 Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sig.D1v–​D4r. Also see Crompton, Saint Austins Summes, sigs.R1r–​R2v. 181 Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sig.D4r. 182 Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sig.E1v (sigs.E1v–​E4r for full debate). Also see Crompton, Saint Austins Summes, sig.I4r. 183 See Crompton, Saint Austins Summes, sig.S1r. 184 Crompton, Saint Austins Summes, sig.F1v. 185 Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sig.E4v. 186 Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sig.F1r. 187 Jean-​Louis Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century (Oxford, 2009), pp.63–​66. 188 Matthew Sutcliffe, The unmasking of a masse-​monger (London, 1626); Transcript, IV:161. 189 Clegg, Press Censorship in Jacobean England, p.88.

64  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England Although Featley portrayed the conference as a friendly debate in which he received James’s mild correction (with no other attendees apart from Richard Neile’s two brief appearances), other manuscripts give a different account. These accounts suggest that the anti-​Calvinists Richard Neile and William Laud were prominent figures in the censuring of Featley and further indicate that William Crompton was personally reprimanded. According to the testimony of William Laud, Crompton was censured and ordered to submit specific articles accounting for his actions.190 Between 21 December 1624 and 3 January 1625, Laud, the Duke of Buckingham, and even James himself reviewed (and presumably accepted) Crompton’s account of his errors.191 Moreover, in his unpublished work Icones Sacrae Anglicanae, John Quick claimed that “two potent Prelates,” Richard Neile and William Laud, “complained of Mr. Crompton to the King, as of a dangerous young man, who if he were not a Heretick, yet certainly he was a schismatick, no friend to the Church of England, but disaffected to her government.” These anti-​Calvinists “prevailed with” James and “sent for” Crompton, who, with the help of Featley, pleaded “his cause” before “his adversarys that accused him.”192 Quick’s account also includes other details left out of Featley’s; Quick noted that “sometimes the King would vary the question & frowne upon Mr Crompton, which did not a little gratify & please his Adversarys: at other times his Majesty would speak kindly to him, favour him & take his part, which did as much amaze & trouble them, being doubtfull & afraid of the issue of this affaire.” Moreover, the Duke of Buckingham was Crompton’s “speciall friend” and “Patron” “at Court,” who helped in “acquainting him with the true state of his Controversy.”193 Finally, at the end of the conference, James “gratiously smile[d]‌upon him, & as a pledg of his great favour let drop a shore of gold into his bosome” “with theise comfortable words, ‘Mr Crompton goe home unto your studys, follow them hard, & I will take care for your preferment.’ ” However, because of James’s untimely death, “Mr Crompton lost the hopes of his preferment.”194 Apparently, Buckingham also advocated for Crompton before the king, reminding James that he once told him that he “liked Mr Crompton’s Book very well.” Buckingham further reminded James of his own words, in which he said Crompton “hath 190 For Shuger’s misinterpretation of Laud’s diary regarding the details of the episode, see Shuger, Censorship and Cultural Sensibility, p.257. 191 For the details of these events, see William Laud, The Works of William Laud, ed. J. Bliss and W. Scott (7 vols., Oxford, 1847–​60), III:156. Also see Lynch, Protestant Autobiography, pp.41–​42. 192 DWL, MS 38:34, pp.188–​ 89. Although Shuger has dismissed this manuscript evidence (Censorship and Cultural Sensibility, p.314) because it was written in the later seventeenth century, it should be taken seriously since Quick’s account claims to have been written using sources of Crompton’s and Featley’s contemporaries. Also see Clegg, Press Censorship in Caroline England, 261; Lake, Boxmaker’s Revenge, p.87. 193 DWL, MS 38:34, p.189. 194 DWL, MS 38:34, p.198.

Regulating the Reformed Consensus  65 more ability to encounter an Enemy . . . than some men of greater name in the Church.”195 As Kathleen Lynch has noted, by comparing these various accounts we begin to understand how Featley and his opponents positioned themselves theologically as they contended for their own version of orthodoxy. Perhaps most remarkable about the accounts of Featley and Laud is that neither author “mentions the other’s involvement in the matter in their respective accounts of the event. Each presents himself at the centre of the resolution of the controversy.”196 As we will see, this was a central feature of Featley’s strategy for combating the shift in control of the 1620s. For example, one cannot help but notice that Featley ends his account with his subtle triumph over his anti-​Calvinist enemies, noting that when Neile cut Featley off during his final defense, James “graciously reached out his hand to kisse [Featley]” and “with fatherly admonitions, and benedictions” dismissed him and Crompton.197 As demonstrated more fully in Chapter 4, Featley also glossed over the shift toward anti-​Calvinism in his work A Second Parallel, an attack directed against Richard Montague. Although James instructed Francis White to license Appello Caesarem, Featley claimed that the king would never support Montague’s work since, as an Arminian, James had “proclaimeth [him] to be an enemie of God.”198 Featley’s obvious desire to censure Montague’s work, and James’s giving White (instead of Featley) the task of reading Appello Caesarem, are an illustration of the ways in which Featley was being thwarted in his attempts to oppose the anti-​ Calvinists. Despite his claims, Featley was aware of his increasingly unfavorable political circumstances; indeed, in his later work Sacra Nemesis (1644), Featley stated that anti-​Calvinists “sate at the helm of the Church and had great power also at court.”199 Although acknowledged in later reflections, Featley glossed over these shifts at court in both his Cygnea Cantio account and his responses to Montague. Given that James died in March 1625, little public evidence of his support for Montague remained; this allowed Featley to deny the anti-​Calvinists’ claim to James’s support.200 Since James never publicly endorsed anti-​Calvinism, Featley claimed that James remained loyal to the Reformed faith to the end of his life.201 Although Featley was aware of these circumstances, he glossed over these shifts 195 DWL, MS 38:34, pp.189–​90. 196 Lynch, Protestant Autobiography, p.41. 197 Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sig.F4v. 198 Daniel Featley, A Second Parallel, sig.B2v; James I, His Majestie’s Declaration . . . in the Cause of D. Conradus Vorstius (London, 1612), p.18. Also see Montagu, Appello Caesarem, sigs.a1r–​a4v, A4v; Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, sigs.R3r, T1r. 199 Featley, Sacra nemesis, sigs.K1v–​K2r. 200 For Montague’s “Epistle dedicatory” to James, see Montague, Appello Caesarem, sigs.a1r–​a4v. 201 Daniel Featley, A Parallel: of new-​old Pelagiarminian error (London, 1626), sigs.A3v–​A4r.

66  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England to maintain the appearance that Reformed divines had not lost their influence at court. This should caution us against simply taking these or other subsequent accounts at face value.202 Deborah Shuger argues that Featley’s Cygnea Cantio was his attempt at “reconstruct[ing] an actual event” that he believed was representative of “the ideal of censorship” and “the true sweetness of Jacobean censorship.”203 Nevertheless, while there may be some validity in this interpretation, Featley published his account at a strategic moment and for a strategic purpose. For example, although Featley licensed his work on 19 January 1626, he waited to print the work until 1629. In the “Printer to the Reader” appended to Featley’s Cygnea Cantio (1629), Robert Milbourne (a notorious printer of puritan works) wrote that the delay in the publication of Featley’s work was because Featley did not urge for it to be printed. Thus, Milbourne gave priority to printing “more sought after” books in order “to repaire that exceeding great” financial loss incurred from the nine hundred burned copies of Elton’s work; this “greatest losse (in that kinde) that ever any Stationer received,” together with his imprisonment fines, totaled “threescore and ten pounds.”204 A more probable reason for the late publication, however, was that Featley wanted to capitalize on Charles’s 17 January 1629 proclamation that ordered “the suppressing of a booke, intituled, Appello Caesarem.”205 Featley waited to publish his account at a time when he was less likely to have a direct conflict with anti-​Calvinists, and Charles’s proclamation may have provided a convenient window for that purpose. Additionally, Milbourne divulged that John Cosin orchestrated the burning of Elton’s books and worked to suppress Featley’s Pelagius Redivivus. According to Milbourne, Cosin “boasted at the table of a great personage, that he had procured Pelagius Redivivus to be called in, and utterly suppressed” and arranged for three hundred copies of the work to be “taken from the Printer” and “delivered to the Bishop of London” (although they were all eventually returned to Milbourne).206 One historian labeled Cosin “the most active, the most extreme and the most aggressive of all the new ‘Arminian’ clergy.”207 Cosin and his anti-​ Calvinist colleagues habitually and deliberately targeted conforming Reformed divines by suppressing their works and having them brought before ecclesiastical and political authorities. While Featley was making strides to censure and suppress Edward Maie’s Communion of Saints and Montague’s works, anti-​Calvinists 202 Featley claimed that his account was “faithfully related.” Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sigs.B2v–​B3r. 203 Shuger, Censorship and Cultural Sensibility, p.252. John Featley also accepts Featley’s account: Featley, Succinct History, sig.H7v. 204 Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sig.G1v. 205 Stuart Royal Proclamations, vol. 2, Royal Proclamations of King Charles I, 1625–​1646, ed. James Larkin (London, 1983), pp.219–​20. 206 Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sig.G1v. 207 Hugh Trevor-​Roper, Catholics, Anglicans, and Puritans (London, 1987), p.71.

Regulating the Reformed Consensus  67 were attempting to suppress the works of their opponents. As Anthony Milton has argued, “No one was campaigning for the freedom of the press”; rather, “The battle was over who would control it [licensing] most effectively” and “who could cast most doubt on the responsibility and orthodoxy of the licensers who worked for the other side.”208 Referring to those “who out of a love to the Church (as is pretended) have had a jealous eye over the Presse, and have procured other Pamphlets to be called in (though put forth by lawfull authority),” Featley was convinced that popery had infiltrated the licensing system. Specifically he referenced those who facilitated the printing of Montague’s Appello Caesarem, a work that Featley claimed “was stayed [at the press, presumably by him] upon just cause” and would have “certainly miscarried, and never seene the Sunne, had not present helpe beene got by a strong man-​midwife.”209 Featley believed Montague’s licensing agents were more afraid of being “impeached by Puritanisme, then of the Spirituall . . . danger of being utterly overthrowne by Popery.”210 Featley was persuaded “that if a Puritan Gnat be caught by them in the Presse, they will straine it even unto death; but for many a Popish Cammel, they swallow downe readily.”211 Indeed, S. M. Towers has shown that a number of replies to Montague were seized at the press, including Matthew Sutcliffe’s A Briefe Censure upon an Appeale to Caesar.212 Because he believed popery was infiltrating England, in his description of the burning of Elton’s books Featley cleverly inserted images that were reminiscent of the burning of Protestant books during the Marian persecutions. By this, he was suggesting that the “intense religious opposition” of Marian persecution was resurfacing again in the 1620s and ultimately encouraged readers to recognize that the anti-​Calvinists were papists who were actively searching out and destroying books by godly authors.213 As he described it, on the one side there were those who were “partly weeping, and wiping their eies to see a booke so full (as they conceived) of heavenly zeale and holy fire.” These people threw their books in saying that “their holy fires burned in sinful fires and profane flame was mixed with pious flame”214 and “holy book, go into the fire without me, nor do I envy 208 Milton, “Licensing,” p.634. 209 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.Ff2v. Also see William Prynne, The Perpetuitie of a Regenerate Mans Estate (London, 1626), sig.¶2v. 210 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.Ff2v. 211 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.Ff3r. 212 Matthew Sutcliffe’s A Briefe Censure upon an Appeale to Caesar (London, 1626). The STC claims that all copies of this work are imperfect. The British Library copy contains what appears to be a full text (class mark, C.110.c.29). For the attribution of the work to Sutcliffe, see William Prynne, Canterburies Doome (London, 1644), p.159; Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, p.148; Towers, Control of Religious Printing, p.163; White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, p.231; Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, pp.155–​57; Nicholas W. S. Cranfield, “Matthew Sutcliffe (1549–​1629),” ODNB. 213 Clegg, Press Censorship in Jacobean England, p.88. 214 Translation of “Ardebant sancti sceleratis ignibus ignes, Et mista est flammae flamma profana piae.”

68  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England you.”215 Then there was “on the other side a Popish shaveling Priest answering him with this motto”: “Woe is me that it is not allowed for you to go with your master.”216 Of course, by this point it was clear who was in control of the licensing processes. Accordingly, not long after Featley’s censuring, his licensing activities gradually declined. Although Featley licensed roughly one work a week from the beginning of his chaplaincy until 1625, he licensed works at roughly half this rate in 1625 and 1626.217 Given that he only licensed four works in the second half of 1626, it seems that sometime in the latter half of 1626 practically his licensing career was over—​although he did license two works in 1627 and one in 1629. In July 1627, Charles had sequestered Abbot “from all his ecclesiastical offices and jurisdictions” because of his resistance to Charles’s desire to use “the licensing process as a tool for his own propaganda.”218 This was the final nail in the coffin not only for Featley, but also for Thomas Goad, who was similarly released from his licensing role around this time. Goad appears to have been replaced by John Jeffrey, who became the licenser of choice for Reformed divines hoping to have their works published—​although Abbot’s other chaplains, Robert Austin and Thomas Buckner, also continued licensing works until Abbot’s death in 1633.219 It is not immediately clear why Featley ceased to be Abbot’s chaplain. According to John Featley and William Loe, Daniel Featley concluded his chaplaincy with the archbishop because he was irritated with Abbot’s treatment of himself when Featley believed he contracted the plague in 1625.220 Nevertheless, it is possible that this incident served as a convenient excuse for Featley to end his term with Abbot and so distance himself politically from the increasingly polarizing archbishop. Ecclesiastical positioning was a major theme of Featley’s activities throughout the late 1620s and 1630s. Indeed, Featley went to great efforts to avoid censorship in the 1630s. As Anthony Milton has argued, a hallmark of the 1630s was that licensers “massaged [works] to enable them to speak with a Laudian accent.”221 As is seen in more detail in subsequent chapters, Featley was willing to massage his own texts to enable them to speak with a Laudian accent. Thus, Featley’s past encounters with ecclesiastical authorities (i.e., his reprimand from James) encouraged him preemptively to censure his own work in an attempt to avoid future conflicts with Laudian authorities. As a former licenser and 215 Translation of “Sancte (nec invideo) sine me liber ibis in igne.” 216 Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sig.B4v. “Hei mihi quod domino non licetire tuo.” I owe these translations and this point to Clegg, Press Censorship in Jacobean England, pp.87–​88. 217 Towers, Control of Religious Printing, pp.174–​75. 218 Towers, Control of Religious Printing, p.166. 219 Clegg, Press Censorship in Caroline England, pp.89, 139; Towers, Control of Religious Printing, p.188. 220 Featley, Succinct History, sigs.H6r–​H7r; Loe, Sermon, sig.F2r–​v. 221 Milton, “Licensing,” p.645.

Regulating the Reformed Consensus  69 censor for nearly a decade, Featley was keenly aware of the positioning that was required to navigate the turbulent waters of the late 1620s and early 1630s. Because Featley was one of the chief persons licensing Reformed and puritan works, Laudian censors naturally targeted him. As Arnold Hunt has shown, in 1636 William Bray seized Featley’s collection of printed sermons (Clavis Mystica) and amended seventeen sheets from the original copy.222 Ironically, one of the chief censors during James’s reign got a taste of his own medicine. Nevertheless, Featley managed to print an uncensored edition of the work, using the license of an embryonic version of his Clavis Mystica. Indeed, before his licensing role was terminated, he licensed a work of his entitled Select texts of holy scriptures opened in six sermons; this was a collection of six sermons that was eventually incorporated into his Clavis Mystica.223 While this license was obviously insufficient for Laudian authorities, it is an example of Featley’s continued attempts to use his licensing privileges to avoid Laudian censorship in the 1630s, even after his licensing tenure had long ended.

Conclusion This chapter has made several contributions to the wider historiography. It has suggested that Featley periodically deviated from his customary mode of “benign censorship” when licensing works by authors—​particular anti-​Calvinists—​ who failed to comply with his own doctrinal beliefs, especially when he judged that their theological positions were harmful.224 In these ways, Featley’s licensing was more than a “formality.” He pursued an active agenda—​approving those works that fit his version of orthodoxy and amending (or in extreme cases, trying to ban) those works that fell outside of his doctrinal positions.225 This, of course, is an indication that Featley’s pastoral sensitivities played out in his role as a licenser—​that is, his attempt to guard the English Church from ingesting harmful errors by preventing them from being printed. In these ways, this chapter has shown that establishment Reformed divines could wield censorship as a weapon in an effort to marginalize voices considered harmful. This examination of Featley’s chaplaincy also has shown that he exercised considerable influence in his various roles.226 He utilized his position as a 222 Hunt, “Licensing,” pp.136–​44. This episode will be covered in greater detail in Chapter 5. 223 Transcript, IV:145–​46. His Select texts of holy scriptures opened in six sermons either was never printed or has not survived. 224 I am not suggesting completely overturning Anthony Milton’s notion of “benign censorship” (Milton, “Licensing,” p.630). Rather, I am merely pointing out that there were instances where Featley’s diverge from his typical practice. 225 Cf. Hunt, “Licensing,” p.134; Clegg, Press Censorship in Caroline England, p.37. 226 Fincham, “The roles and influence of household chaplains,” p.27.

70  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England licenser to get international works, especially those of French Reformed divines, published in England. Of course, this both strengthened his ties with international Reformed Protestants and demonstrated that concerns about Catholicism extended well beyond England. Although we may often assume that major ecclesiastical figures (bishops and archbishops) were the most influential individuals, this study has indicated that in seventeenth-​century print regulations, the chaplains fulfilled their roles rather autonomously and therefore were a major authority in this area. Most importantly, this chapter has demonstrated that our historiographical understandings of licensing and censorship have been clouded by the attempts of Featley and other ministers to veil the extent to which an increasingly influential anti-​Calvinist movement was seizing control of the licensing system in the 1620s and consequently marginalizing Reformed licensers. For example, one major historiographical debate questions whether anti-​Calvinists secured James’s unreserved favor at the end of his reign. This investigation of Featley’s attempts to counter the anti-​Calvinist influence—​by his deliberately concealing the shifting of the political tide—​illustrates how our historical understanding can be limited by the political maneuvers of the figures we study. Although our attempts to gain a clear picture can feel like looking into a hall of mirrors, this analysis of the mechanisms and motivations that underpinned the process of censorship has helped us to gain a clearer understanding of the complex and fascinating figures involved in this process. Ultimately, it should not surprise us that Featley attempted to conceal that anti-​Calvinists were exerting significant influence in the 1620s. Since this fact also did not fit with his vision for the established church, in the mode of an effective censor he attempted to erase it from the historical record.

3

Anti-​Catholicism Scripture, Patristic Tradition, and Pastoral Polemicism

Anti-​Catholicism was arguably the most prominent feature of Featley’s career and was central to his outlook on ministry. Featley acquired an interest in anti-​Catholic polemic as a student at Oxford, learning from his mentor, John Rainolds, and William Whitaker, both staunch opponents of Catholicism. Accordingly, Featley sought to learn from Whitaker by compiling Latin notes on his disputation against Edmund Campion.1 In 1612, while chaplain to Sir Thomas Edmonds, Featley engaged in his first recorded debate with Catholics. In 1644, the year before his death, he wrote a final anti-​Catholic work. Even Featley’s death was colored by anti-​Catholicism; when he was temporarily released from prison in 1645 because of his health, he moved to and eventually died at Chelsea College.2 Thus, over three decades of Featley’s life were characterized by anti-​ Catholic debates. This chapter will analyze the works arising from Featley’s debates with prominent Catholic leaders, focusing on the theological publications emerging from his debates with Richard Smith in 1612 and John Fisher in 1623, and connecting these works with their context. These works are representative of the host of arguments Featley employed against Catholics throughout his career and highlight the issues that were at the heart of Featley’s anti-​Catholicism. In particular, this chapter will explore Featley’s concerted efforts to counter what he perceived to be an increased number of conversions to Catholicism among the Protestant laity in both the early 1610s and the 1620s.3 Accordingly, this study of Featley’s anti-​Catholicism will shed light on several theological issues, including the role patristic tradition and views of Scripture played in anti-​Catholic debates and the connections between Featley’s motivations and his engaging in anti-​Catholic 1 Fuller, Abel Redivivus, sig.Pppp2r; Bodl., Rawl. MS C.753, fols.3r–​8r. 2 Featley, Succinct History, sig.K10r. 3 Except for the dispute between Featley and Smith—​mostly explored by literary scholars due to Ben Jonson’s and John Pory’s roles as notaries—​these debates have not been given serious attention. See Adlington, “Chaplains,” p.84; Ian Donaldson, Ben Jonson: A Life (Oxford, 2011), p.299; William Powell, John Pory, 1572–​1636: The Life and Letters of a Man of Many Parts (Chapel Hill, 1977), pp.38–​ 41; W. D. Kay, Ben Jonson: A Literary Life (Basingstoke, 1995), pp.136–​38; D. Riggs, Ben Jonson: A Life (Cambridge, MA, 1989), pp.188–​91; W. D. Briggs, “On Certain Incidents in Ben Jonson’s Life,” Modern Philology 11 (1913), pp.279–​88. Calvinist Conformity in Post-​Reformation England. Greg A. Salazar, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2022. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197536902.003.0004

72  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England polemic.4 It will also examine the timing of the publication of these disputes and Featley’s understanding of how publications could disarm Catholics. While recent scholarship has focused on the response of the English Parliament and Crown to Catholicism’s growing presence in the 1620s and 1630s, little consideration has been given to individual minister’s attempts to influence these shifts. Most importantly, this study will further evidence the complex and multidimensional facets that shaped the pastor-​polemicist Daniel Featley, understanding especially the links between Featley’s anti-​Catholic activities and his pastoral sensitivities.

Featley’s Debates in the Early 1620s In June 1623, Featley took part in a debate with the notorious Jesuit polemicist, John Fisher.5 This was his most famous anti-​Catholic disputation.6 In Featley’s accounts of the debate, The Fisher Catched in His Owne Net (1623) and The Romish Fisher Caught and Held in His Owne Net (1624), he alleged that the meeting was originally intended to be a small, informal, private conference to provide satisfaction to Humphrey Lynde’s aging cousin, Edward Buggs.7 Buggs, after having several encounters with Fisher, was now having serious doubts about whether the Protestant church was the true church.8 Fisher argued that the Protestant church—​unlike the Catholic Church—​ could not produce a list of credible names before Luther who had ascribed to the Protestant faith. Since Featley was a trusted friend of Lynde and widely acknowledged as the leading anti-​Catholic spokesman of the day, he was the ideal

4 Featley wrote several prefaces to anti-​Catholic works. See Henry Mason, The New Arte of Lying (London, 1624), sig.A4v; Tejeda, Texeda retextus, sigs.A3r–​A4v; Richard Crakanthorpe, Vigilius Dormitans (London, 1631). 5 This section overlaps with the content of Greg Salazar, “Polemicist as Pastor: Daniel Featley’s Anti-​Catholic Polemic and Countering Lay Doubt in England during the Early 1620s,” in Francis Andrews, Charlotte Methuen, and Andrew Spicer, eds., Doubting Christianity (Cambridge, 2016), pp.315–​30. 6 For Featley’s previous debate with Dr. Elgestone and Mr. Wood in 1623, see Daniel Featley, A True Relation of That Which Passed in A Conference (London, 1624), in Featley, Romish Fisher, sigs.Q1r–​T3r; John Floyd, A plea for the reall-​presence (Saint-​Omer, 1624); Ratramnus, A booke of Bertram (London, 1623); Milward, Jacobean, pp.220, 223. 7 Daniel Featley, The Fisher Catched in His Owne Net (London, 1623); John Fisher, An Answer to a Pamphlet Intitled: The Fisher Catched in His Owne Net (Saint-​Omer, 1623); John Fisher, A Reply to D. White and D. Featley (Saint-​Omer, 1625); John Sweet, A Defense of the Appendix (Saint-​Omer, 1624); Edward Weston, The Repaire of Honour (Bruges [imprint false, printed at Saint-​Omer], 1624); Henry Rogers, An Answer to Mr. Fisher (London, 1623). Also see Bodl., Rawl. MS 817, fols.156r–​ 169r; Bodl., Rawl. MS C.167, fols.72–​76; Milward, Jacobean, pp.220–​24. 8 Buggs probably first encountered Fisher as a chaplain for his brother Sir Anthony Buggs. SP 16/​ 229, fol.258r.

Anti-Catholicism  73 person to alleviate Buggs’s doubts.9 Buggs’s situation was not uncommon. In 1622, Fisher persuaded the Countess of Buckingham to convert to Catholicism. To control the affair, James arranged for the countess and her daughter to be immediately confirmed by George Montaigne, offered a bribe of reportedly £2,000, and even arranged a secret three-​day conference at which Fisher debated the two anti-​Calvinists Francis White and William Laud, and even the king himself.10 Despite these endeavors, the countess eventually converted to Catholicism.11 That a member of James’s court converted to Catholicism by way of Fisher illustrates his influence. As a formidable Catholic apologist in England, he was at times detained in London’s New Prison, although he was released because of the increased toleration given to Catholics during the Spanish Match negotiations. He was influential in the conversions of several prominent London families, one of which—​the Digby family—​he also served as a household chaplain, but he was even thought to be linked to the Gunpowder Plot. Fisher’s fame grew in 1605 with the publication of The Treatise of Faith.12 These negotiations were the political context in which the Fisher/​Featley debate took place. Central to these negotiations was James’s scheme to procure a marriage union between England and Spain by marrying Charles with the Catholic Infanta.13 In February 1623, Charles traveled with the Duke of Buckingham to Spain, where the Catholic court demanded that the English promise greater toleration of English Catholics for the match to be successful.14 9 Timothy Wadkins, “The Percy-​‘Fisher’ Controversies and the Ecclesiastical Politics of Jacobean Anti-​Catholicism, 1622–​1625,” Church History 57 (1988), p.164. 10 Beinecke, Osborn Fb13, pp.500–​508; LPL, MS 1372, fols.58v–​61v; Timothy Wadkins: “King James I Meets John Percy, S.J. (25 May 1622): An Unpublished Manuscript from the Religious Controversies Surrounding the Countess of Buckingham’s Conversion,” RH 19 (1988), pp.146–​54; White, A Replie to Jesuit Fishers Answer; Robert Baillie, An Answere to Mr. Fishers Relation (London, 1624); William Laud, A Relation of the Conference Betweene William Lawd . . . and Mr. Fisher (London, 1639); John Fisher, True Relations of Sundry Conferences had Between Certaine Protestant Doctours and a Iesuite Called M. Fisher (Saint-​Omer, 1626); I. [John] F. [Fisher], The Answere Unto the Nine Points of Controversy (Saint-​Omer, 1625). John Williams also took part: John Hacket, Scrinia Reserata (London, 1693), sigs.Z1r–​Z2r. I am grateful to Amy Gant Tan for drawing my attention to the first manuscript account. Peter Milward believes Laud was the author of the Baillie account: Milward, Jacobean, 224. Also see Timothy Wadkins, “Theological and Religious Culture in Early Stuart England: The Percy/​Fisher Controversies, 1605–​41” (Graduate Theological Union PhD, 1988), pp.25–​70; Rodda, “Dayes of Gall and Wormwood,” pp.198–​212. 11 Wadkins, “Percy-​‘Fisher’ Controversies,” p.158. 12 John Fisher, The treatise of faith (Saint-​Omer, 1605); Lake with Questier, Antichrist’s Lewd Hat, p.206; Wadkins, “Percy-​‘Fisher’ Controversies,” p.155; Michael Questier, Catholicism and Community in Early Modern England: Politics, Aristocratic Patronage and Religion, c.1550–​1640 (Cambridge, 2006), pp.394–​95. 13 Cogswell, The Blessed Revolution, pp.13, 15–​16; Thomas Cogswell, “England and the Spanish Match,” in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes, eds., Conflict in Early Stuart England: Studies in Religion and Politics, 1603–​1642 (London, 1989), p.111; Patterson, King James and the Reunion of Christendom, p.315. On the Spanish Match, see BL, Stowe MS 159, fols.218r–​275v; HL, Eng. MS 868. 14 Stuart Dynastic Policy and Religious Politics, 1621–​1625, ed. Michael Questier (Cambridge, 2009), p.6; Cogswell, The Blessed Revolution, pp.13, 15–​16; Cogswell, “England and the Spanish Match,” pp.111.

74  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England Rome supported this stipulation for “full legal toleration” of English Catholics and refused to issue a papal dispensation until these conditions were met.15 James’s plan, however, diverged from the English Protestant ideal, and opposition from English Protestants forced James to control objectors to his plot.16 In 1620, James issued a proclamation directed against the “excess of lavish and licentious speech in matter of State.”17 This meant that all works required a license or would risk being censored by the authorities. Since the clergy were some of the greatest critics of the Spanish Match, James’s principal concern was with overt criticism of state policy by ministers.18 In August 1622, he issued certain “directions on preaching.”19 These directions were designed to ensure “that no preacher” “shall causelessly, and without invitation from the text, fall into bitter invectives, and indecent railing speeches against the persons of either papists or puritans.”20 Some ministers, including Joseph Hall, were imprisoned for disobeying the king’s orders.21 James’s two proclamations were devised to silence anti-​Catholic publications and preaching since they called his foreign relations policy into question. James’s regulations were stringent policies indeed. One historian has suggested that, by comparison, “Archbishop Laud never restricted the activities of his clergy as drastically as James I did with the 1622 Directions.”22 When we turn to Featley’s debate with Fisher, on the whole it was rather uneventful. It took place on Friday, 27 June 1623, in Lynde’s house on Sheer Lane. Fisher brought with him his assistant, John Sweet, as well as “Iesuites and some others with them.”23 The meeting took place in Lynde’s dining room and centered on Fisher’s main question.24 At one climactic point during a lengthy exchange over terms, Fisher’s supporters interrupted the quarrel by shouting “names, names, names.” To this Featley replied, “What, will nothing content you but a Buttery booke? You shall have a Buttery Booke of names, if you will stay a while.”25 According to all accounts, the meeting was originally “intended” to be a private conference. Nevertheless, when the Jesuits arrived, they were shocked to find Lynde’s house filled with a large crowd of London’s elite society, which included, 15 Questier, ed., Stuart Dynastic Policy, pp.6, 48–​49. 16 Cogswell, “England and the Spanish Match,” pp.112, 115. 17 Stuart Royal Proclamations, vol. 1, Royal Proclamations of King James I, 1603–​1625, ed. Stuart Larkin and Paul Hughes (Oxford, 1973), pp.495–​6; Cogswell, The Blessed Revolution, p.20. 18 Cogswell, The Blessed Revolution, pp.21, 27. 19 Questier, ed., Stuart Dynastic Policy, p.34. 20 Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England, ed. E. Cardwell (2 vols., London, 1844), II:202; Fuller, Church History, sigs.Oooo3–​Oooo4v; LPL, MS 943, pp.81–​84; Cogswell, The Blessed Revolution, pp.32, 46; Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.58–​59. 21 Cogswell, The Blessed Revolution, pp.44–​45. 22 Cogswell, The Blessed Revolution, p.51. 23 Featley, Fisher Catched, sig.A3r. 24 Featley, Fisher Catched, sig.A3r–​v. 25 Featley, Fisher Catched, sig.B4r.

Anti-Catholicism  75 among others, the Earl of Warwick.26 When Fisher and Sweete protested of “the inequalitie of that Audience”—​namely that Protestants outnumbered the Catholics “ten to one”—​Lynde and Featley replied that they could not helpe it since they “did not expect” such a crowd.27 Yet in any case “He could not with civilitie put them forth his house.” Instead, he “instantly caused his doores to be locked up, that no more might enter in,” though “some other also came in scatteringly after the Conference began.”28 While it is possible that a crowd of London’s Protestant elite happened to hear about the conference, it seems that the Protestants exaggerated the extent to which they were innocent of publicizing the debate. This exaggeration seems probable when we consider that the same scenario took place in an earlier debate between Featley and Richard Smith. In the debate with Smith, Featley’s opponents had similarly thought the debate “was to have been private, before M. Knevet . . . and his brother, onlie.” Nevertheless, Featley “brought to pass that it was publike; there being many called unto it.”29 In the Featley-​Fisher debate, the large Protestant crowd served to disadvantage the Catholics, who were clearly outnumbered and in enemy territory, and to confirm the superiority of Protestantism. In this scenario, visibly surveying a crowd of Protestants could assure lay Protestants that their church was the true church. Furthermore, as the crowd was not formally invited, Lynde could not be accused of organizing an event against James’s orders. Protestants sought—​even if in a more veiled format—​to continue publishing anti-​Catholic literature despite James’s regulations. Following the conference, a flurry of publications ensued not only from Fisher and Featley but also Fisher’s assistant, John Sweet, and other Catholic and Protestant polemicists who wanted to evaluate the conference. Featley was the first to strike in 1623 with The Fisher Catched in His Owne Net. Fisher responded with An Answere to a Pamphlet.30 Then, in 1624, John Sweet published A Defense of the Appendix. Also in 1624, Edward Weston, the Catholic and Douai professor, published The repaire of honour. From the Protestant side, the English divine Henry Rogers defended Featley by publishing An Answer to Mr. Fisher the Iesuite.31 Featley constructed one final lengthy relation entitled The Romish Fisher Caught and Held in His Owne Net; he delayed the publication of this work until he replied to Sweet’s 26 Daniel Featley, An Appendix to the Fishers Net (London, 1624), sig.Bb2v. 27 Fisher, An Answer to a Pamphlet, sig.B4v; Sweet, Defense, sig.B4r. 28 Featley, Fisher Catched, sig.A3v. 29 Lechmere, Conference Mentioned by Doctour Featly, sig.A6r–​v. 30 Peter Milward believes that John Floyd was the author of A. C.’s work (Milward Religious Controversies of the Jacobean Age, p.222). Given Percy’s lack of defensiveness over Featley’s accusations about him as the author of the work in Romish Fisher and Appendix to the Fishers Net, Floyd’s authorship seems unlikely. 31 Rogers, Answer to Mr. Fisher, sig.A2r.

76  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England work by way of an appendix.32 As a final piece in the exchange, Fisher wrote his A Replie to D. White and D. Featley, in which he gave one closing response not only to Featley and White—​who had published his account of the 1622 conference centering around the Countess of Buckingham—​but to all other Protestant writers who had published anti-​Catholic works against him in the early 1620s. It is important to remember that the publications through which we know about this debate are selective and self-​censored. These publications were not static accounts of the debate; rather, they were decidedly biased retellings designed to entice the reader to side with each disputant’s respective camp. This debate contributes to our understanding of several theological themes, particularly lay conversion to Roman Catholicism at this time. Featley recognized that the early 1620s was a period in which a marked increase in conversion occurred among the laity; many were skeptical whether Protestantism was the true religion. Featley correlated this spike with the prospect of the Spanish Match and perceived this increase in conversion as a sign of the growing dominance of Catholicism in England. Featley employed several tactics to counter this lay conversion. These strategies were emblematic of his strong, public stance against Rome at the critical time when popery was beginning to make further inroads into England. They were designed to engender confidence in the Protestant laity that their church was indeed the true church. Conversion to Catholicism was becoming a considerable pastoral issue for early Stuart Protestants. In Featley’s preface to George Abbot’s A Treatise of the Perpetuall Visibilitie, and Succession of the True Church in All Ages (1624)—​a work that Featley probably wrote himself—​he said that there was no truth “more sought after by some, than the visibility of the true Church, which retained the purity of the Apostles doctrine, unmixed with the dregs of error and superstition.”33 The Catholic appeal to a historical record of Catholic adherents since the early church was more attractive to many wavering laypeople than the Protestant claim to uphold doctrine that accorded with the Scriptures. Capitalizing on this, Catholic polemicists highlighted Protestantism’s lack of lineage, which resulted in many laypeople doubting (or even leaving) the faith.34 While doctrinal arguments and exegesis were undoubtedly important, one’s adherence to apostolic tradition was also significant.

32 Featley, Appendix, sig.¶2r–​v. Also see Daniel Featley, A Conference by Writing, Between D. Featley . . . and M. Sweet, Iesuite (London, 1624) in Featley, Romish Fisher, sigs.T4r–​Bb3v. 33 George Abbot, A Treatise of the Perpetual Visibilitie, and Succession of the True Church in All Ages (London, 1624), sigs.A2v–​A3r. The likelihood of Featley’s authorship is established by the fact that Featley’s unnamed treatise in Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols.3r–​4r is identical with Abbot, Perpetuall Visibilitie, sigs.A2r–​A4r. Featley licensed this work (Transcript, IV:109). Also see Questier, “John Gee,” p.359. 34 Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.270–​71.

Anti-Catholicism  77 Ministers believed they had to protect their ignorant lay members since an individual’s conversion to Catholicism jeopardized their salvation. In short, doctrinal beliefs had tangible implications. Thus, this decision about which church was authentic had eternal implications. Furthermore, the number and status of those converting to Catholicism was a litmus test of whether Catholicism was gaining an upper hand, especially if that person was a high-​profile individual. Since many believed that the genuine church should continually grow, conversions to Catholicism produced further doubt whether or not Protestantism was the true church.35 As doubt crept in through private and public conferences, or through anti-​ Protestant polemical tracts, Protestants chose to counter this tide by similarly engaging Catholics through conferences and publications.36 Conferences with recusants were a pastoral duty presented in Canon 66.37 Featley referred to this canon when he explained why he participated in these conferences. He claimed it was his pastoral duty to protect the flock under his care from harmful theological arguments that prompted doubts and led laypeople away from the true church. He could not “suffer Wolves to enter into our Folds, and worry our dearest Lambs, bought at the high price of our Redeemer’s Blood, and that before our eyes, and not open our mouthes for their rescue.”38 Featley believed Catholic polemicists were laboring “to keep those in the dungeon, whom [they held] in captivity,” and so he toiled to set these prisoners free. For Featley, disputation was not merely an academic undertaking; he was driven by a deep pastoral concern for the laypersons’ souls, laboring against Catholics, who were preventing laypeople from “see[ing] a glimpse of light, lest they should look after more.”39 He believed that disputations with Catholics and the publication of anti-​Catholic polemic would ultimately aid in resolving the doubts of the laity. Featley gained experience in debating Catholics during his tenure as an embassy chaplain in Paris’s often-​hostile environment. From the beginning Featley was aware that antagonistic Catholics were preying on “our English Gentlemen that travelled into those parts,” and even “Embassadour Chaplaines.”40 In his Sacra Nemesis, written thirty years later, Featley claimed that “Cardinall Perone” tried to allure him to Catholicism by assuring him that he would receive greater

35 Questier, Conversion, Politics and Religion, p.9. 36 Questier, Conversion, Politics and Religion, pp.13–​ 14; Rodda, “Dayes of Gall and Wormwood,” p.116. 37 Anthony Milton and Alexandra Walsham, eds., “Richard Montagu: ‘Concerning Recusancie of Communion with the Church of England,’” in Stephen Taylor, ed., From Cranmer to Davidson: A Church of England Miscellany (Woodbridge, 1999), p.73. Also see The Anglican Canons, 1529–​1947, ed. Gerald Bray (Woodbridge, 1998), p.357. 38 Featley, Appendix, sig.H3*r. 39 Featley, Appendix, sig.Dd3v. 40 Featley, Transubstantiation Exploded, sigs.B8v–​B9r.

78  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England preferment there.41 Pierre du Moulin, in a letter to John King on Featley’s behalf, likewise claimed that English priests of the College d’Arras would “hancker about Paris, and lye in wait for English Gentlemen that travail thither, that they may catch them in their nets, and engage them in the Romish quarrel.”42 The Protestant accounts of Parisian debates portray him as a champion against Catholicism, particularly in preserving doubting Protestants from converting to Catholicism and converting Catholics to Protestantism. For example, Pierre du Moulin, in a letter to John King, mentioned that Featley’s countering Catholics in Paris “confirmed those [Protestants] who were weak in the faith.”43 Another dispute on transubstantiation—​with D. Stevens and subsequently Christopher Bagshaw at John Pory’s house—​ was prompted by a Protestant “English Gentlewoman” who “deeply adjured” Featley to participate in the debate. Following the conference, she apparently was “firmly resolved by Gods grace never to enthrall her soul to Romish Idolatry and superstition.”44 Featley also had a seven-​hour dispute with Richard Smith, prompted by “M. Knevet,” an English gentleman who, after living in Paris, apparently was wavering in his faith; like Buggs, Knevet arranged a debate between two noted polemicists to help settle his doubts.45 In this instance, the outcome was debated. Catholics claimed that following the conference, Knevet was unimpressed by Featley’s arguments and “soone after was reconciled unto the Church; and at Venice died a Catholike.”46 While the Protestants claimed that Knevet died “a most zealous Protestant, [as] one Master Russell, and diverse other without exception yet living are ready daily to testify.” They claimed Knevet’s “faith was strengthened not staggered by this conference.”47 Finally, his conference with Christopher Bagshaw was prompted by “a Scottish Papist” who, following the conference, “began to question the Romish Religion” and converted to Protestantism.48 Featley’s pastoral motivations and strategies to defy Catholicism were forged in these early debates and prepared him for his exchanges with Fisher. Featley’s most obvious polemical tactic during the Fisher debate was to argue that Roman Catholicism was a counterfeit version of Christianity, as measured according to Scripture. He sought to prove the incompatibility of the doctrines established at the Council of Trent with the Scriptures and the early church. 41 Featley, Sacra nemesis, sig.K1v. 42 Featley, Sacra nemesis, sig.M2v. 43 Featley, Sacra nemesis, sig.M2v. 44 Featley, Transubstantiation Exploded, sigs.B11v–​C1r. 45 Featley, Grand Sacrilege, sigs.Rr3r–​ Vv3v; Featley, Transubstantiation Exploded; Waferer, Apologie, sig.O2r–​v ; Lechmere, Conference Mentioned by Doctour Featly, sig.A2r–​v. 46 Lechmere, Conference Mentioned by Doctour Featly, sigs.I3r, I4r–​ v. John Lechmere also claimed that Knevet gave “his Bible of the Heretickes translation” to the Library at Arras. Lechmere, Conference Touching the Reall Presence, sig.Oo3v. 47 Waferer, Apologie, sig.O2v. 48 Featley, Transubstantiation Exploded, sigs.B8v–​B11v.

Anti-Catholicism  79 This approach was, of course, not unusual. Many English Reformed divines believed that Catholicism had its true origins at the Council of Trent.49 During the Fisher debate, Featley listed numerous doctrines that he believed were established at Trent; these, he said, were contrary to the Scriptures and the church’s teaching throughout history. These doctrines included “that there is a treasury of Saint’s merits,” the necessity of the Latin mass, “that Pope’s pardons are requisite or useful to release soules out of Purgatory,” the dependence on the pope for “all ecclesiastical power,” and the pope’s capacity to canonize saints.50 Featley challenged Fisher that if he could “proove, that the Apostles, or the Primitive Churches immediately founded by them, held your Trent-​faith, or those twelve new articles by Pope Pius in the end of that Councell,” then he would “acknowledge, that the Romane Church hathe a good title to the Scriptures.”51 Featley also used various scriptural texts and apocalyptic rhetoric to claim that the papacy was the Antichrist.52 In short, part of Featley’s argument was that Catholic theological arguments were not exegetically viable and that Scripture must be the ultimate source of one’s authority. However, this did not preclude Featley from employing tradition. Indeed, the most distinctive feature of Featley’s polemic was his use of patristic sources. Following the Fisher conference, he compared early editions of works by the church fathers—​specifically Ferus, Stella, Arias Montanus, and Papyrius Massonius—​with later Roman Catholic editions; by this he demonstrated that Catholic editors removed portions of the text that contradicted the Catholic doctrine established at Trent. According to Featley, the editing occurred to minimize discrepancies between the church fathers and Tridentine positions.53 In responding to Fisher’s principal question, “Where were any Protestants before Luther?” Featley rejoined, “They were among you, our Church lay hid in yours, as graine under a heape of chaffe.”54 Furthermore, in his debate over transubstantiation with Smith, Featley accused Smith of avoiding his patristic references, particularly to Gratian, who was “approved by so many Popes.” Featley claimed that Smith would not be able to “rid [his] hands [of Featley’s list] of Divine authorities” supporting the Protestant theological position regarding the Eucharist. He bolstered this claim with references from the church fathers, including Augustine, Tertullian, Cyril, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Jerome, and Theodoret.55 Featley concluded that Smith 49 Anthony Milton, “The Church of England, Rome, and the True Church: The Demise of a Jacobean Consensus,” in Kenneth Fincham, ed., The Early Stuart Church, 1603–​1642 (Basingstoke, 1993), p.194. 50 Featley, Fisher Catched, sig.B2r–​v. 51 Featley, Appendix, sig.Aa4r. 52 Featley, Appendix, sigs.N4*4r, Gg3v–​Hh2v. 53 Featley, Appendix, sigs.B2v–​D3v. 54 Featley, Appendix, sig.D3r. 55 Featley, Grand Sacrilege, sig.Tt1v.

80  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England was forced to admit defeat or “reiect all these reverend Fathers, and your own Doctors also at once.”56 Featley’s other anti-​Catholic works also countered popish abuses with a litany of patristic references. To take one example, in The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome Featley spent over one hundred pages defending a Protestant theological position of the Eucharist, systematically citing as support multiple authors from the apostles to the seventeenth century. His “Table of Authors cited” lists over two hundred sources, two-​thirds of which were published before the Reformation.57 This same methodology is evident throughout his Romish Fisher and Transubstantiation Exploded. Indeed, nearly every one of his anti-​Catholic arguments is supported by explicit references to patristic sources. In short, Featley’s theological arguments were firmly rooted in Scripture and confirmed by a received church tradition. Featley was not the first English Protestant to utilize the church fathers for polemical ends. A comparison of Featley’s approach with previous like-​minded divines—​such as William Perkins in his disputes with the English Catholic William Bishop and John Jewel in his disputes against Catholic controversialist Thomas Harding—​reveals that Featley was drawing on and building on his precedeccors’ arguments and polemical strategies.58 In particular, he viewed himself as following in the footsteps of his Oxford mentor John Rainolds and William Whitaker. Featley studied their methods in his early years at Oxford, utilized the same arguments his predecessors made against their Catholic opponents—​ namely the fallacy of grounding one’s arguments on human authority—​ and viewed himself as continuing that anti-​ Catholic polemic tradition.59 Nevertheless, the magnitude of Featley’s use of patristic sources to substantiate his claims was unique. For example, a comparison of Featley’s replies to the other eight authors who replied to Fisher in print reveals that Featley’s use of patristic knowledge and history in anti-​Catholic disputation far surpassed his contemporaries; and none of the other writers produced a catalog. For example, Richard Bernard’s reply to Fisher, Looke Beyond Luther, was significantly shorter than Featley’s and only devoted a page laying out proto-​Protestant witnesses “from the Writings of the ancient Fathers.”60 Though Bernard was concerned with many of the same popish abuses as was Featley, one chief concern was 56 Featley, Grand Sacrilege, sig.Tt2r. 57 Featley, Grand Sacrilege, sigs.D2r–​E2r. 58 W. B. Patterson, “William Bishop as Roman Catholic Theologian and Polemicist,” Recusant History 28 (2006), pp.209–​24; John Jewel, The Copie of a Sermon Pronounced by the Byshop of Salisburie at Paules Crosse (London, 1560), sigs.163r–​165v. 59 John Rainolds, The summe of the conference betwene Iohn Rainoldes and Iohn Hart: touching the head and the faith of the Church (London, 1584), pp.36, 490, 584; Whitaker, An answere to . . . Edmund Campian, sigs.Gg2v–​3r, Also see Rodda, Public Religious Disputation, pp.51–​52; Lake, Moderate Puritans, pp.100–​101; Quantin, Church of England, p.74. 60 Bernard, Looke Beyond Luther, sigs.D4v–​E1r.

Anti-Catholicism  81 the papists’ “vilifying of holy Scriptures, locking them up from the common people.”61 Similarly, John Mayer’s An Antidote Against Popery contained only a few references to patristic sources despite claiming to be “confected out of Scriptures, Fathers, and Councels.”62 Henry Rogers’s An answer to Mr. Fisher and Thomas Bedford’s Luther’s Predecessours contained almost no patristic references.63 Finally, while George Walker’s Fisher’s folly unfolded was merely an account of his debate with Fisher, Anthony Wotton’s Runne from Rome had several patristic references scattered throughout.64 Featley’s use of Scripture and history illustrates his polemical and pastoral methodology of reassuring wavering Protestants. He used his extensive knowledge of Scripture and patristic sources to validate his arguments and to ensure readers that his theological position was perceived as model of apostolic and orthodox faith. Featley’s patristic knowledge was integral to his anti-​Catholicism. By marshaling these patristic sources he demonstrated a superior knowledge of his Catholic enemies’ sources, and provided considerable evidence—​precisely what Catholic polemicists called for in their disputes. In his strong, sophisticated replies to the Catholic arguments, Featley assured wavering laypeople that the Protestant faith had sufficient historical testimony. As Peter Lake has argued, in the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods, anti-​ Catholicism was predominately binary—​“a way of dividing up the world between positive and negative characteristics, a symbolic means of labeling and expelling trends and tendencies which seemed to those doing the labeling, at least, to threaten the integrity of a Protestant England.”65 Likewise, Featley drew stark contrasts between a truthful Protestant church and a counterfeit Catholic adversary. He defended the genuine expression of true religion against an encroaching foreign enemy, and all of this during a pivotal moment (considered both politically and ecclesiastically). Though Featley was a conformist, he opposed James’s foreign policy. This was carefully disguised under the veil of abhorring false religion associated with the Antichrist. In this way, conformists, like puritans, could use it to address areas within the English Church that needed further reform.66 A comparison of Featley’s approach with other anti-​Catholic polemicists reveals that it, on the one hand, sought to enlarge the gulf between Rome and 61 Bernard, Looke Beyond Luther, sig.A4r. 62 John Mayer, An Antidote Against Popery: Confected out of Scriptures, Fathers, Councels, and Histories (London, 1625). 63 Rogers, Answer to Mr. Fisher; Thomas Bedford, Luther’s Predecessours: Or An Answer to The Question of the Papists (London, 1624). 64 George Walker, Fisher’s folly unfolded (London, 1624); Wotton, Runne from Rome. James Ussher also replied, but this was less direct—​by way of a sermon delivered before James: James Ussher, A Briefe Declaration of the Universalitie of the Church of Christ (London, 1624). 65 Peter Lake, “Anti-​popery and the Structure of Prejudice,” in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes, eds., Conflict in Early Stuart England: Studies in Religion and Politics, 1603–​1642 (New York, 1989), p.74. 66 Lake, “Anti-​popery,” p.79.

82  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England the Church of England. On the other hand, however, his position was at times more charitable than that of some of his fellow Protestants. Indeed, despite his harsh language toward Rome, there are hints of a more ambiguous form of anti-​ Catholicism that incorporated more inclusive language, yet was far removed from the less rigid positions of anti-​Calvinists. As Anthony Milton has argued, historians need a more nuanced view of Protestant antipopery, including of Catholicism’s staunchest critics. As Milton has argued, the binary-​opposition form of antipopery was one of several anti-​Catholic methodologies, not “an anti-​ Catholic ideological straightjacket” that they “were neither able nor willing to escape.”67 However, Featley and other Calvinists minimized the difference between the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches.68 For example, he argued that Catholicism did not disagree with the Protestant faith on the fundamentals, but that they erred by adding false doctrines. In his Appendix to the Fishers Net, Featley listed sixteen fundamental Christian doctrines, which Catholics added to.69 While Protestants and Catholics agreed that “Canonicall Scripture” is “the Word of God,” he claimed, Catholics added the Apocrypha. And although both believed that “Christ is the Head of his Church,” Catholics “adde” “a visible head, the Pope.”70 In short, Featley believed that Protestants and Catholics were in agreement on the essential doctrines, but were opposed to one another since Rome added to these fundamental doctrines at the Council of Trent. Featley’s tactical maneuver was common for post-​Reformation Protestants who were aware of its polemical advantages. Featley also conceded that salvation was possible inside the Catholic Church.71 He said, “Wee account all that professe the name of Christ, & Doctrine of the Gospell, to be members of the visible Catholick Church,” though “some are sound members and parts, others unsound.” Additionally, he said, “Wee doubt not, but Christ hath his flock under the Turk and Tartarian . . . and Rome it selfe, even in the denne of Antichrist.”72 There was some ambiguity about whether or not Featley believed that Rome was in fact a true church. He claimed that “the Romane Church we acknowledge to bee a member (though a sick and weak one) of the Catholique visible church; and consequently, to have some part in the gracious promises made to the Church, in the Gospell.” In another place, by contrast, he argued that “the Papacy, or that predominant faction, is no member, but a botch or aposteme in the Church.” Elsewhere he claimed that “the Church 67 Anthony Milton, “A Qualified Intolerance: The Limits and Ambiguities of Early Stuart Anti-​ Catholicism,” in Arthur Marotti, ed., Catholicism and Anti-​Catholicism in Early Modern English Texts (New York, 1999), p.86. 68 Milton and Walsham, eds., “Richard Montague,” p.75. 69 Featley, Appendix, sigs.Ii3v–​Kk1r. 70 Featley, Appendix, sig.Ii3v. 71 Featley, Appendix, sig.D3v. 72 Featley, Appendix, sig.Ff1v.

Anti-Catholicism  83 remained in the papacie before the dayes of Luther.” Then, in other places he said that the church “remained in the Papacie” yet “the Papacie were not the Church.”73 Featley’s discourse featured a mixture of binary polemic and a more nuanced understanding of Rome. Milton demonstrated that one difference between Reformed divines and anti-​Calvinists was that anti-​Calvinists were more conciliatory in their anti-​Catholicism.74 For example, William Laud famously claimed that “calling the Pope the anti-​Christ” never “convert[ed] an understanding Papist.” As a testimony to his approach, Laud listed twenty-​one Catholics in whose conversion he had been involved.75 Featley may have perceived that there was some wisdom to the less rigid anti-​Calvinist approach and pursued a line of attack that allowed him to continue combating Catholics according to his polemical convictions in a pastorally sensitive way to win recusant Catholics or “statute Protestants.”76 Richard Muller recently has shown how William Perkins’s anti-​Catholic works sought to apologetically engage conforming Catholics, and Featley undoubtedly was following his like-​minded predecessor in this regard.77 The similarities indicate that Laudians and Reformed divines were both pastorally motivated to adopt a more conciliatory attitude to Rome (though they differed in the degree of compromising with Rome).78 Featley also countered the notion that Protestants were obliged to produce a catalog of names to prove that it was a true church. Fisher argued that the Scriptures decreed that the church must at all times in history be visible and continual. The Catholic Church produced its own catalog since the production of a catalog was “the easiest and readyest way, to discerne this true visible Church of Christ, from all Hereticall Conventicles.”79 In the months following the conference, the Catholic cry for a catalog from Featley was strong. Indeed, a Catholic manuscript produced after the conference mandated that Featley was “required” to produce a catalog “without shifts and Idle Delayes” and that a production

73 Featley, Appendix, sigs.Ff1v, Gg3v. 74 Milton, Catholic and Reformed. 75 Laud, Works of William Laud, IV:309, 62–​66; Alexandra Walsham, “The Parochial Roots of Laudianism Revisited: Catholics, Anti-​Calvinists and “Parish Anglicans” in Early Stuart England,” JEH 49 (1998), p.638; Milton, “The Church of England, Rome, and the True Church,” p.199; Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.77–​85; Questier, “Arminianism, Catholicism, and Puritanism,” p.59. 76 Alexandra Walsham, Church Papists: Catholicism, Conformity, and Confessional Polemic in Early Modern England (Woodbridge, 1993). 77 Richard Muller, Grace and Freedom: William Perkins and the Early Modern Reformed Understanding of Free Choice and Divine Grace (Oxford, 2020), pp.19–​20. 78 Milton, “The Church of England, Rome, and the True Church,” p.199; Milton and Walsham, eds., “Richard Montagu: Concerning Recusancie of Communion with the Church of England.” 79 Fisher, Reply, sigs.B1v. The three Catholic works Fisher lists as having produced catalogs are John Fisher, A Reply Made Unto Mr. Anthony Wotton and Mr. Iohn White Ministers (Saint-​Omer, 1612), sigs.Ii3r–​Kk3v; Sylvester Norris, An Appendix to the Antidote (Saint-​Omer, 1621); Gualterus, Tabula Chronographica.

84  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England of a catalog was “agreed upon” by all disputants.80 Fisher concluded that since Featley, the “Protestants champion,” was not able to produce a record, it meant that no Protestant could.81 From this the world must conclude that the Protestant cause cannot be a true church.82 Featley disputed Fisher’s claim, arguing that “divine and infallible faith is not built upon the deduction out of humane history” since “the names of all Professors are not nor ever were upon Record” and “all ancient Records are not now extant.”83 Featley linked this argument with 1 Kings 18, highlighting that although Elijah thought there were none left in Israel who worshiped Israel’s God, the Lord told him there were seven thousand “who never bowed their knee to Baal.” Featley asserted that although “their names [could not] be shewed nor proved out of good Authors,” they were nevertheless a faithful remnant.84 In this respect Featley held to a “biblicist primitivism” in which he believed that the truest claim to antiquity was the Scriptures.85 Of course, there is inconsistency between Featley’s claims about human history and his actual practice. Featley was a great student of patristic sources, and he utilized those sources in his polemic activities. Therefore, one must avoid taking Featley’s claims at face value and acknowledge that Featley was not opposed to using human tradition to substantiate his claims. Featley also argued that Fisher’s question was “grounded upon uncertaine and false supposals” since there may have been “visible professors” that simply were not recorded. Therefore, because the question had a false grounding, it “needeth not to bee discussed, but ought rather to be exploded.”86 Featley argued that it was only necessary to show “that there were always those who maintained [Protestant] doctrine.”87 Accordingly, Featley split up Fisher’s question, neatly sidestepping Fisher’s main line of attack that the Protestant church produce a record in all ages in order to prove itself a true church.88 Splitting the question was crucial. As he counseled John Prideaux in a letter, “Be carefull so to state the question that the adversary take[s]‌no advantage.”89 This was a common approach that Featley adopted. Two of his previous Catholic disputants, Richard Smith and Christopher Bagshaw, similarly accused Featley of dodging the actual 80 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.853, fol.22r. 81 Fisher, Reply, sigs.M3v, I4v. 82 Fisher, Reply, sig.I4v. 83 Featley, Appendix, sigs.S1*v, S3*r. 84 Featley, Appendix, sig.S4*r. 85 Theodore Bozeman, To Live Ancient Lives: The Primitivist Dimension of Puritanism (Chapel Hill, 1988), p.11. 86 Featley, Appendix, sig.S2*v. 87 Featley, Appendix, sig.L2*r–​v. 88 For Fisher’s response, see Fisher, An Answer to a Pamphlet, sigs.I1v–​I2r. For Sweet’s agreement, see Sweet, Defense, sig.B4r. 89 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.15v. Also see Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.40, 141, 143.

Anti-Catholicism  85 question posed in the debate and pursuing his own independent line of argumentation.90 By analyzing his question, Featley undercut the foundation of his opponent’s query, showing that it was grounded on a false supposition. Therefore, doubts stemming from these arguments were unwarranted since the reasoning was faulty.91 Instead, Protestants could have confidence in their church as their faith alone held to a doctrine that was consistent with the Scriptures. Featley employed these same arguments and strategies twenty years later in his anti-​Catholic Roma ruens (1644). This work was a response to an anonymous papist’s similar challenge that Protestants must demonstrate “a continued succession of known visible pastours, and bishops lawfully ordained and sent to preach it perpetually.”92 John Featley claimed that although Parliament imprisoned Featley for supposedly being a royalist spy, since Parliament “could not answer it themselves, nor perswade the Reverend Synod,” they asked Featley to give a reply, even granting him use of his books, “provided that he should never have more than three of them at one time.”93 This was the origin of Roma ruens, for which service, John claimed, they did not release him from prison.94 As in the 1620s, rather than producing a record, Featley argued that “we need not give any particular or punctuall answer to this your demand: a question grounded upon a wrong supposal is sufficiently answered by overthrowing the ground.”95 Moreover, as in his debate with Fisher, twenty years later he reiterated the point that “divine faith [is] not to be built upon humane stories or records.”96 In fact, Roma ruens is substantially an abbreviated version of arguments Featley made twenty years previously. While Featley’s context and opponents changed, his strategies and arguments regarding church visibility remained the same. When Featley denied that he was obligated in the least to produce a catalog to prove that the Protestant faith was the true church, he was following John Foxe’s position by rejecting the response of some of his fellow Protestants that focused on those ministers before Luther who, as Milton argued, “had opposed papal corruptions yet remained in communion with the Church of Rome.”97 John Sweet noted Featley’s departure from these divines, saying, “Your owne Doctors in your owne house professed, as you know, The true Church must be able to name Professors in all Ages; & made it the very ground of their Argument, in that Dispute.”98 These Protestants differed from Featley by focusing on some of

90 Featley, Transubstantiation Exploded, sig.L8r. 91 Featley, Appendix, sig.S2*v.

92

Daniel Featley, Roma ruens, Romes ruine (London, 1644), sig.B1r.

93 Featley, Succinct History, sig.K5r–​v. 94 Featley, Succinct History, sig.K10r. 95 Featley, Roma ruens, sig.G1v. 96 Featley, Roma ruens, sig.G4r.

97 Featley, Appendix, sig.L2*r; Milton, Catholic and Reformed, p.284. 98 Sweet, Defense, sig.B3r.

86  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England the most significant clergy—​“Schoolmen, abbots, and even popes”—​who held proto-​Protestant theological positions.99 These figures were the most “vehement opponents of the Hussites, Waldensians and Lollards” that championed the proto-​Protestant cause.100 Instead, Featley located “an invisible elite” within the established Roman Church who throughout the centuries held proto-​Protestant theological positions.101 Featley denied that he had to make his case utilizing “the corrupt Popish Church,” for though “that way [was] perhaps beaten by some,” it seemed to him “a slipperie & dirty way.” He did not need “to seek the golden purity of faith, amidst the dung, and drosse of Romish superstitions, and deprivations in later ages.”102 However, Featley’s approach was not wholly consistent since in his catalogs he drew on prominent clerics as evidence of a “Protestant” line; he even supported some works that championed this argument.103 Featley’s approach to the Protestant tradition and his sidestepping of Fisher’s demands reveal that the lack of explicit Protestant history before Luther was a serious point of theological vulnerability for Protestantism in general. Featley recognized this weakness in his tradition. For instance, when he finally conceded to producing a list of names, he circumvented Fisher’s demand to begin with Luther and work backward. He insisted that the reason that Fisher wanted him to begin at the century before Luther was so “that he might lye hid ( . . . like the Scuttle-​fish in her owne inke) in those dark ages next or neere before Luther.” For if he began in the “cleerer streame of the first ages, [Fisher] would easily bee discerned, and soone caught.”104 This was an admission that, while the Protestant church had better claims on professors or teachers in the first century, it was more suspect in the ages immediately before the Reformation.105 Featley wanted the focus to remain on the flaws within Catholicism rather than the weaknesses within Protestantism. By controlling the direction of the debate, he attempted to minimize the flaws of his own position and accentuate the reasons why one should doubt the validity of Fisher’s question and Catholicism’s claim as a true church. Featley contended that a church was ultimately judged according to whether it obeyed Scripture. By this logic, the Protestant’s commitment to Scripture demonstrated that it was always present, despite their lack of explicit concrete historical evidence.106 Featley showed this classic argument by way of a syllogism: “That Church whose faith is eternal and perpetuall, was ever 99 On this approach see Milton, Catholic and Reformed, p.284. 100 Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.284–​85. 101 Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.283–​84. 102 Featley, Appendix, sig.K3*r–​v. 103 Simon Birckbeck notes in his preface “to the reader” that Featley “gave mee the right hand of Fellowship, encouraging me to go on with my Catalogue.” Simon Birckbeck, The Protestants Evidence (London, 1635), “To the Reader.” See Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.284–​85. 104 Featley, Romish Fisher, sig.F2v. 105 Featley, Appendix, sig.V2*v. 106 Milton, Catholic and Reformed, p.277.

Anti-Catholicism  87 visible in professors thereof. But the faith of the Protestant church is eternall and perpettuall.” Therefore, the church was ever visible.107 Featley believed it was impossible to generate a harmonious record of names that could withstand the scrutiny of the Jesuits’ rebuttals, which would certainly follow the moment he handed over his catalog.108 Astonishingly though, he turned the tables on his opponents by demanding that they adhere to their own demands. Featley insisted that “the Romish Church” should show “in all ages visible, especially in the first 600 yeares” those “names of such visible or legible Romanists.”109 Featley believed Fisher could never “produce out of good Authors” the names of a “visible assembly of Christians” who would hold to the “Trent Creed” “or these points of Popery.”110 Though he believed Fisher’s question was grounded on a false supposition, he still utilized his enemy’s tactic against him. Featley’s adopting of Fisher’s strategy was a backhanded compliment—​a gesture of respect that signaled that he recognized the validity of Fisher’s method and counted him a worthy opponent. Despite denying that he needed to produce a list, Featley eventually gave an account of visible Protestants in all ages. The way Featley compiled and gave Fisher his list was striking. In his Appendix to the Fishers Net, he described how upon visiting the “University Library” in Oxford, “a friend of mine (whose praise is in the great Librarie) presented me with a catalogue of names, saying, I understand by the conference lately published, betweene you and the Iesuites, that nothing will stop their mouths, but a Catalogue of names, loe here is a catalogue for them.” The catalog began in 390 with Hieronymus and ended, as requested, with Luther. As what seems to be an offhand caveat, Featley clarified that he “had not the leisure to examine” the catalog.111 Featley may have received his catalog from the Bodleian Library’s first librarian, Thomas James, who composed his own unpublished catalog of over one thousand folio pages, entitled “An Anticoccius or A Preamble to a greater worke which shall yf god will shew the Generall Historie of the Protestant Churches more or lesse visible in all times and in all places.”112 According to Anthony Wood, James was “the most industrious and indefatigable writer against the Papists, that had been educated in Oxon, since the reformation of religion.”113 Like Featley, throughout his career James played an important role 107 Featley, Fisher Catched, sig.B3r. 108 Featley, Appendix, sig.A4v. 109 Featley, Fisher Catched, sig.B1r. 110 Featley, Fisher Catched, sigs.B1v–​B2r. 111 Featley, Appendix, sig.F3v (for his catalog, see sigs.F4r–​G1v). 112 QCO, MS 249. For James’s reflections on the catalog and his relational connection with Featley, see Works of James Ussher XV:216, 217. Also see Irena Backus, Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation (1378–​1615) (Leiden, 2003), pp.237–​43; Jennifer Summit, Memory’s Library: Medieval Books in Early Modern England (Chicago, 2008), pp.31–​33; Arnoud Visser, Reading Augustine in the Reformation (Oxford, 2011), pp.44, 164. 113 Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, I:461.

88  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England as a censor of Catholic works and an anti-​Catholic polemicist. He collated various editions of the church fathers throughout his career to demonstrate the corruption of Roman Catholic texts.114 Though the Catholics “impudently deny” these corruptions, James identified 187 treatises as “shrewdly suspect.”115 Finally, James helped select the persons whose images appeared on the painted frieze of the gallery located in the top floor of the Bodleian Library. This frieze, containing portraits of 202 divines from the early church to the post-​Reformation, was a catalog in itself and is indicative of the divines throughout church history whom James admired most.116 Many, though certainly not all, of these divines were listed in Featley’s catalog. Since James too had served as Abbot’s chaplain, used patristic sources in his polemical writings, and was living in Oxford at this time, that he may have been this unnamed divine who helped Featley.117 Yet the question remains: why did Featley produce a list at all? First, Featley’s employment of James’s list was another tactical maneuver. On the one hand, it met Fisher’s demand, but, on the other hand, it denied any direct responsibility since the list was neither his nor that of any named author. He could thus take credit for producing a list but avoid direct criticism and opposition. Second, Featley’s own catalog came with a number of caveats.118 These caveats made clear that, although he was giving a list, his catalog was, according to his own terms, not to Fisher’s standards. By producing a catalog in these ways, he was able to demonstrate that the Protestant faith was superior to Rome in that it could triumph using its opponent’s weapons, but not according to its faulty stipulations. This was not Featley’s only strategic maneuver after the debate. Featley also claimed that his initial account of the conference, Fisher Catched, was licensed and published without his knowledge. Featley stated that his first draft was sent to Abbot, who delivered it to James. He also reported that “some copie (as we understand) was taken for the satisfaction of a person of quality: which passing from one to another, in the end fell into the hands of some Stationers; who, without license or knowledge of those whom it most concerned, committed it to the Press.”119 This scenario is suspect, given that Featley was keenly alert to James’s publication policies on account of his licensing role. And Fisher Catched was his only anti-​Catholic work published anonymously. Having said he would 114 Thomas James, A treatise of the corruption of Scripture, councels, and Fathers (London, 1611). 115 James, Corruption, sig.*2v. 116 For a list of names in the catalog, see Thomas Hearne, A letter, containing an account of some antiquities between Windsor and Oxford (Oxford, 1725), pp.36–​43. On the frieze, see M. R. A. Bullard, “Talking Heads: The Bodleian Frieze, Its Inspiration, Sources, Designer and Significance,” Bodleian Library Record 19.6 (April 1994), pp.461–​500; J. N. L. Myres, “Thomas James and the Painted Frieze,” Bodleian Library Record 4 (1952–​53), pp.30–​65. 117 James, Corruption, sigs.¶3r–​v, *r; George Abbot, The reasons which Doctour Hill hath brought, for the upholding of papistry, which is falselie termed the Catholike religion (London, 1604), sig.Dd4r–​v. 118 Featley, Appendix, sigs.O2**r–​O4**r. 119 Featley, Romish Fisher, sig.*3v.

Anti-Catholicism  89 have licensed certain works by Reformed authors “if the names should bee concealed,” Featley was aware that licensing anonymous works allowed him to distance himself from controversial authors.120 Moreover, Arnold Hunt has shown that while the unapproved distribution of another’s work was not a regular occurrence, it could happen, especially when a particular sermon was popular.121 Featley never confessed to publishing anti-​Catholic literature anonymously to avert James’s policies, nor did he specify in print that the publication of this conference was motivated by a desire to assuage wavering Protestants. Featley appears to have engaged in other anti-​Catholic activities in 1623 that would have been in direct opposition to James’s royal policies. He fits the description of the “Oxford man, chaplain to the Archbishop” whom the Cambridge Hebraist and biblical scholar Joseph Mede described as preaching an anti-​ Catholic “visitation sermon” in April 1623. Mede claims this preacher spoke “wondrous plainly & vehemently against the fearfull or flattering silence of our Clergie” and that “Solomon did ill in marrying with Idolaters, or Jehoshaphat in making affinity with Ahab”; similarly, the “maine cause of all the . . . mischeife in our land is the fearfulness or flattery of our Prelate & Clergie. The hope of a crosier-​staffe or a Cardinals hatt would make many a scholar in England beat his braine to reconcile the Church of Rome & England.”122 Featley preached visitation sermons during his chaplaincy and had spent significant time in Oxford.123 Of course, since Mede does not name the individual, it is possible that he was referring to someone else. It is no wonder that Mede neglected to identify the preacher. Given the timing of this event, clearly the preacher was speaking against the Spanish Match negotiations, the exact kind of criticism the king wanted silenced. Considering that Featley’s conference with Fisher actually occurred and that the details were subsequently published, this indicates that Protestants were resolute in their mission to counter Catholicism. Given his consistent engagement in combating Catholicism, it is difficult not to wonder whether he boldly published his anti-​Catholic polemic, despite the risks involved. Featley was informed that when King James found out about the conference, he was not pleased. Richard Neile—​who was no doubt delighted to relay the news—​informed Featley of James’s demand “that the truth of the late Conference be certified to his Maiestie” and that “all future meetings” be “forbidden.”124 It is worth noting that Neile, and not Abbot, was the one chosen to inform Featley of

120 SUL, Hartlib MS 29/​2, fol.59v. 121 Arnold Hunt, The Art of Hearing: English Preachers and Their Audiences, 1590–​ 1640 (Cambridge, 2010), pp.138–​41. 122 BL, Harleian MS 389, fol.318v. 123 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sigs.R3r–​S2r. 124 Featley, Fisher Catched, sig.D2v.

90  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England James’s demand. This is an indication of Abbot’s marginalization, since Featley was Abbot’s chaplain, and Neile was one of Featley’s chief opponents. Notable too is Featley’s depiction of James’s change of heart from initial displeasure about the conference, to his support of the publishing of Romish Fisher. Featley alleged that James, “upon the first noise and mis-​report of this disputation, seemed to distaste it.” Then, after having received “the whole truth of that which passed that day, together with the occasion and issue thereof,” “the former cloud, which threatened a bitter shower” was “suddenly blowne over” by Archbishop Abbot. With this change in perspective came “the true Relation of that Conference, finding the skie cleere, stole wings to, and from the presse.”125 Featley’s claim that James did not have the “full story” is a questionable claim, especially since he does not mention what these further details were that persuaded the king to think favorably of the account. In this clever maneuver, Featley disguised the fact that he was actually dangerously close to being censored by the authorities had it not been for the real reason that James had a change of heart—​namely that between 1623 and 1624 the Spanish Match formally collapsed.126 With the failure of the Spanish Match came the end of both friendly relations between Spain and England and the ban on the publication of antipapal polemical literature. This ban was the reason why Featley delayed the publication of his second work and why the majority of the publications related to the debate were postponed until 1624. An illustration of this contrast is seen in that, although his first publication should have been banned from being published, Featley’s second longer and more combative work, Romish Fisher, was requested and endorsed by James in order “to certifie the truth of that which passed in a late conference, in points of Religion.”127 Indeed, anti-​Catholic literature was no longer a hindrance to James’s foreign policy, but now served to underline why it was imperative for England to go to war with Spain. Despite the approval of the king and his ability to license his publication, Featley incurred difficulties at the hands of Richard Neile. In a letter from William Bedell to Samuel Ward dated 1 June 1624, Bedell reported that Featley’s “booke [was] not yet permitted to be sold” because Neile had taken personal offense at a particular passage.128 In the passage, Featley blamed the premature ending of the debate on those “informers” who “doo the divel a great deal of wrong by incroaching upon his office, which is, To bee the Accuser of 125 Featley, Romish Fisher, sig.¶4v. 126 Cogswell, “England and the Spanish Match,” pp.125–​26; Brennan Pursell, “The End of the Spanish Match,” HJ 45 (2002), pp.717, 725. 127 Featley, Romish Fisher, sig.*3r. 128 Bodl., Tanner MS 73, fol.443r; William Bedell, Two Biographies of William Bedell Bishop of Kilmore with a Selection of His Letters and an Unpublished Treatise, ed. E. S. Shuckburgh and Alexander Clogie (Cambridge, 1902), p.262.

Anti-Catholicism  91 the brethren.” Featley said that it did not grieve him “to receive a wound from them, who, in due respect to Religion and Calling, should have rather applied a salve.” Rather, it grieved him that he “should suffer anything for [his] religious and pious intention, to regain [his] kinsman to our Church, and establish [his] friends in the Truth.”129 Featley’s harsh tone is an illustration of the battle raging between Reformed divines and anti-​Calvinists at the end of James’s reign. And that he was struggling in 1624 to have his own work published is a further indication that Featley’s role as a licenser was diminishing. The anti-​Calvinist Francis White was Featley’s partner in the debate. White, however, was originally supposed to be the principal disputant in the debate. Yet “upon a cunning trick of the Iesuite,” it was decided by “some that were principally interested in the businesse” that Featley should be the principal debater.130 Despite Featley’s cryptic acknowledgment that a switch happened on account of a “trick discovered,” he never explained why that was a necessary justification for making him, and not White, the principal debater. One can only speculate as to why Featley was chosen in the end, but his modest comments regarding this decision may have been an attempt to protect himself if the authorities uncovered the disputation. If we scour the accounts, it seems White hardly participated, especially by comparison to Fisher’s assistant, Sweet, and White was the only disputant at the conference who did not make a published contribution to the debate. His Replie to Jesuit Fishers Answere only detailed the 1622 conference, which he, Laud, and James had with Fisher, and completely sidestepped the later 1623 conference. Timothy Wadkins has rightly suggested that James was probably informed about the conference by the anti-​Calvinist White.131 It is possible that when Featley took his place as the principal disputant, White chose not to participate in the debate or publish a response. Instead, he informed the king and his ally Neile about the conference. White later demonstrated that his loyalties were to the anti-​Calvinist party. As we have seen, White not only licensed Richard Montague’s Appello Caesarem, but also defended the work by way of an approbation.132 However, the presence of White, a noted moderate polemicist, may have provided some insurance if the affair was exposed. The group would also be protected by the Earl of Warwick, who acted as a mediator and “seasonably interposed, and, when the Disputants or standers-​by grew into any heat or distemper, discreetly tempered both sides.”133 This conference was intended to be both a private affair to give satisfaction to Buggs and an opportunity to showcase a strong

129 Featley, Appendix, sig.K4*v.

130 Featley, Appendix, sig.R3*r–​v. 131

Wadkins, “Percy-​‘Fisher’ Controversies,” p.165. See pp.66, 75. 133 Featley, Romish Fisher, sig.*3r. 132

92  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England Protestant opposition to Rome at an all-​important political moment. There certainly were advantages to making public a debate where John Fisher would have to contend with the hard-​line, anti-​Catholic polemicist Daniel Featley, rather than the more irenic polemicist, Francis White. The early 1620s was a fearful time for Protestants. The prospect of the Spanish Match and the defection of a number of the Protestant laity to the Catholic faith caused anxiety among Protestant ministers about their fate. Moreover, there were concerns in 1624 at the House of Commons about the “increasing multitude of popish and seditious books printed and published within the realm.”134 A successful match would produce further toleration of Catholics, and the influx of popery would continue.135 Featley was already losing his influence at court and losing his capacity to confront lay doubt by contending in these important battles for the souls of those defecting to Rome. For example, Featley was the obvious choice for the one to assuage the Countess of Buckingham’s doubts in the 1622 conference. Despite this, and despite the fact that he had already begun drafting both a treatise entitled “The trial by fayth by the tutchstone of truth”—​ presumably in preparation for the conference—​and a letter to the countess, he was denied the opportunity.136 There is a pastoral tone to Featley’s letter, which he wrote to “further establish [her] in [her] most holy faith,” being confident that God “hath so fortified [her faith] with his heavenly word thatt neither Rome nor hell” would be “able to prevale against it” since “those whom God loveth he loveth to the end,” and those who love “God and his truth love it to the end.”137 The choice of White and Laud over Featley was no mere oversight. White’s and Laud’s less rigid positions would counteract Catholicism’s claims without anathematizing Rome’s status as a true church and challenging James’s foreign policies.138 Both White and Laud were rewarded for their efforts, and traced their rise to preferment from this debate.139 This episode was therefore seen as an indication of whether Featley and his Protestant cohort would be given future opportunities to contend against their Catholic adversaries for the sake of these precious souls. In short, Reformed divines were losing their influence at court and were being replaced by anti-​Calvinists. Due to the prospect of the match, many were fearful of being ruled by a Catholic queen and believed there was a popish conspiracy to overthrow the monarchy.140 These signposts were motivators for Featley to defy the encroachments of what he regarded as a counterfeit faith and protect the Protestant church. Anti-​Catholic

134

SP 14/​165, fol.111r–​v. Cogswell, “England and the Spanish Match,” p.115. 136 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols.1r–​2v, 15r. 137 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.15r. 138 Wadkins, “Percy-​‘Fisher’ Controversies,” p.164; Milton, Catholic and Reformed. 139 Laud, Works of William Laud, III:139–​42; Wadkins, “Percy-​‘Fisher’ Controversies,” p.168. 140 Cogswell, “England and the Spanish Match,” p.115. 135

Anti-Catholicism  93 publications and debate were important tools in his pastoral strategy. As stated by Peter Lake, antipopery could charm wavering laypeople during emotionally heightened times since “it incorporated deeply held beliefs and values and it helped to dramatise and exorcise the fears and anxieties produced when those values came under threat.”141 Accordingly, Featley sought to engender assurance in a wavering Protestant populace and so prevent these laity from further converting to the religion of the Antichrist. Following the conference, Featley claimed that Buggs approached Lynde to thank him for arranging the meeting and to “[assure] him that he was well resolved now of his Religion.”142 There we learn that Buggs seems to have had a son who defected to Rome. Nevertheless, on account of Featley’s labors, Buggs boldly avowed that he was now so convinced in his faith that even “if his sonne would not leave his religion, and the priests company, he would leave him.”143 It is difficult to assess how seriously we can take these claims since they are filtered through a propagandist tract. While Buggs may have been snatched from the enemy’s hand, another reading is that Buggs’s doubts could have remained, but that the Protestants wanted it to appear as if they had been resolved. By presenting the outcome of the debate in this way, Featley would have been able to assure other wavering laypeople that their doubts could likewise be resolved. In either case, the debate’s public portrayal would remain: Featley had accomplished his mission by forging bonds of faith and confidence that were even more enduring than familial ties.

The Publication of Featley’s Paris Debates in the 1630s This final section will return to an examination of the publications surrounding Featley’s earlier debate in Paris. Though the accounts of his earliest debates in Paris were not published until the 1630s, Featley’s anti-​Catholic career began in the early 1610s during his tenure as a chaplain to Thomas Edmonds. These publications, issued nearly twenty years after the debates, were the most important byproduct of these disputes. Featley issued his relation of the debate with the intention of politically dismantling the Catholic Richard Smith, who was then under pressure from Crown and Parliament. Furthermore, Featley was attempting to hinder the invasion of Catholicism at court brought in by the success of the French Match. Last, through his publications he hoped to enhance 141 Lake, “Anti-​popery and the Structure of Prejudice,” p.97. 142 Featley, Fisher Catched, sig.D2v. Each side claimed that they had won conversions for their respective faiths. These claims were unsurprisingly denied from both sides. See Featley, Romish Fisher, sig.A1v; Fisher, An Answer to a Pamphlet, sig.G1r. Also see BL, Add. MS 28640. 143 Featley, Appendix, sig.Bb4v.

94  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England his own reputation, to resurrect the dilapidated Chelsea College, and ultimately to revitalize the more robust, antagonistic anti-​Catholic polemic silenced by the Laudian regime. He could not allow England’s foremost anti-​Catholic training center to dwindle while he was its provost. Featley’s disputation with Smith was his best-​known debate during his tenure as Edmonds’s chaplain and received the largest response from Featley’s opponents when he published his account eighteen years later. The debate took place at the house of the English gentleman M. Knevet and was attended by a number of prominent members of society—​including the playwright Ben Jonson and author John Pory, who drafted the account of the conference.144 It is clear that Featley’s targets during his Parisian disputes were the Catholic polemists stationed at College d’Arras. The Catholic College at Arras was set up in 1611 as an anti-​Protestant polemicist institution and “training ground” “for the future leaders of the Catholic community in England” to oppose England’s Chelsea College, which had been set up two years previously.145 Questier has argued that this debate between Featley and Smith was an attempt by the Catholic seculars to trump their Jesuit opponents in the task of combating Protestant polemicists.146 Both Featley and Smith were foundational figures at their respective colleges, and this disputation represented a showdown between two of the chief leaders of these polemical colleges.147 Featley’s two accounts of the Smith debate, The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome and Transubstantiation Exploded, contain even fewer details of the events than those relations of his dispute with Fisher. It is clear, however, that Featley took issue with the doctrine of transubstantiation and “halfing” Communion—​ giving the laity the bread without the cup.148 He argued that although Christ is really present in the bread, he denied that Christ was present “Corporally”; or “according to the substance of his naturall body, shrouded under the accidents of bread and wine,” which he called “the horror of the sinne of Anthropophagy” in the sacrament.149 By this Featley meant that Catholicism was approving a kind of cannibalism in holding that Christ was corporally present in the sacrament. Transubstantiation would again be the subject of a two-​day conference Featley and his assistant Thomas Goad held with two Catholics—​George Fisher (alias

144 Featley, Grand Sacrilege, sig.Vv3v. Lechmere, Conference Mentioned by Doctour Featly, sig.A5r; Questier, Catholicism and Community, p.377; Powell, John Pory, pp.38–​41. 145 Questier, Catholicism and Community, 376; Milton, Catholic and Reformed, p.32. 146 Questier, Catholicism and Community, pp.375–​76. 147 Adlington, “Chaplains,” p.90. 148 Featley, Grand Sacrilege, sigs.B1v. 149 Featley, Grand Sacrilege, sigs.Rr4v–​Ss1r, Ss4v; Featley, Transubstantiation Exploded, sigs.E3v, C11r, C12r; Waferer, Apologie, sigs.B4v–​C1r; Lechmere, Conference Mentioned by Doctour Featly, sigs.B1v–​B2r.

Anti-Catholicism  95 Musket) and his assistant John Fisher in April 1621 at New Prison.150 Moreover, clear parallels exist between Featley’s arguments presented there and these previous debates in Paris.151 What is less obvious about the Parisian debates is that they were published at the precise moment when Smith was under serious duress from the Caroline regime. Beginning with his leadership in the Appellant dispute, Smith was one of the most influential Catholic leaders in England for nearly thirty years.152 Smith’s impact in these early disputes was minuscule compared with his role in the mid-​1620s during the French Match negotiations as the newly elected bishop of Chalcedon.153 As with the Spanish Match, English negotiators believed an alliance with Catholic France would curb those set on establishing a uniform Protestant nation.154 Likewise, Rome’s support was contingent on whether the English would give toleration to English Catholics.155 Smith was optimistic about the match’s success and toleration for English Catholics.156 Throughout the late 1620s there were continual exchanges between Charles and Parliament over this issue of Catholic toleration in England.157 Although Charles issued several formal anti-​Catholic proclamations, they lacked real teeth since Charles’s chief motivation was to avoid accusations of a popish conspiracy perceived as a result of the French Match.158 These were mere gestures on Charles’s part, for he had little intention of taking serious measures against Catholics.159 Parliament seemed aware of Charles’s concealed motivations and reacted strongly to perceived signs of encroaching Catholicism.160 Thus, although statutes existed for punishing disobedient Catholics, the Caroline regime appeared reluctant to enforce them.161 150 Featley, Romish Fisher, sigs.H3r, M3r; Godfrey Anstruther, The Seminary Priests, vol. 2, Early Stuarts, 1603–​ 1659 (Essex, 1975), p.103. Peter Milward, “George Fisher [alias Musket, Muscote],” ODNB. 151 Featley, Romish Fisher, sigs.H1r, H3r–​H4r, L4r. 152 Questier, Catholicism and Community, p.251; Newsletters from the Archpresbyterate for George Birkhead, pp.7–​9. For another study of the deep-​seated divisions within the Catholic priesthood about the legality of participating in Protestant worship, see Alexandra Walsham, “‘Yielding to the Extremity of the Time’: Conformity, Orthodoxy and the Post-​Reformation Catholic Community,” in Peter Lake and Michael Questier, eds., Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c.1560–​1660 (Woodbridge, 2006), pp.211–​36, especially p.214. 153 Questier, ed., Stuart Dynastic Policy, pp.86–​87; Questier, Catholicism and Community, p.417; Newsletters from the Archpresbyterate for George Birkhead, p.24; Antony Allison, “Richard Smith, Richelieu and the French Marriage: The Political Context of Smith’s Appointment as Bishop for England in 1624,” RH 7 (1964), pp.148–​211; Questier, Catholicism and Community, p.417. 154 Questier, ed., Stuart Dynastic Policy, p.81; Milton, “A Qualified Intolerance,” p.98. 155 Questier, ed., Stuart Dynastic Policy, pp.91, 100, 113; Milton, “A Qualified Intolerance,” p.98; Questier, Catholicism and Community, pp.425–​26. 156 Questier, ed., Stuart Dynastic Policy, pp.102, 114; Questier, Catholicism and Community, p.432. 157 Stuart Royal Proclamations, vol. 2, pp.52–​54; Questier, Catholicism and Community, p.428. 158 Questier, ed., Stuart Dynastic Policy, pp.118–​19; Stuart Royal Proclamations, vol. 2, pp.76–​77. 159 Questier, Catholicism and Community, p.430. 160 Questier, ed., Stuart Dynastic Policy, p.118. 161 Questier, ed., Stuart Dynastic Policy, p.122.

96  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England In the late 1620s, however, Smith incurred significant opposition from within his own Catholic camp. During this time many of the issues from the Appellant controversy were revived in the Approbation controversy when Jesuits in England rejected not only Smith’s jurisdiction as newly appointed bishop in England, but also his claim that “Catholic clergymen in England should turn to him for ‘approbation,’ i.e. the (theoretically automatic) licensing of missionary priests.”162 Smith’s perceived jurisdiction became an issue for the English Protestants as well, who believed that he was impinging on the authority of the Crown. Two proclamations were issued in December 1628 and March 1629 for Smith’s arrest.163 Though these were deeply alarming for Smith, Charles launched them in order “to answer some of the criticisms levelled at the crown in the recently dissolved parliament.”164 Smith was caught in the middle of Charles’s attempt to balance his own sympathetic stance toward Catholics and his policies, which he knew could curb Parliament’s fears.165 It is unclear whether Charles would have taken further steps in Smith’s case had it escalated. Nevertheless, Smith was not the only one aware of his unfavorable position. Featley was aware of Smith’s pressure from both the Catholic camp and the Crown. As Featley witnessed Smith’s pressure, he released his account in order to contribute to the litany of protests being waged against Smith. For example, Smith and his supporters were enraged over Featley’s unannounced publication, alleging that it was “importunely” published.166 Featley argued that his publication was legitimate since the conference’s publications were “taken out of the authenticall notes of both parties, and confirmed and subscribed by two [Pory and Jonson] that were present at the disputation,” and Smith himself had signed off on the account.167 Featley’s attack was designed to counter Smith’s claim that he was a loyal and tolerable English subject. In his correspondence with English ministers (like Laud) who were more sympathetic to Catholicism, Smith tried to demonstrate that he was loyal to the English state. In a letter to Laud in April 1635, Smith claimed that despite those who accused him of being “hatefull to [his] king and country at home,” he implored Laud to convince the king of his ultimate loyalties to the king and established church.168 Featley was keen to show that Smith had an extensive track record of hostility toward the English Church.169 In this, Featley also may have been trying to 162 Questier, Catholicism and Community, p.433. 163 Stuart Royal Proclamations, vol. 2, pp.216–​18, 225–​26. 164 Questier, Catholicism and Community, p.466. 165 Questier, Catholicism and Community, pp.464–​65. 166 L. I., The Relection of the Conference, sig.H6v. 167 Featley, Transubstantiation Exploded, sig.C6r. 168 Newsletters from the Caroline Court, 1631–​ 1638, ed. Michael Questier (Cambridge, 2005), p.253. 169 Adlington, “Chaplains,” p.88.

Anti-Catholicism  97 hinder Smith and his supporters from executing their supposed popish plot in the guise of Charles’s marriage union with Henrietta Maria. Smith’s supporters diligently worked to ensure that through the young, fifteen-​year-​old queen, the Stuart regime would keep their promises of Catholic toleration made during the treaty negotiations.170 Many had initially hoped for cooperation between Charles’s court and the queen’s entourage. This was short-​lived since from the beginning Charles was “unsympathetic towards his wife’s liturgical requests and requirements.”171 Then, in August 1626, Charles instructed Buckingham to expel almost all the priests in her entourage after many protested that the new queen’s Catholicism was far too overt.172 However, following Buckingham’s death, antipopish anxiety again rose as Henrietta increasingly influenced Charles’s judgments.173 Many were fearful that Henrietta was actively pursuing her husband’s conversion, possibly even through seduction.174 Henrietta was seen as the “prime mover” in this popish plot and famously made it “fashionable to be Catholic” in England.175 Featley, as a member of the Lower House of Convocation, would have been aware of these events.176 If his intention was to thwart these plans, it certainly worked. As opposition to Catholicism increased, Smith retracted his previous statements to avoid further conflict with monarchical authority. This failed to satisfy his opponents because his recantation was not publicly announced. Then, in 1631, only a year after Featley’s publication of Grand Sacrilege, Smith relinquished his bishopric after being forced into exile in France.177 Additionally, Featley may have engaged in these debates and published these accounts to boost his reputation. Indeed, because of Featley’s performance in these disputes, he secured his next appointment as George Abbot’s chaplain and as ecclesiastical licenser.178 Featley also may have released these anti-​Catholic publications in the 1630s to strengthen his position during a time when he and his fellow Calvinist conformists had fallen out of preferment.179 Since many feared that there was a popish plot infiltrating the monarchy, Featley’s publication could

170 Dagmar Freist, “Popery in Perfection? The experience of Catholicism: Henrietta Maria between Private Practice and Public Discourse,” in Michael Braddick and David Smith, eds., The Experience of Revolution in Stuart Britain: Chapters for John Morrill (Cambridge, 2011), p.40; Questier, Catholicism and Community, pp.421, 423; Questier, ed., Stuart Dynastic Policy, p.116. 171 Questier, ed., Stuart Dynastic Policy, pp.117–​18. 172 Questier, Catholicism and Community, p.428. 173 Arthur Marotti, Religious Ideology and Cultural Fantasy: Catholic and Anti-​Catholic Discourse in Early Modern England (Notre Dame, 2005), p.63. 174 Freist, “Popery,” pp.35, 46. 175 Freist, “Popery,” pp.49, 44. 176 See pp.141, 146. 177 Questier, Catholicism and Community, p.467. 178 Adlington, “Chaplains,” pp.83–​84. 179 Adlington, “Chaplains,” pp.87–​88.

98  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England further fuel these fears, while providing assurance that there were still ministers in England who would continue to battle against Catholicism.180 During the same year that Featley published Grand Sacrilege he was elected as provost of Chelsea College. According to the college’s first provost, Matthew Sutcliffe, Chelsea College was “founded” “principally for the maintenance of the true, Catholique, Apostlique, and Christian faith,” and for combating “the pedantry, sophistries, and novelties of the Jesuits and other the Popes factors.”181 The institution was established with King James’s support, who even provided “timber requistie for the building out of Windsor Forest.”182 Founded in 1610, it had only twenty members, seventeen of whom were clergymen.183 Although Featley was not one of the original fellows listed, an analysis of his collection of letters reveals that early in his career he wrote to several of these fellows, including Miles Smith, John Spencer, and Thomas Morton.184 Chelsea College continued to be a bastion for anti-​Catholicism during the 1610s and 1620s; Jesse Lander has called it an “unprecedented example of the institutionalizing of polemic.”185 However, by Sutcliffe’s death in 1629, there were already signs that it was beginning to fall from its place of strength. In his will, Sutcliffe claimed that a further purpose of the founding of Chelsea was to combat the “pelagianizing Arminians, and others, that draw towards popery and Babilonian slavery, endeavouring to make a rent in Gods church, and a peace between heresy and God’s true faith, between Christ and anti-​Christ.”186 Since his attack on Richard Montague had been censured only a few years previously, Sutcliffe was conscious at his death that the rise of anti-​Calvinism could have adverse effects on his beloved Chelsea College.187 Accordingly, Sutcliffe planned to counter the anticipated decline of the college. He appointed Featley “as the person best qualified to succeed him” as provost; Featley was formally elected to the position on 2 July 1629.188 Featley’s appointment as the second provost of Chelsea College indicates that he continued to be one of the foremost

180 Adlington, “Chaplains,” p.88. 181 Bodl., Tanner MS 142, fol.52r. Also see Falkner, Account, pp.42–​43; Daniel Lysons, Environs of London (4 vols., London, 1795–​96), II:149; Kennedy, “King James,” p.110. This section is particularly indebted to Kennedy. 182 Falkner, Account, p.6. Also see Bodl., Tanner MS 142, fols.53v–​54r. 183 Falkner, Account, p.7. For the 1610 list of fellows, see Fuller, Church History, sig.Gggg2v. For the 1629 fellows see Falkner, Account, pp.31–​32. Also see Bodl., Tanner MS 142, fol.53v. 184 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols. 10r, 52v, 55r–​56v, 58r–​60v, 61v–​62r, 115r–​116v, 209r–​v. 185 Jesse Lander, Inventing Polemic: Religion, Print, and Literary Culture in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2006), p.203. 186 Bodl., Tanner MS 142, fol.52r. 187 Sutcliffe, Brief Censure. 188 Falkner, Account, p.34. For Sutcliffe’s preference for Featley, see Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.5r; Bodl., Tanner MS 142, fol.53v.

Anti-Catholicism  99 anti-​Catholic polemicists, even into the Caroline period.189 In his will, Sutcliffe also gave significant funds and land to the college so that “the work were not hindered, and staied.”190 In a pastoral letter to Sutcliffe’s widow, Featley said that although she was experiencing the “greatest of all” losses, it be “repaire[d]‌[by him] who take him from you to himself.”191 She could also take comfort from the fact that he would “be ever careful to accomplish [Sutcliffe’s] desire” with the gift he “bequeathed to the college and how he would have his gift employed.”192 However, despite Featley’s best efforts, it appears that there was some misuse of these funds by those affiliated with the college.193 Featley incurred other opposition while he was provost. Laudians believed that Chelsea College was symbolic of an anti-​Catholic approach that was at odds with the Caroline regime’s perspective. Therefore, they believed the funds designated for the college should be delegated to support those programs that the Caroline church thought worthy—​namely the beautification of churches. For example, in a 1636 letter to William Laud, the Laudian minister George Cottington asked Laud to probe Charles as to whether they could make “better use” of these funds for “the reparation of St. Pauls Church.”194 Charles too had little regard for Chelsea College and reportedly wanted it “to be converted to a Pesthouse.”195 Thus, when Sir Francis Kynaston, regent of the Museum Minervae, petitioned the king for permission to relocate his academy to Chelsea College during the plague epidemic, Featley responded by denying entry, which resulted in a further petition from Kynaston to William Laud.196 In response to Kynaston’s petitions, Featley said that he “had great cause” to deny Kynaston admission to the college since “one of them brought the infection into the house in little Chelsea, and where Sir Francis Kinston lay with Dr. May one of the Professors of the new Academy; a popish recusant, and an Apostate from our church.”197 Featley’s reply indicates that the heart of the matter was letting Catholics into an anti-​Catholic college. Featley claimed that letting the company in would expose the college not only to physical infirmity through the plague, but to spiritual infection through Catholicism. Many English Reformed divines feared that 189 Featley was the second (not third) provost of Chelsea College. See John Darley, The Glory of Chelsey Colledge Revived (London, 1662), sig.E2r. For the error that he was the third see Fuller, Church History, sig.Gggg4r. 190 Bodl., Tanner MS 142, fol.54r; Falkner, Account, pp.10–​11. 191 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.4v. 192 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.5r. 193 See Bodl., Tanner MS 142, fols.54v–​55v. 194 Bodl., Tanner MS 142, fol.55v. Also see Bodl., Tanner MS 142, fol.61r–​v (on the back of the letter Laud wrote “Controversy College,” though there is no recorded response from Laud). 195 Bodl., Tanner MS 142, fol.56r. Lysons, Environs, II:153. On the steady decline and various uses of the college throughout the 1630s, see Kennedy, “King James,” p.115. 196 Bodl., Tanner MS 142, fol55v. Also see SP 16/​341, fol.207r; Falkner, Account, pp.36–​37; Lysons, Environs, II:152–​53. 197 Bodl., Tanner MS 142, fol.56v.

100  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England Catholicism was infecting the English monarchy and church much as the plague was wreaking havoc on the English people. In short, these confrontations were a sign of the theological convictions that underpinned Featley’s actions. Featley’s defense of Chelsea College was one example of his wider goal of combating the Laudian and Caroline regime’s devaluation of anti-​Catholic polemic. The state of Chelsea College in the 1630s is a representation of the condition of anti-​Catholic polemic during the Caroline regime. Charles and the Laudian regime were sympathetic to Catholicism and had silenced the most militant expressions of anti-​ Catholicism. Thus, the correlation between Featley’s upsurge of anti-​Catholic publication and his appointment as provost indicates that he was attempting to revive a version of anti-​Catholic polemic that was being pushed out by Laudian influences. Featley’s attack on Catholicism may have also contained an internal and oblique critique of the Laudians’ ostensibly Catholic inclinations. Certainly, Featley could not launch a forthright critique of these fellow members of the established church without finding himself on the receiving end of church discipline. Instead, he capitalized on a unique political moment—​when Charles was reluctantly forced to censure one of England’s leading Catholics—​by publishing an attack directed not only against Smith, but also the very leaders of the Caroline church. Featley’s anti-​Catholic activities continued throughout the late 1630s, but in a more indirect manner. In 1638, Featley facilitated the publication of Humphrey Lynde’s final reply in a series of debates with various Catholic authors. In 1628, Lynde had published Via tuta, or, The Safe Way (1628) and Via devia (1630), two standard pieces of anti-​Catholic polemical works demonstrating the errors of the Roman Church and the spiritual safety and visibility of the Protestant religion.198 The final work, which Featley published posthumously, was entitled, A case for the spectacles, or, A defence of Via tuta, the safe way (1638). To this work Featley appended his own sermon, delivered at Lynde’s funeral, and a work entitled Stricturae in Lyndomastigem—​which Featley claimed was not his own, but Lynde’s.199 Lynde’s works were unique because he was not a minister, but a gentleman writing for his peers.200 They also made quite an impact as they instigated a series of Catholic replies by John Floyd, John Heigham, and others; and Via tuta was published in five editions in England (1628, twice in 1629, 1630,

198 Humphrey Lynde, Via tuta (1st ed., London, 1628) and Humphrey Lynde, Via devia (London, 1630). 199 Humphrey Lynde, A Case for Spectacles (London, 1638); Humphrey Lynde, Stricturae in Lyndomastygem (London, 1638), sig.A2v. Lynde’s Stricturae was republished again in 1660 as Humphrey Lynde, The ancient doctrine of the Church of England maintained in its primitive purity (London, 1660). Also see Loe, Sermon, sig.E4r–​v. For Lynde’s will see TNA, PROB 11/​171, fols.220v–​221r. 200 See Lynde’s dedication of his Via tuta “to the Religious and well affected Gentrie of this Kingdome” (Lynde, Via tuta, sigs.A2r–​A7v).

Anti-Catholicism  101 and 1632).201 These works had Continental influence as well, exemplified by the fact that Via tuta was translated into Latin and Dutch and that both works were translated into French.202 Although Lynde attempted to publish A Case for the Spectacles during his lifetime, apparently William Laud denied him a license “allegedly because he was a layman, but probably because he disagreed with its theology.”203 Lynde was a close friend of Featley’s. He was one of the MPs who, with Featley, opposed Montague, and he hosted Featley’s debate with John Fisher in his home.204 Featley claimed he undertook the task of editing Lynde’s work both because of his “respect” for Lynde and because his friends asked him. He also claimed that he added nothing to the substance of the argument and that he did not “owne” “this Worke as [his own], nor intend to shape any new weapon against the Adversaries of our Religion,” but merely “hammer[ed] that Iron which hee [Lynde] tooke red hot out of the fire.”205 He also intentionally preserved the work’s polemicism since Jesuits could not be won over “by mildnesse.”206 However, given that this work was similar to Featley’s works against Catholicism, publishing this work provided an ample opportunity for Featley to engage in combating Catholicism. Many of the same themes in the debates over Protestant visibility in the 1620s resurfaced again in the 1630s. Thus, it is a testimony of Featley’s commitment to anti-​Catholicism and the ongoing debate about the visibility of the Protestant church that he readily facilitated the publication of a work that Laud opposed, even after his Clavis Mystica was censored only two years previously by William Bray. In short, this was Featley’s attempt to put forward anti-​Catholic polemic analogous to his own without overtly putting his name on it. Featley appears reluctant to engage in public anti-​Catholic debate during Charles’s reign—​only having one disputation in 1626 with a Catholic, the Jesuit Thomas Everard.207 Furthermore, since Lynde was 201 John Floyd, A Paire of Spectacles for Sir Humphrey Linde to See His Way Withall (Roven, 1631); John Heigham, Via Vera Tuta (St. Omers, 1631); John Floyd, A Letter of Sr. Humphrey Linde (St. Omers, 1634); T. T. Sacristan and Catholike Romanist, The whetstone of reproofe. A reproving censure of the misintituled safe way (Catuapoli [i.e. Douai], 1632). Humphrey Lynde, Via tuta (2nd ed., London, 1629; 3rd ed., London, 1629; 4th ed., London, 1630; 5th ed., London, 1632). 202 On the international influence of Lynde’s works, see Featley, A Sermon Preached at the Funerall . . . of Humphrey Lynde, sig.Oo6v. 203 Allen, “Humphrey Lynde,” ODNB; Lynde, Case for Spectacles: see Prynne, Canterburies Doome, sig.Bb3r. 204 Allen, “Humphrey Lynde,” ODNB. 205 Lynde, Stricturae, sig.A2v. 206 Lynde, Stricturae, sig.A3r. 207 For Featley’s debate with Everard, see Featley, Relation of What Passed in a Conference (London, 1630) in Featley, Grand Sacrilege, sigs.Ll1r–​Rr2r. Due to the limits of space and the fact that many of the themes of this debate overlap with features of Featley’s anti-​Catholicism already covered in this chapter, this debate will not be covered in further detail. He did consider getting entangled in James Ussher’s debate with William Malone. See Bodl., Rawl. MS Letters 89, fol.96r; and Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.17v. Bodl., Rawl. MS Letters 89, fol.96r is the original and Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols.17v–​ 18r is the copy. See James Ussher, The Correspondence of James Ussher, 1600–​1656, ed. Elizabethanne Boran (3 vols., Dublin, 2015), II:484.

102  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England dead, he could not very well be charged for merely editing a dead man’s work. This, of course, is not unlike the strategy he pursued in his licensing of Edward Elton’s and Paul Baynes’s posthumous works and indicates that he saw strategic value in disseminating his ideas through the publication of others works.

Conclusion This chapter has shed light on several themes relevant to post-​Reformation religious history. It has built on previous work by demonstrating that theological arguments and various political and ecclesiastical factors shaped the direction of lay conversions. Ministers attempted to counter the growing presence of anti-​Calvinism and Catholicism in England. Doubt about the nature of the true church was a factor in determining why various individuals defected to a different faith. This study also has focused on how Scripture and tradition were used to bolster theological arguments surrounding the perceived eternal consequences of conversions between Protestantism and Catholicism. Furthermore, it has analyzed the role that ministers played in shaping conversions and has explored the larger purposes of “private” conferences. Complex factors accompanied the pastor’s duty of “shepherding” and protecting God’s people. Sometimes “private” conferences, when made public through publication, were intended to have an impact beyond those in attendance. It also has explored how Featley wielded antipopery in a number of ways—​to achieve preferment in the early 1610s, to criticize James’s foreign policy in the 1620s, and to prop up a failing Chelsea College in the 1630s—​and especially how, through the strategic timing of their publications, ministers attempted to boost their reputations and revive the more militant Jacobean version of anti-​Catholic polemic that was being pushed out by anti-​Calvinists. Most importantly, it has investigated how pastoral sensibilities underpinned these polemical strategies, demonstrating how Featley’s polemicism was motivated by strong pastoral concerns. Polemical and pastoral concerns did not exist within separate realms, but functioned to complement rather than contradict one another. Those motivated to protect the laity employed their polemical arguments with a measure of vigor and veracity that corresponded to their pastoral concerns. To put it another way, a staunch polemicist could be a caring pastor, and a concerned shepherd could wield a polemical rod if he felt that a theological position threatened the spiritual well-​being of his sheep.208



208

Leif Dixon, Practical Predestinarians, c.1590–​1640 (Surrey, 2014), p.261.

4

English Reformed Soteriology Countering Pelagianism, Arminianism, and Popery

In 1626 Featley launched two attacks in print—​ A Parallel: of New-​ Old Pelagiarminian Error and A Second Parallel together with a Writ of Error sued against the Appealer—​ directed against the rising anti-​ Calvinist Richard 1 Montague. Two years prior to this, Montague had replied to John Heigham’s The Gagge of the Reformed Gospell in which Heigham listed forty-​seven points he regarded as representative of the teaching of the Church of England.2 In Montague’s two responses—​A Gagg for the New Gospell? (1624) and Appello Caesarem (1625)—​he claimed that only some of Heigham’s propositions were genuine doctrines of the English Church; the rest were “raked” “out of the lay-​ stals of deepest Puritanisme.” He also disapproved of the belief that the pope was the Antichrist and advocated that the Roman Church was a true church.3 Montague’s two works activated a litany of protests in 1626—​at least ten in print—​from both puritans and Calvinist conformists. They argued that Montague’s opinions were not consistent with the consensus of the established church throughout the Edwardian, Elizabethan, and Jacobean regimes.4 Featley’s 1 Featley, Parallel; Featley, Second Parallel. Featley’s first reply was in Latin: Daniel Featley, Parallelismus nov-​ antiqui erroris Pelagiarminiani (London, 1626); published in English as A Parallel: of new-​old Pelagiarminian error and reprinted that year as Pelagius redivivus (London, 1626). 2 John Heigham, The gagge of the reformed gospell (Saint-​Omer, 1623); some historians have wrongly alleged that The Gagge of the New Gospel was written by Matthew Kellison. See Hillel Schwartz, “Arminianism and the English Parliament, 1624–​1629,” JBS 12 (1973), p.44. 3 Richard Montague, A gagg for the new Gospell? (London, 1624); Richard Montague, Appello Caesarem (London, 1625), sig.2v. 4 John Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem (London, 1626); Samuel Ward, Gratia discriminans (London, 1626); George Carleton, An examination of those things wherein the author of the late Appeale holdeth the doctrines of the Pelagians and Arminians, to be the doctrines of the Church of England (London, 1626); George Carleton, The second edition, revised and enlarged by the author. Whereunto also there is annexed a ioynt attestation (London, 1626); Walter Balcanquhall, Ioynt attestation, avowing that the discipline of the Church of England was not impeached by the Synode of Dort (London, 1626); Anon., Suffragium collegiale theologorum (London, 1626); Francis Rous, Testis veritatis: The Doctrine of King Iames our late Saveraigne of famous Memory (London, 1626); Anthony Wotton, A dangerous plot discovered (London, 1626); Henry Burton, Plea to an appeale (London, 1626); Richard Bernard, Rhemes against Rome (London, 1626); Sutcliffe, Briefe Censure; BL, Harleian MS 390, fol.83r–​v. Also see Milward, Jacobean, pp.41–​43; Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, pp.155–​56. For a recent and compelling reappraisal of Montague see Jay Collier, Debating Perseverance: The Augustinian Heritage in Post-​Reformation England (Oxford, 2018), pp.93–​123; Jonathan Adkins has classified the various responses to Montague, placing ministers in one of three categories. See Jonathan Atkins, “Calvinist Bishops, Church Unity and the Rise of Arminianism,” Albion 18 (1986), p.423. Calvinist Conformity in Post-​Reformation England. Greg A. Salazar, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2022. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197536902.003.0005

104  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England works were the last two responses to Montague’s views and were consistent with the opinions expressed by the other six authors who replied to Montague. This chapter will explore how Featley depicted Montague’s anti-​Calvinism as a threefold threat to the established church: he viewed Montague’s response as a republication of the ancient Pelagian heresy, a transmission of Dutch Arminianism to the English Church, and a slightly adapted version of Catholicism. While this chapter will build on the extensive scholarly work that has focused primarily on the theological differences between Montague and his opponents by exploring Featley’s Reformed soteriology against anti-​Calvinists, it will also examine how Featley’s polemicism was underpinned by pastoral motivations. It will evaluate Featley’s attempts to maintain the appearance that James condemned Montague’s theological positions and analyze whether the evidence supports that claim. It will also examine Featley’s strategies to resurrect a vision of the Jacobean regime that existed before the early 1620s and explore how he portrayed himself retrospectively twenty years after these events. Thus this chapter aims to contribute to our understanding of how English Reformed ministers coped with the changing ecclesiastical and political circumstances of the mid-​1620s.

The Threefold Threat Featley Perceived in Montague Featley’s first major claim was that Montague’s theological positions were not novel doctrines, but Pelagianism and “Semi-​Pelagianism” recast.5 Pelagianism was a fifth-​century heretical movement arising from the teachings of the British theologian Pelagius, who stressed man’s ability to achieve salvation through human effort, unassisted by divine grace. Pelagius’s doctrines were opposed in the early 410s by Augustine and were officially denounced in 418 at the Council of Carthage.6 “Semi-​Pelagianism” is a term that refers to the fifth-​and sixth-​century teachings of John Cassian and his later followers. Semi-​Pelagians sought a middle way between Pelagius and Augustine’s later predestinarian writings. They maintained that salvation was initiated by an act of the will and that later intervening grace was necessary for salvation. These theological positions were officially denounced as heretical in 529 at the second Council of Orange. In this period, since one significant underlying issue in these debates was differing theological positions regarding original sin, both Pelagianism and Semi-​Pelagianism 5 Featley, Parallel, sig.A3v. Though Sheila Lambert believes that A Parallel was actually published in 1625 without a license, this is based on her faulty interpretation that Montague was reading an “advance copy” of Featley’s work rather than Featley’s suggestions of changes to his own Appello Caesarem. See Featley, Parallel, sig.A2r; Transcript, IV:110; Lambert, “Richard Montagu,” p.65. 6 ODCC, pp.130, 1257. Also see Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo (Los Angeles, 2000), pp.341–​53; Augustine, Nicene and Post-​Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, Augustin: Anti-​Pelagian Writings, First Series, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA, 1994).

English Reformed Soteriology  105 were terms of abuse used by the Reformed to connect ancient heretical teachings with the apparently antipredestinarian positions regarding Roman Catholicism and Arminianism.7 Featley employed the terms in these ways, fully convinced of the aptness of doing so. He argued that Montague’s doctrine was ultimately derived from Pelagius—​“the great Apennius, from which the divided streames of corrupt doctrine flow,” whose theological positions “were condemned by the Catholique Christian Church before they were brought forth by Arminius.”8 As in his debates with Catholics, he drew on a range of patristic sources (especially Augustine). Using these works, he laid out twenty-​four “Pelagian” and “Semi-​ Pelagian” propositions that were “condemned by Ancient Fathers, and Councells” and paralleled these with Arminian doctrines.9 In his Parallel, Featley sought to establish links between Pelagianism and Arminianism by systematically outlining Arminian doctrines and showcasing the explicit parallels between them and Pelagianism. For example, Featley argued that Arminians and Pelagians both denied original sin. He cited Augustine for his support of two Pelagian “propositions” that demonstrated this—​“There is no original sin,” and “Adam did not bring upon his Posteritie the guilt of eternall death for his sinne.” Featley compared these assertions with excerpts from Remonstrants (Arminius and Johannes Arnoldus Corvinus) to prove that Arminians, like Pelagians, falsely believed that “none are actually damned for Originall sinne” or “iustly can be.”10 He also argued that these new Pelagians affirmed (with their predecessors) that a person labors with the Spirit in obtaining salvation. He cited Augustine and the Council of Diospolis to establish that Pelagians held “by the works of nature [that] a man promeriteth, or gaineth the aid of grace” and that the Spirit only enlightens the mind rather than supplying “inward Grace” to the will. He compared these Pelagian theological positions with quotations from Dutch Remonstrant divines, including Peter Bertius’s account of the Remonstrant conference of 1609 at The Hague.11 He also argued that Arminians affirmed with Pelagians that “free will” is “the cause of Praedestination” by insisting that “election dependeth upon the foreseene free assent of mans will”; both thus deny that God is the “Cause in election.” In doing so, Arminians dashed themselves “against this rocke, at which Pelagius 7 Irena Backus and Aza Goudriaan, “‘Semipelagianism’: The Origins of the Term and Its Passage into the History of Heresy,” JEH 65 (2014), p.25. ODCC, pp.1257, 1481; Visser, Reading Augustine in the Reformation, p.129; Quantin, Church of England, p.173. 8 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.A2v. On Arminius, see Keith Stanglin and Thomas McCall, Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace (Oxford, 2012). 9 Featley, Parallel, sig.B2v. 10 Featley, Parallel, sig.B3r. Also see James Arminius, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols (3 vols., London, 1825–​28), I:382. 11 Featley, Parallel, sig.B4r–​v (for Arminian parallels, see sigs.B4v–​C1r). On the Hague conference, see Aza Goudriaan, “The Synod of Dort on Arminian Anthropology,” in Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg, eds., Revisiting the Synod of Dort (1618–​1619) (Leiden, 2011), p.85.

106  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England suffered Shipwracke.” Featley also used patristic and Remonstrant references to bolster his assertion that both camps believed “Election” is based on “foreseene Faith.”12 He likewise cited excerpts from Augustine and Corvinus to demonstrate that Pelagians and Arminians denied limited atonement and affirmed “the universalitie of Grace.”13 He cited other patristic (Hilary and Prosper), “Semi-​Pelagian” (Faustus and John Cassian), Arminian (Bertius, Corvinus, and Arminius), and Counter-​Remonstrant (Nicolaas Grevinckhoven) sources to demonstrate that both Pelagians and Arminians denied the Reformed teaching that the will was “bound.”14 Featley’s appeal to these Continental sources is a clear depiction of how debates between English divines were shaped by the reception of patristic sources and international debates about Remonstrant theology. Though he distinguished between Pelagian and Semi-​ Pelagian authors, Featley contended that in reality Semi-​Pelagianism and Pelagianism were identical, appealing to Prosper’s argument “that the Pelagians, and Demipelagians sticke together in the same myre, doth cage them both in the same Parallell.”15 Featley argued that Arminius too believed that Pelagianism was a viable orthodox belief since he accepted “Demipelagianisme” as “true Christianisme.”16 In each case, Featley utilized past and contemporary sources for his own polemical purposes. That other contemporary divines used the terms “Arminian” and “Pelagian” as terms of abuse should, however, caution us against taking such claims at face value. Tracing the similarities between Arminian and Pelagian theological positions gave Featley confidence that they would be overcome. He argued that since Arminianism was a new version of an ancient heresy, the church did not need “new levied forces” as if contending “against [an] unknown enem[y]‌.” The Pelagians “were then shattered in pieces . . . when the Synod of the Bishops of Palestine compelled Pelagius to pronounce sentence against himselfe, and his followers.”17 Since he had more than twelve hundred years of Christian teaching on his side that opposed “the new encroachments of these Sectaries,” he was sure that his Reformed position would prevail.18 The end goal of the first Parallel was linked with the aim of Featley’s Second Parallel—​namely to prove that Richard Montague “and Arminius [held] their errors in capite from Pelagius.”19 Featley’s arguments in A Parallel buttressed his overall claim that Montague, in espousing an Arminian theological position,

12 Featley, Parallel, sigs C1r–​C2r. 13 Featley, Parallel, sig.C2v.

14 Featley, Parallel, sigs.C3v–​C4v. 15 Featley, Parallel, sig.D2r. 16 Featley, Parallel, sig.D2r. 17 Featley, Parallel sig.D2r.

18 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.A2v. 19 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.A3r.

English Reformed Soteriology  107 was ultimately positing Pelagian doctrine. Interestingly, Featley connected Montague’s doctrine with Pelagianism without explicitly citing either Appello Caesarem or A New Gagg in the first account. By adopting this line of attack, he was able not only to establish logical ties between Montague and Pelagius (though there was no evidence that Montague had read Pelagius), but also to charge Montague with heresy—​without ever drawing out explicit parallels. Featley was not the first English Protestant to connect Pelagianism and Semi-​ Pelagianism with anti-​Calvinism. William Perkins in his Golden Chaine likewise contended against the “old and newe Pelagians; who place the cause of Gods predestination in man,” and the “Semipelagian Papists, which ascribe Gods Predestination, partlye to mercye, and partly to mens foreseen preparations and meritorious works.”20 Moreover, Perkins and his fellow Reformed ministers like William Whitaker, Laurance Chaderton, and John Whitgift charged anti-​Calvinists with Pelagianism during the debates over predestination in the 1590s involving anti-​Calvinists like William Barrett and Peter Baro.21 As in his debates with Catholics, Featley was looking to and employing strategies and arguments similar to those of his like-​minded Reformed predecessors, who were debating against anti-​Calvinist opponents. However, though Featley’s attack was not new, his overall approach was unique. Montague’s other opponents—​Henry Burton, George Carleton, William Prynne, and Francis Rous—​all pointed out that Montague’s doctrines were a revival of “that wicked heresy of the Pelagians”; none of them, however, focused on the issue of Pelagianism with quite the same precision.22 None of these authors attempted to draw clear and concrete parallels between Montague’s work and Pelagianism. Although others argued that Montague’s works were Pelagian, Featley substantiated his claims using patristic sources. Of course, this is identical to the method in which Featley attacked his Catholic opponents. As we will see, Featley’s use of history to support his own theological positions was a lifelong key feature of his polemical methodology. Throughout his career, Featley used patristic sources to substantiate his arguments and to attest that his doctrine position was the model of orthodox faith held since the apostles. In this instance, Featley’s use of history encouraged the reader to assume the presence of strong theological links between the various Pelagian, Arminian, and anti-​Calvinist authors, even if in reality these connections were not as well established as he claimed. In this way, he could avoid the accusation that he was merely projecting these terms onto his opponents by demonstrating the links using “concrete” evidence. It would have been more difficult and even



20

William Perkins, A Golden Chaine (London, 1591), sig.A2r.

21 Quantin, Church of England, pp.171–​72.

22 Burton, Plea to an appeal, a4r. Also see Carleton, An Examination, sig.A3v.

108  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England dangerous to establish explicitly clear ties between Montague’s theological positions and Pelagianism. By equating Montague’s doctrines with Pelagianism he was not merely charging him with positing the newer errors of Arminius and those condemned by English divines at the Synod of Dort but indicting him of holding doctrinal positions that had been condemned by the universal church throughout the church’s history. Likewise, Henry Burton argued that although Montague’s theological positions initially “might have passed onely for errours,” yet now they have “grow[n]‌to be flat heresies, and so no further to be tolerated, as S. Augustine speaketh.”23 By exploring how Featley used patristic sources to prove that Montague’s doctrines were actually heretical, this study has analyzed how Featley and Montague’s other Reformed opponents opposed anti-​Calvinist doctrines because they regarded them as reviving an ancient heresy. Given the severity of his allegation and that Montague had Charles’s support, it is no wonder that Featley chose to use considerable discretion and tact as he launched this assault. This is why Featley, like other divines, represented his anti-​ Calvinist arguments as “Augustinian.”24 However, ““Augustinianism” [was] far from a coherent, unequivocal conception.”25 For example, by examining the marginal notes from Thomas Cranmer’s, Peter Martyr Vermigli’s, and William Laud’s personal editions of Augustine, Arnoud Visser has demonstrated that ministers from different confessional traditions detached Augustine’s anti-​Pelagian works from their historical context. Instead, they employed vastly different reading and citation practices that were closely linked with their own personal and polemical agendas. This allowed them to draw opposite conclusions about the same work and thus exploit Augustine’s authority.26 Likewise, in his recent work on perseverance in post-​Reformation England, Jay Collier has argued that while Montague’s position was not in step with most of his Reformed contemporaries, neither is it accurate to accept his opponents’ claim that he was positing Arminian views. Rather, Collier demonstrates that part of what was so troubling to his opponents was Montague’s attempt to claim that his denial of perseverance of the saints was classically Augustinian. Thus, this debate was not only about the divine decrees and falling from grace, but about the reception of Augustine in post-​Reformation England.27 This, of course, is analogous with Featley’s strategy. By depicting Augustine’s arguments as a precursor to his contemporary debate,

23 Burton, Plea to an appeal, sig.a3r. 24 Quantin, Church of England, p.176; British Delegation at the Synod of Dort, p.216. 25 Visser, Reading Augustine, p.7. 26 Visser, Reading Augustine, pp.106–​13. Also see Quantin, Church of England, p.18. For English translations of the Latin church fathers, see Mark Vessey, “English Translations of the Latin Fathers, 1517–​1611,” in Irena Backus, ed., The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists (2 vols., Leiden, 1997), II:775–​835. 27 Collier, Debating Perseverance, pp.93–​123.

English Reformed Soteriology  109 Featley was making a wholesale claim on Augustine’s theology as consistent with basic English Reformed soteriology. While there is truth in the general contours of this assertion, Featley conveniently also neglected to mention that there were meaningful points of divergence between these Reformed divines and Augustine, particularly on the issue of perseverance. Admitting their differences with Augustine, however, would be counterproductive to Featley and his fellow Calvinists’ overall goal. By downplaying the differences between Augustine’s theology and their own, Reformed divines were able to strengthen their claims to possess a purely Augustinian theology. And is precisely why Reformed divines and anti-​Calvinists debated the issue of when a divinity student should begin studying patristic sources. Reformed divines suggested reading Calvin and other Continental divines as a preparation for reading the church fathers, whereas anti-​Calvinists argued that students who began with the church fathers were best suited to interpret the writings of contemporary authors in light of more ancient divines.28 In his relation of Robert Abbot’s life, Featley noted that Abbot instructed students to first lay “the true foundations of faith,” reading divines like Whitaker, Rainolds, Jewel, and Calvin before turning “to the old writers, from whom they may extract the most genuine resources of theology.”29 Given that Featley’s greatest theological influences were Reformed divines like Robert Abbot and John Rainolds, Featley appears to have followed a similar approach. By this methodology, Calvinist divines encouraged divinity students to assume a certain continuity between their own Reformed theology and Augustine, and to demonstrate that Reformed theology possessed the sole claim to “Augustinianism.” Ultimately, like these divines, Featley believed that the Scriptures were ultimately the supreme authority.30 Featley’s second major contention was that Montague’s arguments mirrored Dutch Remonstrant doctrinal positions. Much scholarly attention has been given to the connections between English anti-​Calvinists and Arminians, focusing primarily on the theological issues. While this section will address the theological views that underpinned Featley’s arguments, its primary aim is to highlight the connections between Featley’s pastoral and polemical aims. Featley’s concerns about Arminianism were first ignited during his conflicts with anti-​Calvinists at Corpus Christi. As noted previously, Reformed divines traced the origins of Arminianism in England to the Cambridge debates of the 1590s.31 However, 28 Quantin, Church of England, p.166. 29 Quantin, Church of England, p.162; Fuller, Abel Redivivus, sigs.Zzzz1v–​Zzzz2r; Robert Abbot, De gratia et perseuerantia sanctorum, exercitationes aliquot habitae in Academia Oxoniensi (London, 1618), sig.d1r–​v. 30 Featley, Romish Fisher, sig.H2r. 31 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.B3v. For manuscript accounts related to the dispute, particularly Laurence Chaderton’s interview of William Barrett, see LPL, MS 2550, fols.164r–​167v. Also see H. C. Porter, Reformation and Reaction in Tudor Cambridge (Cambridge, 1957), pp. 277–​413; Lake, Moderate Puritans, pp.201–​42; David Hoyle, Reformation and Religious Identity in Cambridge,

110  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England since Arminius had responded to one of the chief Reformed polemicists in the 1590s disputes (namely, William Perkins), Featley regarded these disputes as foreshadowing the Continental Remonstrant/​ Counter-​ Remonstrant debates and, by extension, his own debate with Montague. Featley was convinced that Montague was familiar with Remonstrant writings, suggesting that Arminius “had hatcht this Serpents brood in [Montague’s] braine.” He claimed Montague used “not only the same tenents,” but even “the selfe-​same Authorities, Scriptures, Fathers, and Reasons, and for the most part in the same words” of both Arminius and Arminius’s funeral orator, Peter Bertius.32 However, it is unlikely that Montague read Arminius before writing his own publications since in a letter to Cosin from June 1625, Montague asked for a copy of Arminius’s writings. This he received by May 1626 and enthused that Arminius “had more in him than all the Netherlands.”33 It is more probable that Montague read Bertius’s work De Apostasia Sanctorum. William Prynne claimed that Montague plagiarized Bertius, exclaiming, “I find all Mr Mountague’s quotations, one only excepted . . . recorded verbatim by that famous Arminian Bertius in his booke De Apostasia Sanctorum”; Prynne further demonstrated that Montague simply translated Bertius’s citations of the church fathers from Latin to English.34 Featley also drew parallels between the work of Montague and Bertius, exclaiming that “if Arminius or Bertius be the voice, the Appealer is the echo; if the Appealer be the voice, then Arminius or Bertius is the eccho [sic].”35 Featley likewise compared Montague’s writings with the work of other Dutch Arminian divines, specifically citing Johannes Arnoldus Corvinus.36 Montague did indeed have connections with Dutch Arminians. During his time at King’s College Cambridge, Montague “thank[ed] Richard “Dutch” Thomson for providing scholarly assistance” in the preface of his edition Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni in Iulianum Invectivae Duae (1610).37 Strong links existed between 1590–​1640 (Woodbridge, 2007), pp.71–​86; Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, pp.29–​36; White, Predestination, pp.101–​23; Mark Shaw, “William Perkins and the New Pelagians: Another Look at the Cambridge Predestination Controversy of the 1590s,” Westminster Theological Journal 58 (1996), pp.267–​301. The arguments from this dispute were referenced at the Synod of Dort. See British Delegation at the Synod of Dort, p.225; Anthony Milton, “Puritanism and the Continental Reformed Churches,” in John Coffey and Paul Lim, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge, 2008), p.117. 32 Featley, Second Parallel, sigs.B1r, O3v. Also see Peter Bertius, The life and death of James Arminius, and Simon Episcopius (London, 1673). John Yates also believed Montague had read Arminius. Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem sigs.A2v, B2r. 33 Cosin, Correspondence, I:76, 90; for this same interpretation, see Nicholas Tyacke, “Arminianism and English Culture,” in Nicholas Tyacke, Aspects of English Protestantism, c.1530–​1700 (Manchester, 2001), p.227; Hoyle, Reformation and Religious Identity, p.142. 34 Prynne, Perpetuitie, sigs.Aa4v, Bb1r. 35 Featley, Second Parallel, sigs.B3v–​B4r. Also see James I, His Majestie’s Declaration, sig.C2r. 36 Featley, Second Parallel, passim. 37 Tyacke, “Arminianism and English Culture,” p.227; Gregory of Nazianzus, Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni in Iulianum Invectivae Duae, ed. Richard Montague (Eton, 1610), “Ad Lectorem.”

English Reformed Soteriology  111 the Dutch Arminians Hugo Grotius, Peter Bertius, and “Dutch” Thomson, and the anti-​Calvinist divines from the 1590s disputes in Cambridge including Lancelot Andrewes, William Barlow, and John Overall.38 There are further indications of Anglo-​Dutch Arminian links in the lead-​up to the Synod of Dort. In June 1618, Johan Van Oldenbarnevelt actually wrote to the Dutch ambassador in London, Noel de Caron, to recommend John Overall, Richard Neile, and John Buckeridge for the English delegation at the Synod of Dort, though James selected Reformed delegates.39 Likewise, Featley licensed a number of works by Continental Reformed divines who were concerned about Arminian theology. By licensing these works Featley was able to spread an awareness and sound the alarm that Continental Arminianism was infiltrating the established church through the writings, of Montague and English anti-​ Calvinist divines. Featley’s ideological contemporaries Robert Abbot, John Pridaeux, and Samuel Ward attacked Dutch Arminianism and perceived Arminianism as a threat to the English Church.40 Although Montague maintained that the Synod of Dort’s doctrine was contrary to that confirmed by the Church of England, the Reformed delegates (George Carleton, John Davenant, William Balcanquall, Samuel Ward, and Thomas Goad) who represented the English Church at Dort rebuffed each of these assertions in their Ioynt Attestation (1625). Montague’s most important association, however, was with the infamous Durham House group. The group derived its name from Richard Neile’s Durham House palace in the Strand, which was given to him in 1617 upon his appointment as bishop of Durham. It functioned as the headquarters for English anti-​ Calvinism for roughly a decade, and its large size could accommodate living space for a number of anti-​Calvinist divines. Members of the group included notable anti-​Calvinists and future Caroline bishops such as Montague, John Cosin, Francis White, Thomas Jackson, John Buckeridge, William Laud, Augustine Lindsell, and others. Neile, in particular, was known to have strongly supported Montague’s two works and with his chaplains, White, Cosin, and Lindsell, to have facilitated their publication.41

38 Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, p.20; Tyacke, “Arminianism and English Culture,” p.223; Milton and Walsham, eds., “Richard Montague,” pp.69–​101. 39 Tyacke, “Arminianism and English Culture,” p.225. 40 Abbot, De Gratia, pp.83–​221; John Prideaux, Lectiones Novem (Oxford, 1625), pp.1–​22, 49–​170; Samuel Ward, Opera Nonnulla (London, 1658), pp.127–​30. Also see Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, p.72; Tyacke, “Arminianism and English Culture,” pp.223, 226. 41 Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, sigs.L1v–​L2r; William Prynne, A brief survey and censure of Mr. Cozen his couzening devotions (London, 1628), sig.N2r; Cosin, Correspondence, I:22, 34–​36, 84. Also see Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, pp.106–​24. Laud’s Arminianism has been a contested subject. See Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, sigs.K1v–​K2v; Peter Heylyn, Historia quinquarticularis (London, 1660) in Peter Heylyn, Keimelia ’ekklesiastika (London, 1681).

112  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England The relationship of the Durham House group with Dutch divines was a cautious one, largely initiated by the Remonstrants. English anti-​Calvinists deliberately avoided denouncing Dutch Remonstrants as heretics and were careful to avoid maintaining extensive correspondence for fear that they might also be too closely associated with a group condemned by Reformed divines abroad.42 For Featley, the fact that Montague and his fellow anti-​Calvinists would so firmly denounce their Reformed doctrines and then refrain from disapproving of Remonstrant doctrine was enough to implicate them in the Arminian cause. A crucial feature of these debates was the creation of confessional lines through patterns of association. According to Featley, that Montague was connected to Arminian divines and condemned Reformed divines meant his loyalties ultimately rested within the Arminian confessional camp. The differences between Reformed and anti-​Calvinist factions were not merely doctrinal issues over soteriology, but also were concerned with pastoral theology. Featley inverted Montague’s claim that predestination was a “desperate doctrine” by arguing that it was in fact a “godly consideration” that was “full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons.”43 He argued that Arminianism, by making “God’s Election to depend upon the will of man,” was “in truth a most desperate doctrine” since it eroded “all solid and firme ground of comfort both in life and death.”44 Prynne likewise said “that the whole comfort and treasure of a Christian . . . the whole service of God, and practice of religion are utterly abolished and taken away by this pernicious Error.”45 Burton also argued that only through Reformed doctrine could one obtain “certainty of salvation.”46 Reformed divines judged that anti-​Calvinism limited the comforting potential predestination has as a doctrine. Although historians have long acknowledged that there was a strong link for English Reformed divines between predestination and assurance, recent studies have clarified our understanding of these issues. Leif Dixon modified R. T. Kendall’s famous distinction between experimental and credal predestinarians;47 Dixon redefined “experimental predestinarians” as “practical predestinarians,” arguing that these ministers challenged believers to find personal assurance in order that they might primarily 42 Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.435–​39. 43 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.C4v. Here Featley was quoting Article 17 of the Thirty-​nine Articles. William Prynne echoed Featley’s sentiment (Prynne, Perpetuitie, sig.¶¶3v). 44 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.C4v. 45 Prynne, Perpetuitie, sig.¶¶3v. 46 Burton, Plea to an appeal, sig.a2r. 47 R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford, 1979), pp.79–​80. For critiques of Kendall, see Richard Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford, 2000), pp.17, 159, 172; Richard Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford, 2003), p.83; Richard Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids, 2012).

English Reformed Soteriology  113 please God rather than simply achieve inward confirmation of salvation. Dixon challenged the assumption that issues of predestination were inextricably tied to spiritual angst by demonstrating that many divines fostered an ethos of pursuing outward expressions of good works rather than inward navel-​gazing. In a chaotic and uncertain culture, the doctrine of predestination provided a stabilizing source of comfort and assurance.48 Divines engaged in doctrinal debates were concerned how various theological positions would be received by the laity, particularly whether their views would triumph and lead members toward the scriptural truths—​that would in turn provide pastoral comfort—​or whether their opponents’ positions would lead the church away from sound doctrine and the accompanying pastoral benefits. Featley’s interest in Pelagianism was not simply about searching for precedents for a current error, but about tackling a pastoral issue that earlier disputes had anticipated. Arnold Hunt has shown that the doctrine of predestination was not confined to the debates of elite academicians, but ministers too wanted the laity to benefit spiritually from understanding the comfort and assurance found in predestination.49 According to Featley, the pastoral dangers recognized in Arminianism were the reason behind the calling of the Synod of Dort. Why else, Featley inquired, would a “nationall Synod” have been summoned if Arminians were only “silly and harmelesse wormes” instead of “venimous vipers”?50 These claims strike at the heart of Featley’s concern with Montague’s doctrinal beliefs. Featley believed that Montague’s theological positions were the transmission of Dutch Arminianism that threatened to challenge the long-​standing Reformed majority in England. And since Featley was also convinced that Montague’s doctrinal positions mirrored the Pelagian heresy, they, like Pelagius’s theology, were an imminent threat to the true church. This theology, with its emphasis on the ability of natural man as opposed to the grace of God, was perceived as a distortion of the fundamental doctrines of historic Christianity. Featley was motivated by a pastoral impetus to protect the church and its members from what he believed to be heresy undermining the foundation of the Christian faith.51 Although Featley’s refutation of Montague was not a formal debate, he attended to Montague’s doctrinal positions in the same way that he engaged with his Catholic opponents. Featley structured his works so that his reader could perceive that Montague’s theological positions were intimately linked to Pelagianism and Arminianism, and thus were atypical of the Church of England’s doctrinal 48 Dixon, Practical Predestinarians, pp.11–​12, 7, 15. Also see Leif Dixon, “William Perkins, “Atheism,” and the Crises of England’s Long Reformation,” JBS 50 (2011), pp.790–​812; Michael Winship, “Weaker Christians, Backsliders, and Carnal Gospelers: Assurance of Salvation and the Pastoral Origins of Puritan Practical Divinity in the 1590s,” Church History 70 (2001), pp.462–​81. 49 Hunt, The Art of Hearing, pp.342–​89. 50 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.B3r. 51 For similar pastoral instincts, see Prynne, Perpetuitie, sig.¶3r.

114  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England standards encapsulated in the Thirty-​nine Articles. By structuring his works in this way, Featley was able to engage Montague in a debate even if Montague never responded or acknowledged Featley’s arguments. Featley’s final major contention was that “popery [was] everywhere thicke and rancke” throughout Montague’s works.52 In January 1625, Montague told Featley (probably in jest) that he should not label his work “Popery and Foppery, but Scurrility and Popery.”53 Featley was scandalized by Montague’s beliefs that Rome was a true church and that the pope was not the Antichrist. He was outraged by Montague’s suggestion that discrepancies between the Church of England and Rome over Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist were relatively insignificant.54 Featley refuted Montague’s denial that the pope was the Antichrist, and he vehemently refuted the notion that in matters of controversy or heresy, the pope was the most appropriate person to deal with such issues since he was “first Bishop of Christendome, of greatest, not absolute power, among Bishops.”55 While Montague’s denial of the pope as the Antichrist was previously a minority position, it became the representative view of the established Church of England by the 1630s.56 Featley refuted Montague’s rejection of the papacy as the Antichrist not only by utilizing the same apocalyptic rhetoric that he employed in his debates with the Jesuit John Fisher, but also by boldly ascribing qualities of the Antichrist to Montague himself, contending that “in describing the markes of the Beast, [he] acts the Beasts part.”57 This damning indictment gives some indication of Featley’s resolute disdain of Montague’s theology.58 This same pattern is evident in Featley’s attacks on Montague’s position regarding transubstantiation. Featley denied Montague’s claim that “there is no difference between us about the real presence,” insisting that “most of our Martyrs dyed rather than they would acknowledge the Popish reall Presence.”59 Featley referred to Article 28 of the Thirty-​nine Articles, which asserted that transubstantiation “cannot be proved by Holy Writ: but is repugnant to the plaine word of Scripture.”60 Featley believed that Montague ingested his doctrinal positions from Marc-​Antonio de Dominis, Montague’s “late Deane” who, “after his relapse

52 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.Ff3v. Also see Wotton, A Dangerous Plot Discovered. 53 Cosin, Correspondence, I:50. 54 Featley, Second Parallel, sigs.Aa4r–​Bb1v; Montague, New Gagg, sig.G4v; Montague, Appello Caesarem, sig.R2v. 55 Featley, Second Parallel, sigs.Ee2r, Ee2v–​Ee4v; Montague, New Gagg, sigs.E1r, K1v–​K2r. For John Yates’s agreement, see Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem, sigs.Bbb2r–​Bbbb4r. 56 Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.116–​17. 57 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.Ff4v. Also see Montague, Appello Caesarem, sig.X1v; Featley, Appendix, sigs.N4*v, Gg3v–​Hh2v. 58 Also see Lake, “Significance of the Elizabethan Identification,” pp.1–​40. 59 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.Cc2r; Featley, Second Parallel, sig.Ii4v; Montague, New Gagg, sig. Kk3r. 60 Featley, Second Parallel, sigs.Cc1v, Ii4v.

English Reformed Soteriology  115 into Popery,” renounced “the true religion which he had defended.”61 As we have seen, Featley was well acquainted with de Dominis, having pursued ecumenical ties with him as one of Abbot’s chaplains. In his correspondence, Montague spoke highly of De Dominis, saying that he was “an honester man then he was taken for, as good as his word unto my self and others” and noted that given the “desperate terms of separation [in which] we stand,” there could be “no yielding or moderation . . . in point of opposition from that Church, so long as Puritan Jesuits beare the sway.”62 In reality, there is little evidence that Montague or his Laudian colleagues upheld transubstantiation. In his “Concerning Recusancie of Communion with the Church of England,” a tract produced to encourage recusants to attend Protestant services, Montague explicitly stated that although the Church of England “professe and beleeve a Reall Presence,” it “dare not presume to define the Maner of that presence, as they doe, by Transubstantiation.”63 Nevertheless, in the eyes of Featley and other critics, Montague’s downplaying of the difference between Rome’s theological positions and the established church’s doctrinal standards was evidence enough to incriminate them as siding with the papists. Speaking of the Marian martyrs, Featley argued that if Montague was correct, then those who died “shed not [their] blood in zeale, but spilt it in folly,” since the doctrines which they “suffered for, belonged not at all of faith.”64 Featley meant that since the Marian martyrs were convinced that there were vast differences between Rome and the established church, these men chose to die rather than to yield to the Catholic religion. Though Montague contended that these discrepancies in “no way . . . indangereth eternall salvation,” Featley countered that these issues concerned “the very nature, and essence of faith.”65 If the papists were not in error, then by default the English Church erred as it condemned Rome’s doctrines.66 Featley further claimed that Rome itself supported his position since the Council of Trent established that transubstantiation was not a peripheral doctrine, but a matter de fide.67 Featley surmised that behind Montague’s indifference about “the presence of Christ in the sacrament” was a desire to “make the difference between us & our Adversaires the Papistes, very little or nothing at all, soe that we might well be reconciled together.”68 He made a similar point with 61 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.Ll1r. 62 Cosin, Correspondence, I:64. 63 Walsham and Milton, eds., “Richard Montague,” p.90. 64 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.Gg2r–​v. Also see Prynne, Church of England, sigs.a1v, B1r. 65 Featley, Second Parallel, sigs.Gg2v, Hh1v. 66 Featley, Second Parallel, sigs.Gg2v–​Gg3r. 67 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.Ll4v. 68 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.831, fol.99r. My attribution of this manuscript to Featley is based on Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.200–​201.

116  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England regard to the “worship to Images,” where Featley again said that “he seemeth to reconcile us to the Romanists in this poynte . . . as though there were noe difference between our doctrine & theirs touching this pointe.”69 To add to these concerns, Montague entered into a dialogue with the Catholic priest Gregorio Panzani about how best to reconcile Rome and the English Church. These correspondences show that Montague believed the English Church could enter into formal communion with Rome. Despite these hopes, there is little evidence from this correspondence that Montague (or his Laudian colleagues) had any intention of converting or that they believed the established church was under Rome’s authority.70 This was beside the point. For Featley, Montague’s theological positions were problematic precisely because he “agreeth with the Church of Rome, and dissenteth from the learnedst Divines in England, and other reformed Churches.”71 In short, Featley argued that Montague was advocating for Roman Catholic doctrinal positions. In reality, Montague’s moderate stance was a pastorally motivated strategy aimed at converting the papists. Montague minimized the differences between Rome and Protestantism in order to persuade Catholics to attend Protestant services.72 The following chapter will explore the motivations that drove Featley and Laudian divines to produce devotional literature, particularly as this relates to the influence of Catholicism in England.73 Those who have primarily characterized the Laudians’ conciliatory attitudes as crypto-​popish—​ rather than pastorally motivated—​may have unjustly taken Featley at his word. Undergirding Montague’s practice was the belief that a “more tactful and courteous” approach would be more effective than the more long-​standing anti-​Catholic polemic employed by the majority of Reformed members of the Church of England.74 Members of the Laudian regime were not relaxed in their approach to handling issues of conformity with nonconforming Catholics. Instead, in print they utilized a line of attack they were convinced would be most effective.75

69 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.831, fol.97v. Also see Milton, Catholic and Reformed, p.194. 70 Milton, Catholic and Reformed, p.359; Michael Questier, “Arminianism, Catholicism, and Puritanism in England during the 1630s,” HJ 49 (2006), pp.58, 60–​61. 71 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.Ee4r. 72 Walsham and Milton, eds., “Richard Montague,” p.74. On how conciliatory approaches toward Catholics were an evangelistic strategy, see Walsham, “Parochial Roots,” p.638–​39; Andrew Foster, “Archbishop Neile Revisited,” in Peter Lake and Michael Questier, eds., Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c.1560–​1660 (Woodbridge, 2000), p.167; Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.80–​81. 73 John Cosin, A collection of private devotions (London, 1627); Walsham, “Parochial Roots,” p.642; Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.77–​82. 74 Milton and Walsham, eds., “Richard Montague,” p.74. 75 Walsham, “Parochial Roots,” pp.638, 646.

English Reformed Soteriology  117 In his critique of Montague, Featley at times showed he had a more conciliatory attitude toward Catholicism. As he did in his anti-​Catholic debates, he acknowledged that Catholicism agreed with Protestantism on the fundamental doctrines but only differed by way of addition and held that salvation was possible inside the Church of Rome. Replying to Montague’s claim that “the present Church of Rome remaineth . . . Christs Church and Spouse,” Featley retorted that he would “not deny” “that God hath his Church even in Rome.” Rather, Featley declared that Montague was “the first Protestant” to avow that “the present Romane Church, specially since the Councell of Trent . . . are Christs Church and Spouse.”76 Commenting on these passages, Anthony Milton has argued that “far more conciliatory attitudes towards Rome could lurk within the increasingly fashionable rhetoric of moderation.”77 Both Featley and Montague seem to have been motivated by a pastoral concern to draw laypeople to the Protestant faith. Thus, Featley and Montague’s differing approaches is an example of how two antithetical groups could respond to Catholics from similar pastoral motivations. Despite this similarity, Featley interpreted Montague’s zeal for building bridges with Catholics as a direct challenge to his extensive anti-​Catholic polemical ministry. In the fifteen years leading up to these publications, Featley had almost a dozen separate debates with several of the most prominent Catholics in England, including John Fisher, Richard Smith, Christopher Bagshaw, and John Sweet. These debates concerned the issues of transubstantiation, the marks of a true church, and whether the pope was the Antichrist—​ precisely the same issues that Montague deemed insignificant. As in his anti-​Catholic debates, Featley believed that he had an obligation to protect the established church since these issues could jeopardize an individual’s salvation. Since Montague’s anti-​Calvinism sought to build bridges with Roman Catholics, it was, like Catholicism, also a counterfeit version of Christianity. Featley, like some of his other Reformed contemporaries, utilized the term “popery” as a polemical device by extending claims of crypto-​Catholicism beyond self-​identified Catholics.78 In this, he appears to have used antipopery as a labeling discourse intended to signify defiance to a sound doctrine.79 By depicting Montague’s doctrinal positions in these terms, Featley was defending the established church from Catholicism while simultaneously critiquing a fellow member of the Church of England.

76 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.Kk2v, Montague, New Gagg, sig.H1v. 77 Milton, Catholic and Reformed, p.182. 78 On “popery” as a term of abuse, see Questier, “Arminianism, Catholicism, and Puritanism,” pp.53–​54. Also see J. P. Kenyon, Stuart England (London, 1978), p.100; Andrew Foster, “The Function of a Bishop: The Career of Richard Neile, 1562–​1640,” in Rosemary O’Day and Felicity Heal, eds., Continuity and Change (Leicester, 1976), p.54. 79 Lake, “Anti-​popery,” p.80.

118  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England

Political Opposition to Anti-​Calvinism Featley not only considered Montague’s positions to be a doctrinal threat, but politically dangerous. In Featley’s funeral oration, William Loe recounted how he worked with Featley in three convocations, two during James’s reign and one during Charles’s. In one, Featley was the head of a group of forty-​five members who “made a solemn Covenant among our selves to oppose every thing that did but favour or scent never so little of Pelagianisme, or Semi-​Pelagianisme.”80 During the 1620s, Montague’s theological positions were perceived by many as politically threatening. For example, the connection between political and ecclesiastical dangers was one of the major themes of Anthony Wotton’s Dangerous Plot Discovered.81 In addition, Henry Burton argued that Montague’s theology threatened a “universall ruine of both . . . Church and State”; these institutions are, he said, “like Hipocrates twines, mutually affect[ing]” one another given that they are “living together” and “dying together.”82 Featley, Thomas Goad, Joseph Hall, Nathaniel Ward, and John Prideaux drafted a petition that on 13 May 1624 John Pym passed on to the House of Commons. This group also detailed Montague’s heterodoxy in twenty-​one articles.83 John Yates published this petition in 1626. While the original articles have been lost, their contents can be reconstructed utilizing Montague’s reply to the two “unjust informers” in Appello Caesarem and his correspondence with John Cosin.84 In a letter to John Prideaux, possibly written shortly after this event, Featley rejoiced that “noble knight s[i]‌r J P,” probably John Pym, “was a great pillar of religion in this last Parliament.”85 Parliament was not exclusively Reformed during this period, since the anti-​Calvinist Richard Neile was a member of Parliament from 1610 to 1629. Nevertheless, these events are indications of the level of Reformed unity.86 The Commons eventually delegated these matters to Archbishop Abbot, thereby attempting to position Abbot directly against the anti-​Calvinists.87 Some ministers sought to bolster Abbot’s influence during the rise of anti-​Calvinism.

80 Loe, Sermon, sig.F1r. 81 Wotton, A Dangerous Plot Discovered, sig.)(2r. 82 Burton, Plea to an appeal, “Epistle dedicatorie.” 83 See pp.65; BL, Add. MS 25278, fols.138r–​140v. Much of this section is indebted to Tyacke, Anti-​ Calvinists, pp.147–​51. 84 Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem (1626), sig.Fff3r–​v. 85 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.15v. For the context of this letter, and particularly the Old Religion controversy, see Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.40, 141, 143. In his role as the Regius Professor of Divinity at Exeter College, Oxford, Prideaux disputed Arminianism. See Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, sig.F4v. Also see John Prideaux, Certaine Sermons (Oxford, 1639), sigs.L3r, Q8r, Q8v, T5v, T6r, Gg1r, Qq2r, Qq2v; Prideaux, Lectiones Novem. 86 Foster, “Archbishop Neile Revisited,” p.160. 87 Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, pp.149–​50. Also see Fincham, “Prelacy and Politics,” pp.36–​64.

English Reformed Soteriology  119 William Prynne, for example, urged Abbot “as in former times . . . so now . . . take heart and courage for the truth” and “feare not the power or the malice of any that oppose the truth” but “be zealous and courageous for the truth.”88 The Commons hoped that Abbot would convince James to condemn A New Gagg or make Montague rewrite the contentious sections. Despite their best efforts, though, by June 1625 Abbot had made no progress and Montague had issued Appello Caesarem, reportedly with James’s support.89 It is unlikely that Montague had James’s support before he published his New Gagg. Abbot secured a promise from Montague to write a revised edition of the New Gagg, though it was never published.90 Although Abbot tried again to censure Montague’s second book, since he lacked James’s support, he could only advise that Montague “explicate those places that did offend”; this Montague “promised to do.”91 In the end, neither the Commons nor the Reformed ministers (chiefly Thomas Morton and John Preston) represented at the York House Conference were able to secure an official censure of Montague’s doctrinal positions.92 Montague was well aware of the Reformed divines’ schemes in advance of their formal attack; this is evident from a close look at Montague’s letters to John Cosin. Montague received a copy of the articles from his “secret friend” at Lambeth, and he believed that Featley and Featley’s Oxford teacher, John Prideaux, were the chief leaders of the plot.93 On 24 October 1624, Montague told Cosin that there “came to my hands” “Puritan collections against my booke, contraring, as they say, the Articles and Homiles. I suppose Dr. Prideaux did collect them; att leastwise I believe Featley can tell the author.”94 By 20 December 1624, Montague sent the articles to Cosin, saying that he was sure they “came from Lambeth house” since his “freind that I have there, whom I will not wrong or disclose,” gave them to him.95 Then, in a January 1625 encounter with Montague, Featley “excused himself for colecting these objections,” which Featley said “never any sawe but my Lord of Winchester.” Montague took this as a lie, pointing out that the group even tried to draw Francis White into their plot; he encouraged Cosin to inform Featley next time he saw him that he was aware of his deceit.96 Similarly, in a 26 August 1626 letter to Cosin, Montague relayed that in a recent dinner 88 Prynne, Perpetuitie, sigs.¶2r–​¶3v. 89 Montagu, Appello Caesarem, sigs.a2r–​4v; Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, sig.R3r. 90 Cosin, Correspondence, I:22–​23, 37, 44, 74. 91 Cosin, Correspondence, I:78; Debates in the House of Commons in 1625, ed. S. R. Gardiner (London, 1873), pp.33–​35. 92 LPL, MS 943, pp.61–​62; LPL, MS 935, Items 2 and 3. Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, pp.164–​80; Barbara Donagan, “The York House Conference Revisited,” Historical Research 64 (1991), pp.312–​30. 93 After extensive research the identity of this inside man is still unknown. 94 Cosin, Correspondence, I:22. For other letters between Montague and Cosin, see BL, Add. MS 4274, fols.97r–​103r. 95 Cosin, Correspondence, I:34. 96 Cosin, Correspondence, I:50, 51.

120  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England conversation, with Lady Denbigh and Lady Faukland, “Dr. Featly did insinuate to my Lady Denbigh disavowing Puritanisme, and all he had don against the Appeale,” to which Montague said, “I thincke I have cast a bone in his way.”97 In essence, Montague claimed that Featley had effectively renounced his opposition to anti-​Calvinism. There is, however, little indication that Featley changed his stance toward anti-​Calvinism. As we have seen, Featley singled out Montague’s colleague John Cosin by appending to his 1629 work Cygnea Cantio a “Printer to the Reader” note where he divulged that Cosin (with Richard Neile) orchestrated the burning of Elton’s books, sought to suppress those responding to Montague, and coordinated the confiscation of three hundred copies of Featley’s Pelagius Redivivus from Robert Milbourne.98 In response, Montague considered directly naming those who composed the articles, particularly Featley and Prideaux, in his Appello Caesarem.99 He also considered refuting “Featlye’s collections” by way of a “postscript.” This he left to Cosin’s discretion, but in the interim confessed, “I do not mislike that they should thinck I would have lashed them, had not Dr. White persuaded me. Lett them thincke so. It is not amisse to kepe them in awe.”100 When one searches Montague’s printed correspondence with Cosin, Featley is referred to more than any other writer who penned attacks on his works. This indicates how Montague perceived Featley in relation to his other opponents. Whereas by 7 February 1625 Montague was “indifferent” about adding a postscript attack against Featley and his fellow attackers, he eventually did, but only named his opponents as “Yates and his fellow Informers.”101 By that point, Montague was less anxious about the Reformed attack since he had “added much” to his work “out of Mr. Perkins . . . their great Rabbi,” tauntingly asking, “What will [Featley] say to that?”102 Similarly, when Francis White showed Featley a prepublished manuscript of Appello Caesarem (much to Montague’s dismay), Montague responded by adding a distinctly anti-​Calvinist slant on the doctrine of justification; this he thought Featley would nevertheless approve since he cited “Calvin and Beza” as witnesses “that Justification and Sanctification are perpetually conjoyned” and cannot “be separated from” one another. This he took to be “the doctrine of the Church of England, to which the Doctor, If he understand himself, hath subscribed.”103 Featley’s (and other Reformed divines’) perception of the Cambridge predestination disputes—​which involved Beza’s supporter William Perkins—​ as a precursor to the Montague dispute further illustrates that both Reformed

97 Cosin, Correspondence, I:101–​2.

98

See p.97; Featley, Cygnea Cantio, sig.G1v.

99 Cosin, Correspondence, I:34.

100 Cosin, Correspondence, I:51.

101 Cosin, Correspondence, I:54; Montague, Appello Caesarem, sig.Tt1r. 102 Cosin, Correspondence, I:54. 103 Cosin, Correspondence, I:43.

English Reformed Soteriology  121 divines and anti-​Calvinists could use Calvin and Beza to support their opposing claims. Both Featley and Montague were convinced that their opponents were conspiring to undo them. In the midst of turmoil immediately following the publication of his two works, in a letter to Richard Neile, Montague expressed his belief that his Reformed opponents were a part of a “conspiracy” to overthrow the new anti-​Calvinist faction at court, even telling Neile to send “Cosen all my letters.”104 Similarly, Featley believed anti-​Calvinists were involved in a plot to undermine him and his fellow Reformed colleagues.105 As Peter Lake has argued, “these two parallel (puritan and popish) but mutually exclusive conspiracy theories provided the conceptual framework through which many contemporaries viewed the events of the 1630s and early 1640s.”106 Disagreement also existed over who possessed ultimate authority to decide matters of doctrine. On the one hand, Reformed divines like William Prynne, Anthony Wotton, and Thomas Wentworth contended that it was Parliament’s responsibility to handle matters of religious heterodoxy.107 Conversely, many bishops argued not only that deciding matters of doctrine was outside Parliament’s jurisdiction, but also that they themselves were not subject to Parliament’s authority since they were appointed by means of apostolic succession.108 Thus, this debate centered on the nature of royal supremacy and whether ultimately authority resided in king, Parliament, or both.109 This did not stop Featley and other Reformed ministers from seeking Charles’s support. Several authors who responded to Montague dedicated their works to Charles.110 Charles took steps to assure Reformed divines and Parliamentarians of his favor toward them. For example, in a speech at the opening session of Parliament, Charles urged them not to “doubt nor suspect his religion seeing he was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel.”111 However, by June 1626, Charles issued a proclamation prohibiting “any new inventions or opinions” that differed “from the sound and orthodox grounds of the true religion and happily established in the Church of England.”112

104 Cosin, Correspondence, I:79. 105 Featley, Sacra nemesis, sig.K2r. 106 Lake, “Anti-​popery,” p.92. 107 Wotton, A Dangerous Plot Discovered, sig.)(3v. Prynne, Anti-​Arminianisme, sig.A2v. 108 Cyprianus Anglicus, sig.T1r; Schwartz, “Arminianism and the English Parliament,” pp.46, 52, 58, 59, 54. 109 On this theme in later Stuart England, see Jacqueline Rose, Godly Kingship in Restoration England: The Politics of the Royal Supremacy, 1660–​1688 (Cambridge, 2011). 110 Burton, Plea to an appeal, “Epistle dedicatorie”; Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem, dedicatory; Carleton, An examination, sig.A4r. 111 John Chamberlain, The Letters of John Chamberlain, ed. Norman McClure (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1939), II:625. 112 Tyacke, “Arminianism and English Culture,” p.229.

122  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England

Claiming James for the Reformed Cause and Reviving the Jacobean Reformed Church In addition to marshaling political resistance to Montague’s theological positions, Featley and other Reformed divines attempted to obscure the political and ecclesiastical shifts that were occurring in the 1620s. In short, in the midst of these shifts Featley and other Reformed divines claimed that James never ceased to support the Reformed cause. Since James never publicly supported Montague’s work, Reformed divines denied that James supported the anti-​Calvinist party. Featley’s coup de grâce in claiming James for the Reformed camp was to tell two stories, both of which occurred only months before James’s death. These would serve “a soveraine antidote against an evill upcreeping since his death.”113 In the first, Featley recounted that when James received a copy of Arminius’s work, he esteemed it “to be no better then an halfe faced groat of the Semipelagian alloy” and “stabbed it through with his Royall pen, and branded the Master of the Mint with the title of the enemie of God.”114 In another episode that apparently occurred “about a moneth before his death,” two divines asked James about a book on Augustine’s doctrine, which, according to Featley, James renamed “St. Austins Polemicall tracts against the heretickes that agree with our Arminians” and “termed” the Pelagians as “hereticks.” In fact, Featley claimed that James’s influence helped him coin the term “Pelagiarminianism” in the title of his first 1626 work.115 Featley was not alone. Francis Rous devoted an entire work vindicating James from those who denied that he held Reformed doctrines.116 Rous spoke of James’s “famous memory,” whose “honor [was] polluted, prophaned in a high degree by An Appeale, so much depressing the Synod of Dort, which [James] so much graced, and exalting Arminianisme, which His sacred Majestie so much detested.”117 John Yates also drew on James’s censure and condemnation of Vorstius, Bertius, and Arminius as evidence of his Reformed ideals.118 Likewise, the members of the Commons claimed that Montague dishonored “the Kinge that is dead” since Montague was expounding the very doctrines that James “had labored so much to suppresse.”119 Featley too claimed that the king would have been appalled by Montague’s dedication of the work to him since, as an Arminian, James “proclaim[ed him] to be an enemie of God.”120 Featley even threatened in print that if Montague “persist[ed] in his erroneous opinions,” then

113 Featley, Parallel, sig.A4r.

114 Featley, Parallel, sigs.A3v. 115 Featley, Parallel, sigs.A4r. 116 Rous, Testis Veritatis.

117 Burton, Plea to an appeal, sig.¶3r.

118 Yates, Ibis ad Caesarem, sig.A4r–​v. 119 120

Debates in the House of Commons in 1625, p.48. Also see p.95. Featley, Second Parallel, sig.B2v; James, I, His Majestie’s Declaration, p.18.

English Reformed Soteriology  123 he would “referre him, together with this discovery of his errors to the examination and censure of the most learned, religious and judicious house of convocation now sitting, to whom under his Majesty the cognizance of doctrinal differences properly belong.”121 Certainly, James had been outspoken against Arminian teachings early on. For six months from late 1611 and early 1612, James famously sought to prevent the Arminian Conrad Vorstius from receiving the chair of theology at Leiden University following Arminius’s death, albeit unsuccessfully.122 Remonstrants tried to establish his credibility by appealing to his defense of Protestant orthodoxy against Bellarmine in Anti-​Bellarminus contractus.123 James, in his Declaration against Vorstius, said that if Vorstius was allowed to maintain his new post, he would “make known to the world publiquely in print how much We destest such abominable Heresies, and Allowers and Tolerators of them.”124 Dan Borvan has recently argued that Featley’s longtime friend Pierre du Moulin actually wrote the tract against Vorstius and helped facilitate the printing of it at Thomas Edmonds’s house during Featley’s tenure as chaplain for Edmonds.125 James’s involvement in the matter of Vorstius’s appointment is indicative of how political and ecclesiastical struggles were combined in the Low Countries, as they were in England. We should, however, be careful about taking at face value Featley’s and other Reformed divines’ claims about James’s doctrinal allegiances at the end of James’s life. Peter Heylyn argued that toward the end of his life, James became “more moderate” and came to “a better liking of those opinions, which he had laboured to condemn at the Synod of Dort.”126 Moreover, Heylyn described the transitions of power in the 1620s, saying that “no man had the courage to make such a general assault again the late received opinions as the Bishop did; though many when the ice was broken, followed gladly after him.”127 Montague merely separated “the opinions of private men from the Churches Doctrine,” while Laud worked “to restore this Church to its primitive luster,” and Heylyn asserted that Arminianism “had more or less exercised the Church in all time and ages, especially after the breaking out of the Pelagian Heresies, when all the Niceties thereof where more thoroughly canvassed.”128 121 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.Mm4r–​v. 122 His Majesties Declaration, sig.D1r. I have dealt with this incident in detail in Greg Salazar, “The Synod of Dort in Theological Perspective,” in Joel R. Beeke and Martin I. Klauber, eds., The Synod of Dort: Historical, Theological, and Experiential Perspectives (Göttingen, 2020), pp.75–​88. 123 Conrad Vorstius, Anti-​Bellarminus contradictus (Hanoviae, 1610); Also see Shriver, “Orthodoxy and Diplomacy,” pp.456–​57. 124 James I, His Maiesties Declaration, sig.B1v. 125 Borvan, “Fighting for the Faith,” p.182. 126 Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, sig.R3r. 127 Peter Heylyn, Theologia veterum (London, 1654), sig.B1v. 128 Heylyn, Historia Quinqu-​articularis, sigs.Sss4r, Sss3v.

124  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England In short, a battle over the late king’s commitment for truth ensued, both sides calling to remembrance actions and words that defended their own cause. Examining how Featley published his works will aid one in deciphering these various relations. Both of Featley’s responses to Montague were actually published anonymously. The prefaces of both A Parallel and A Second Parallel contain a background account of “the book’s origins” that remarkably omits any details that would aid the reader in identifying the author. For example, at the beginning of A Parallel, the author claims that the original Latin copy of the work, supposedly “by two English Divines at the request, and for the satisfaction of a forraigne Minister of State,” apparently “fell lately into [his] hands.” He then translated the work because “it gave much light” to the Arminian controversy.129 Similarly, in A Second Parallel, the unnamed author alleges that a “friend” showed him a copy of A Parallel, which he apparently found “worth the paines” to expound upon, saying that “all, that are not forestalled with preiudice, may see, that both the Appealer, and Arminius, hold their errors in capite from Pelagius.”130 Nevertheless, the Stationers’ Register records Featley as the author, noting that he licensed both works on 19 January 1626.131 The reason that Featley published his works anonymously is that he was aware that he was increasingly finding himself in unfavorable circumstances. Indeed, in Featley’s reflections on these events nearly twenty years later in his Sacra Nemesis (1644), he linked his loss of preferment at court with the publication of these anti-​Arminian works. Featley had expected to have “climbed to preferment” through his relationship with the Duke and Duchess of Buckingham. Nevertheless, upon his seeing that the duke and duchess had “sided with the Arminian faction,” Featley suspended “all dependence upon” them and wrote A Parallel, which “dashed all hopes of his preferment then at court.”132 Moreover, he explained that “after the Duke’s death,” anti-​Calvinists “sate at the helm of the Church and had great power also at court,” and that he had to take deliberate steps to oppose them. It was these figures who “sought to reduce the Church of England to a nearer conformitie to the Roman . . . and to smooth the more rugged portions of poperie.” Although Featley was aware that joining them could provide “a readie means to facilitate the way to preferment,” he declined that “rode also” since “he could never endure those who went about to sodder the Roman and reformed religion, and to bring Christ and Anti-​christ to an enterview.”133 Featley retrospectively depicted

129 Featley, Parallel, sig.A2r. 130 Featley, Second Parallel, sig.A2r–​v. 131 For manuscript evidence attesting to Featley’s authorship, see CCC, MS 307, fol.106v. 132 Featley, Sacra nemesis, sigs.K1v–​K2r. Featley dedicated Ancilla Pietatis to the duchess: Daniel Featley, Ancilla Pietatis (London, 1630), “epistle dedicatory.” 133 Featley, Sacra nemesis, sig.K2r.

English Reformed Soteriology  125 himself as someone who had an obligation to protect the established church; while he risked—​and eventually lost—​his preferment, this was because of his zeal to protect the Church of England from the encroachments of yet another version of popery. As we have seen, Featley’s desire for preferment was one of the chief motivating factors in his career. Given that he wrote Sacra Nemesis to vindicate his tarnished reputation following his dismissal from the Westminster in 1643, however, this retrospective claim was his way of demonstrating to Reformed Parliamentarians and members of the Westminster Assembly that he had always been loyal to the Reformed cause (even when it cost him ecclesiastical preferment). Featley’s retrospective relation of these events and the previous analysis of Featley’s loss of his licensing privileges around 1625 reveal that when Featley published his two works against Montague, he was undoubtedly aware of his tenuous position. As we have seen, in 1624 James instructed Francis White to read Appello Caesarem, which helped Montague avoid having his work censured by Featley. That James gave White the task of reading Appello Caesarem (instead of Featley) and then scolded Featley for licensing Elton’s and Crompton’s works indicates that anti-​Calvinists were being given preferment over Featley. Thus, Featley glossed over these shifts at court in his responses to Montague in 1626 and denied Montague’s claim that James had approved the licensing of Appello Caesarem.134 The preceding evidence, however, offers little indication that James was giving preference to Featley and other Reformed divines in Abbot’s entourage. These Protestants were aware of these circumstances and chose to gloss over these shifts in print by trying to resurrect a vision of the Jacobean regime that existed before the early 1620s. This analysis of James’s approval with respect to Featley and Montague has shed some light on the classic debate over whether anti-​Calvinists had already seized power before Charles’s reign. On the one hand, Nicholas Tyacke has argued that “Calvinism was the de facto religion in the Church of England under Queen Elizabeth and King James.”135 Likewise, Kenneth Fincham contends that “not until after the accession of Charles I is it legitimate to speak of an Arminian triumph.” Peter White and others, however, contend that by 1618 the tide had already changed in favor of anti-​Calvinism.136 The two claims about James’s loyalties in the 1620s—​Featley and Reformed divines on the one hand versus Peter Heylyn and Laudians on the other—​represent the historiographical divide that has separated revisionist historians for the past several decades.137 In reality,



134 Montague, Appello Caesarem, sigs.a1r–​a4v. 135 Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, p.7.

136 Fincham, Prelate as Pastor, p.48. 137

Lake, “Predestinarian Propositions,” p.115.

126  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England in order to maintain unity within the church, James favored both Reformed divines like Archbishop Abbot and avant-​ garde conformists like Lancelot Andrewes.138 Up until the end of James’s life, it seems that Reformed soteriology had been the dominant doctrinal position in the established church. Nevertheless, although the evidence resented here indicates that a clear doctrinal shift was taking place and that by the mid-​1620s Reformed figures were increasingly being marginalized by a progressively influential anti-​Calvinist regime, Reformed divines attempted to cope with these shifts by glossing over them in their printed polemical works against anti-​Calvinists.

Conclusion This chapter has examined Featley’s mode of attacking what he perceived as a revival of Pelagianism, a transmission of Dutch Arminianism, and a slightly adapted version of Catholicism in Richard Montague’s works. It has built on previous scholarship by examining Featley’s polemical strategy of associating the roots of anti-​Calvinism with the ancient Pelagian heresy. In short, Featley’s primary aim was to oppose anti-​Calvinism in the same way as he opposed Catholicism—​by showing that it was inconsistent with the Scriptures and orthodoxy as established from the church’s inception. Likewise, Featley’s attempt to establish theological and relational links between Dutch Remonstrants and English anti-​Calvinists reveals how hard-​line polemicists like Featley could be motivated by strong pastoral concerns. And yet, for all his opposition to Montague, Featley and Montague were motivated by similar pastoral concerns to curb Protestants from converting to Catholicism. Moreover, in applying accusations of Catholicism to Protestants committed to a particular vision of the established church, Featley’s anti-​Catholicism appears to have adapted to political changes and widened beyond a polemic against self-​identified Catholics. This phenomenon is encapsulated in the fact that Featley partnered with Francis White in an anti-​Catholic debate against the Jesuit John Fisher in 1623, and then employed similar arguments against Montague, whose work White licensed and approved. In these ways, features of Featley’s polemical approach were representative of the basic bounds of Reformed soteriology and the theological confessionalism of Calvinist conformity in the early Stuart church. Yet his tactics also reveal how Reformed ministers coped with the 138 Fincham, Prelate as Pastor, pp.25–​27, 302. For James’s political and ecclesiastical policies, see Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, “The Ecclesiastical Policy of King James I,” JBS 24 (1985), p.171; Kenneth Fincham, “The Ecclesiastical Policies of James I and Charles I,” in Kenneth Fincham, ed., The Early Stuart Church (Basingstoke, 1993), pp.23–​49; and Kenneth Fincham, “Episcopal Government 1603–​1640,” in Kenneth Fincham, ed., The Early Stuart Church (Basingstoke, 1993), pp.51–​91.

English Reformed Soteriology  127 shifting of those goalposts during the mid-​1620s and the loss of their influence at court by resurrecting a vision of the Jacobean regime that existed before the early 1620s. This was Featley’s means of responding to the increasing marginalization of Reformed divines by a Caroline regime that was sympathetic to their opponents’ doctrinal positions.

5

Pastoral and Practical Theology Preaching, Piety, and Ecclesiastical Conformity

During the shifts of the 1620s, when Daniel Featley was increasingly finding himself marginalized by rising anti-​Calvinists and the Caroline regimes, he made a strategic move. Having been a licenser for nearly a decade, Featley was aware of his diminishing licensing power and that Reformed divines were being replaced by anti-​Calvinist licensers who would possibly censor their opponents’ works. Immediately before his licensing role was terminated, on 8 and 9 November 1625, he licensed two of his own works—​a private prayer book entitled Ancilla Pietatis and a collection of six sermons entitled Select texts of holy scriptures opened in six sermons, which was incorporated into his collection of seventy sermons entitled Clavis Mystica.1 Although Featley may have originally wanted these two works to be released simultaneously, they were actually published a decade apart, Clavis Mystica being released in 1636, exactly ten years after the first edition of Ancilla Pietatis. Although he managed to publish both works, Laudian opponents eventually targeted both of them. Featley’s two most significant publications of the late 1620s and 1630s were focused on two practices that for Featley were vitally connected, the twin themes of prayer and preaching. He believed in the importance of preaching and emphasized that prayer should be a central feature of one’s private devotional life. The line between his devotional literature and his sermons was porous rather than fixed. For example, Featley intended that Ancilla Pietatis would penetrate the hearts of his readers like a sermon. Since his work “differ[ed] in form only from Short Sermons, or Christian Directions and Exhortations,” it too would change his readers’ “forcible motives to Christian virtues . . . by expressing a Christian’s ‘duties’ according to the Scriptures.”2 Similarly, William Herbert, who translated Ancilla Pietatis into French, noted the fluidity between Featley’s devotional works and his sermons, saying, “He has so joined devotion and doctrine, that a 1 Transcript, IV:145–​46. Featley catalog “of the speciall Antidotes, or preservatives against sinne,” “frequent and fervent Prayer, with thanksgiving,” is immediately followed by “the exercising our selves in reading, and hearing the holy Scriptures, and meditating on them day and night.” Daniel Featley, The Summe of saving knowledge: delivered in a catechisme (London, 1626), sig.C11r. 2 Daniel Featley, Ancilla Pietatis (London, 1675), sig.a1r–​v. All citations of Ancilla Pietatis are from the 1675 edition unless otherwise stated. Calvinist Conformity in Post-​Reformation England. Greg A. Salazar, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2022. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197536902.003.0006

Pastoral and Practical Theology  129 cold heart can be heated, and an offended understanding can be enlightened if he throws the eyes on this book, and reads it carefully; for all these prayers are all Sermons, which preach to him daily the practice of some virtue, and expose to him about the mysteries of Religion.”3 This chapter will explore these two themes of preaching and prayer, focusing on the pastoral, polemical, and political motivations that underpinned these works. It also reveals that Featley maintained a commitment to several theological positions, including that preaching and prayer were both central features of a minister’s calling and that a magistrate had the right to overrule one’s private conscience on “things indifferent” if that person rejected the forms of the English Church, as enshrined in the Book of Common Prayer. Previous historiographical analyses of Clavis Mystica have focused primarily on the amendments the Laudian regime made to Featley’s sermon collection. These earlier studies naturally portrayed Featley as a victim of Laudian censorship, when in reality he was rather an active opponent of Laudianism and the licensing system. This chapter will also challenge the interpretation that Ancilla Pietatis was a thoroughly conformist work, since it may have been crafted to counter an overemphasis on the importance of the church calendar, medieval tradition, and public worship services at the expense of private piety. Thus, these works were neither static nor crafted simply to encourage readers in their daily piety. An examination of Featley’s political and pastoral sensibilities throughout the 1630s reveals that he endeavored to provide for the perceived pastoral needs of his readers and positioned himself to avoid being reprimanded by an increasingly hostile Laudian regime. This was a tricky business. His strategic utilization of these tactical maneuvers and survival strategies throughout the 1630s allowed him to navigate the landscape. While these themes are explored in various capacities in other chapters, they are especially prominent in Featley’s ministry in the increasingly polarized ecclesiastical terrain during these years.

Preaching and the Public Means of Grace Featley’s Clavis Mystica was one of at least four large collections of sermons published between 1635 and 1637. Some have suggested that Featley’s nine-​ hundred-​page publication of these sermons (and dedication of them to Charles I)

3 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.M1r–​v : “il à si bien conjoinct la devotion & la doctrine, qu’un coeur glace peut estre rechauffé, & un entendement offusqué peut estre illuminé, s’il jette les yeux sur ce livre, & le lit avec attention; car toutes ces prieres sont autant de Sermons, qui luy preschent journelle ment la pratique de quelque vertu, & luy exposent quant & quant les mysteres de Religion.” I am grateful to Monique Cuany for assisting me with this translation.

130  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England was an attempt to advance his career.4 This was a potential motivation, as Featley had pursued other opportunities for advancement during this time—​including contending for a post at Trinity College Dublin to serve alongside James Ussher. In a letter from James Ussher to George Abbot dated 9 February 1627, we learn that Featley was a potential candidate for the Trinity College Dublin provost position. He was a distant choice behind Richard Sibbes, Ussher’s first choice (who was hindered from coming), and William Bedell, who was installed as provost on 16 August 1627 by the fellows of Trinity College Dublin.5 The collection itself contained seventy sermons preached in various settings throughout Featley’s career. The sheer diversity and prestige of these settings highlighted the breadth and significance of Featley’s preaching influence. There are five sermons preached at Serjeants Inne in Fleetstreet, five sermons preached at Paul’s Cross, five sermons preached when he was at Oxford, twenty-​one sermons he preached when he was a chaplain to Sir Thomas Edmonds, and ten sermons he preached at Lambeth Parish Church.6 As the work’s subtitle indicates, he distinguished himself among other scriptural exegetes as one who plumbed the depths of difficult passages in God’s Word to determine a text’s meaning, like a diver “who fetch[es] precious pearles from the bottom of the deepe.”7 Given the size of the volume and the limits of this chapter, it is impossible to examine all the themes of Featley’s collection in depth. Moreover, scholars have made significant contributions to our understanding of early modern sermons, fruitfully exploring common sermon themes and different varieties of sermons.8 Therefore, this section will address the motivations that underpinned Featley’s and other ministers’ decision to publish massive collections of sermons between 1635 and 1637. Featley reflected on how printing his previously delivered sermons could have a wider impact beyond the original audience: “For that which is spoken commeth but to a few that are within hearing, and stayeth not by them; but that which is written, and much more that which is printed, presenteth it selfe to the view of all, and is alwaies ready at hand: and as it receiveth, so it maketh an impression.”9 4 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sig.*2r–​v. I owe this point to Arnold Hunt, who suggested it in an extended unpublished version of his published “Licensing,” which he kindly shared with me. 5 Correspondence of James Ussher, I:388–​89. 6 On Paul’s cross, see Mary Morrissey, Politics and the Paul’s Cross Sermons (Oxford, 2011); Torrance Kirby and P. G. Stanwood, eds., Paul’s Cross and the Culture of Persuasion in England, 1520–​ 1640 (Leiden, 2014). 7 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sig.Nn1r (also see sig.Cccc3v). 8 Hunt, The Art of Hearing; Peter McCullough, Sermons at Court: Politics and Religion in Elizabethan and Jacobean Preaching (Cambridge, 2011); Lori Anne Ferrell and Peter McCullough, eds., The English Sermon Revised: Religion, Literature and History, 1600–​1750 (Manchester, 2000); Peter McCullough, Hugh Adlington, and Emma Rhatigan, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Early Modern Sermon (Oxford, 2011); Morrissey, Politics and the Paul’s Cross Sermons. 9 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sig.*2v. Although I have found no original notes of these sermons in manuscript form, Featley’s notebook in Oxford does contain notes from a treatise on Matthew 11:29. See Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.169r.

Pastoral and Practical Theology  131 Similarly, Charles White, the editor of Richard Clerke’s posthumous collection of sermons (another massive collection published a year after Clavis Mystica), explained that “printing is a kinde of preaching . . . which when the world shall read, they will marvaile, that such excellency could lie so close.”10 Several studies have fruitfully explored the mentality and motivations that underpinned the printing of sermons. Arnold Hunt demonstrated that the early Stuart period witnessed a shift toward a more positive assessment of printed sermons, and Alex Walsham showed how the published works of persecuted and silenced clergy could “operate as a proxy and prosthesis for the living voice.”11 The context of Featley’s collection is notable. In his dedicatory epistle, Featley claimed that he decided to publish his collection on account of “the desires of some friends” and upon encountering some “proper Heresies of these times.”12 In short, these sermons were “the presentest remedies against those venemous Serpents which infest the Church of Christ, whether Heretickes or Schismatickes.”13 Featley portrayed himself as a champion of the English Church against the encroachment of heresy in order to direct attention away from the work’s covert attacks on Laudianism. The timing of Featley’s publication was crucial. Although many of his sermons were delivered nearly two decades previously and he had licensed a version of Clavis Mystica a decade earlier, Featley waited for the optimal moment when releasing this collection would have a significant impact on the English Church.14 The years 1635–​37 witnessed a number of political and ecclesiastical shifts that had a negative impact on the Caroline and Laudian regimes.15 The difficulties in Anglo-​Spanish negotiations resulted in a change in England’s foreign policy and increased the likelihood of an Anglo-​Spanish war.16 The cumulative effect of these alterations was that they influenced domestic and foreign policy in England during this time.17 The 1636 plague was interpreted as God’s judgment

10 Richard Clerke, Sermons (London, 1637), sig.A3v. For Clerke, see Patrick Collinson, “The Protestant Cathedral, 1541–​1600,” in Patrick Collinson, Nigel Ramsay, and Margaret Sparks, eds., A History of Canterbury Cathedral (Oxford, 1995), p.183; Vivienne Larminie, “Richard Clerke, d.1634),” ODNB. 11 Hunt, The Art of Hearing, pp.117–​86; Alexandra Walsham, “Preaching without Speaking: Script, Print and Religious Dissent,” in Julia Crick and Alexandra Walsham, The Uses of Script and Print, 1300–​1700 (Cambridge, 2004), pp.211–​12. 12 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sig.*2v. 13 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sig.*2v. 14 Transcript, IV:146. 15 I am grateful to Peter Lake for his suggestion that the publication of these sermons may have been connected with this context and for our fruitful conversations on issues related to this section. 16 Sharpe, Personal Rule of Charles I, pp.509, 530. 17 Sharpe, Personal Rule of Charles I, pp.541, 598–​99.

132  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England of England, and the famous 1637 trial of Prynne, Burton, and Bastwick served to demonstrate that the Laudian regime would not tolerate sedition.18 The Laudian regime responded in 1635–​36 by formulating and disseminating official policy. While there has been significant debate about whether Laud or the less influential Laudian clerics (Laud’s “clerical rottweilers,” to use Anthony Milton’s phrase) were ultimately responsible for defending, justifying, and defining these policies during the 1630s, it appears that it was probably a mixture.19 Either way, 1635–​36 witnessed a significant spike in printed treatises by Laudian ministers, which included the visitation sermons of John Pocklington, Peter Heylyn, and John Featley (among others).20 Cyndia Clegg has pointed out that these two years were the only time more than twenty works were printed by Laudian ministers.21 These Laudian visitation sermons “concentrated on vindicating the government’s policies and extolling the beauty of holiness.”22 Thus, John was helping to establish Laudian policy (even while serving as a curate at his church in Lambeth), even while his uncle, Daniel, was attempting to provide an alternative to these policies. There was a similar effort on the part of Featley and other non-​Laudian divines to provide an alternative to these policies through the publication of their sermon collections. These collections put forward rival theological positions that stood in stark contrast to Laudian ideals and were analogues to the standard of orthodoxy that was valued in the Jacobean church. This section will analyze three of the central themes that Featley put forward in his sermon collection: an apologetic for the importance of a robust preaching ministry, a critique of the “beauty of holiness” movement, and the display of a more antagonistic approach to Catholicism. Since each of these themes stood in contrast to Laudian ideals, Laudians attempted to expunge or alter these doctrinal positions.23 First, Featley’s Clavis Mystica was a monument to the importance of a vibrant preaching ministry. The sheer size of the volume communicated that a vivacious preaching ministry was vital for shepherding God’s flock. Featley’s theological 18 Sharpe, Personal Rule of Charles I, p.769. For a manuscript account of Prynne’s trial see HL, MS 835. Also see Reports of Cases in the Courts of Start Chamber and High Commission, ed. S. R. Gardiner (London, 1886), pp.270–​71. 19 Anthony Milton, “The Creation of Laudianism: A New Approach,” in Thomas Cogswell, Richard Cust, and Peter Lake, eds., Politics, Religion and Popularity in Early Stuart Britain (Cambridge, 2002), pp.162, 176–​77, 179. 20 Milton, “The Creation of Laudianism,” pp.163–​64. 21 Clegg, Press Censorship in Caroline England, p.147. 22 Anthony Milton, Laudian and Royalist Polemic in Seventeenth-​Century England: The Career and Writings of Peter Heylyn (Manchester, 2008), p.53. 23 Griffith Williams also published a collection of sermons in 1636. Given the limits of this chapter, Williams’s collection will not be treated here. Griffith Williams, The Best Religion (London, 1636). On Williams, see Anthony Milton, “Sacrilege and Compromise: Court Divines and the King’s Conscience, 1642–​1649,” in Michael Braddick and David Smith, eds., The Experience of Revolution in Stuart Britain and Ireland: Essays for John Morrill (Cambridge, 2011), p.136.

Pastoral and Practical Theology  133 positions stood in contrast to the Laudian view of preaching outlined by Peter Lake. Lake contends that in the 1630s Laudian ministers “radically redefined” preaching, arguing that preaching was not feeding the flock through the exposition of Scripture but that the mere reading of Scripture was sufficient for a sermon.24 Laudians elevated public prayer over preaching, claiming that preaching was to impart “the basic information necessary to pray properly.”25 In short, these were ultimately not different doctrinal stances on minor issues, but radically different theological perspectives of the role of the pastor, wherein the leading of the liturgy and administration of the sacraments replaced the preaching.26 It is precisely this theological position that Featley appears to have been so determined to rebuff. Indeed, Kenneth Fincham has contrasted Featley’s consecration sermons with John Cosin’s sermon at the consecration of Francis White—​Featley viewing the bishop as a preaching pastor, Cosin asserting the office as a “custodian of order.”27 In “the Faithful Shepheard,” Featley argued that the minister “feed[s]‌the flocke of God which is among them” by “preach[ing] painefully and powerfully.”28 He defended the value of preaching, exhorting these prelates, “Let it bee never said of you as it was of Saul, that when hee came to the high places he made an end of prophesying.” Instead, they were to “honour” God in their calling by their “diligence in feeding his sheepe.”29 Featley heralded the kind of preaching that was designed “not to tickle their eares, but to pricke their hearts.”30 Featley lamented how “there are some of the ministry fitter to be fed and led like sheep, than to feed or lead like shepheards.”31 Laudians believed that since Scripture could be clearly understood when read in public worship, extensive preaching was unnecessary.32 Therefore, Featley selected difficult texts to show that preaching (rather than mere reading) was imperative. Indeed, the central theme of his collection was that Scripture contained numerous difficult texts that needed to be expounded (not merely read) by the qualified and gifted preacher. In this way, the entire collection was a subtle rebuke of the Laudian view of preaching and a challenge for ministers to pursue 24 Lake, “The Laudian Style,” pp.169–​70. 25 Lake, “The Laudian Style,” p.169. 26 Lake, “The Laudian Style,” pp.165–​66, 170–​71. 27 Kenneth Fincham, Prelate as Pastor, pp.251, 276–​77. For similar defenses of the importance of preaching, see Gouge, The Whole Armour of God, sig. ¶4v; William Perkins, A Warning against the Idolatrie of the Last Times (Cambridge, 1601), sigs.N4v, O1v–​O2r, O5r. John Cosin is famously reported to have said that he would “rather goe forty miles to a good service than two miles to a sermon.” Peter Smart, The vanitie & downe-​fall of superstitious popish ceremonies (London, 1628), sig. C4v. 28 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sig.N2r. The “afterlife’ of this sermon will be explored on p.273. 29 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sig.N6r. 30 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sig.Eeee3r. 31 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sig.N1v. 32 Hunt, The Art of Hearing, p.37.

134  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England a robust preaching ministry, providing fruitful expositions of Scripture to their congregations. There is a danger in supposing that every criticism contains hidden political critiques of those in authority.33 Featley, however, had a history of interlacing critiques in his printed works, and he reflected on how sermons could communicate indirectly to listeners.34 He said, Such is the condition of the hearers, that the Minister of God, though upon good warrant from his text, can hardly rebuke the publike enemies of Church or State, but hee shall procure private enemies to himself . . . if he stand for, or be inclinable unto the new, or newly taken up expressions of devotions, he suspects the Preacher glanceth at him.35

Reflecting on this passage, Arnold Hunt has insightfully noted that Featley was referring to “codes of pulpit discourse [that] enabled preachers to signal disagreement without having to express it directly” and that preachers “could attack an opposing theological position that stood within the bounds of orthodoxy, by associating it with an extreme version of the same position that was clearly outside those boundaries.”36 Second, Featley’s collection contained several critiques of the Laudian “beauty of holiness” movement that were veiled as attacks on Catholicism.37 Peter Lake has argued that Laudianism attempted to create “the beauty of holiness” in worship through the liturgy and a program of beautifying churches.38 Laudians surmised that because the church was the principal place where God dwelt, it was only appropriate that it should be beautifully adorned and “glow with the beauty of holiness.”39 Although Featley veiled his attack on the Laudian program as an attack on Catholics (“our adversaries,” who “spend so much in embellishing their churches, and so little in beautifying their soules”), William Bray, the vicar of St. Martin-​in-​the-​Fields and the work’s licenser, detected Featley’s assault on Laudianism and made significant amendments to the text.40 In 1636 Featley managed to publish an uncensored edition of the work using a decade-​old license.41 Therefore, it is possible to trace Bray’s amendments by comparing the censored version with the uncensored edition. Uncensored copies can be 33 Hunt, The Art of Hearing, p.294. 34 On this theme, see Hunt, The Art of Hearing, pp.299–​300. 35 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sig.Ii5r. 36 Hunt, The Art of Hearing, p.387. 37 The remainder of this section is substantially indebted to Hunt, “Licensing.” 38 Lake, “The Laudian Style,” pp.162, 168. 39 Lake, “The Laudian Style,” p.165. 40 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sig.V5r, uncensored version. Also see Prynne, Canterburies Doome, sig. Qq4r. 41 Transcript, IV:145.

Pastoral and Practical Theology  135 distinguished from censored copies by noting that the uncensored text lacks errata on the final page.42 Although Bray allowed some critique of the excess of adornments to remain, he shifted the focus of an entire section so that the issue was not one of outward adornment per se, but outward adornment that lacked spiritual sustenance. In Bray’s amended version, the problem was not with those who “spare for no cost in imbellishing their Churches,” but those who took “little care for beautifying their soules.”43 The English divine Richard Spinks was also brought before authorities to “utterly renounce all such meaning, or intention” from his remarks in a sermon on Romans 1:14 preached in St. John’s College Cambridge in 1632, in which he said that “the beauty of gods house doth [not] consist in painting,” “coping the minister with sumptuous and gorgeous apparrell,” or any means of church beautification.44 His recantation is remarkably similar to Bray’s amendments to Featley’s sermon. Spinks confessed that although “my wordes did run of the beauty of holiness in gods house,” he should have said “that the beauty of gods house consists not in these onely.”45 In both cases, Laudians maintained that the only valid critique is of a lack of spiritual vitality. William Prynne records in his much later (and highly stylized) account of Laud’s trial that Laud said, “If there be not a care to beautify the Soul, let Men profess what Religion they will.” Nevertheless, regarding “the over-​much beautifying of the Church, ’tis a Point that might well be left out.”46 Laud claimed there was “little necessity, to preach or print against too much adorning of churches among us,” since “so many churches lie very nastily in many places of the kingdom, and no one too much adorned to be found.”47 Prynne’s account was possessed an overtly polemical agenda. Prynne himself admitted that he intended to show that Laud “trayterously endeavoured to subvert the fundamentall Lawes and Government of the Kingdome of England.”48 Since Prynne retrospectively utilized evidence from the 1630s in his later account, historians should approach it with caution. Nevertheless, Laud’s statement was indicative of a Laudian aversion to critiques of church beautification. This conviction underpinned Bray’s censoring of Featley’s sermons. Prynne recorded Featley’s testimony at Laud’s trial, detailing that Laud, on hearing of the 42 Hunt, “Licensing,” p.145; Transcript, IV:146. 43 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sig.V5r (censored version). 44 Bodl., Rawl. MS E.148, fols.33r, 46r. 45 Bodl., Rawl. MS E.148, fol.46v. Also see Milton, Catholic and Reformed, p.71. 46 William Laud, The History of the Troubles and Tryal of . . . William Laud (London, 1695), sig. Aaa2r. 47 Laud, History of the Troubles and Tryal, sig.Aaa2r. 48 Prynne, Canterburies Doome, sig.H1r. On the subjective nature and problems with Prynne’s account, see William Lamont, Marginal Prynne, 1600–​1669 (London, 1963), pp.119–​20. Also see Mark Kishlansky, “A Whipper Whipped: The Sedition of William Prynne,” HJ 56 (2013), pp.603–​27; Mark Kishlansky, “Martyr’s Tales,” JBS 53 (2014), pp.334–​55.

136  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England publishing of Featley’s Clavis Mystica, “sent for him to Lambeth” to inquire about whether the work had been “licensed” and “perused” by “any of his Chaplaines.” When Featley replied that it was “licensed long since, when himselfe had power to license books,” Laud responded that “he would not have published any thing without acquainting him first therewith” and instructed him “to carry them to Doctor Bray . . . to peruse, to see if there were any offensive or unfitting passages in them.” Following Bray’s censoring of his text, Featley complained to Sir Edmund Scot, who, on petitioning Laud, was told it would be no use “to complaine” since Laud would not alter Bray’s decisions.49 In his testimony, Featley claimed that he had obtained a legitimate license for the work, even though he licensed a significantly abbreviated version of the work ten years previously during his tenure as Abbot’s chaplain.50 As Arnold Hunt rightly argues, Featley contended that Laud was personally involved in the development of events surrounding the censoring of his work and therefore “served to implicate Laud personally in the licensing process.”51 This is significant since at his trial Laud sought to acquit himself of the censoring charges by claiming that his chaplains were responsible for overseeing “what Books are Licensed”—​even daring Featley, as a former licenser, to deny his account.52 Edward Dering, however, countered this claim, saying that one could “know his Lordships dyet by his Cook. His Chaplaine durst not dish forth these Romane quelque choses, if he had not the right temper of his masters taste.”53 It is difficult to assess definitively how involved Laud was in the censorship processes, especially since (according to Milton) part of Laud’s strategy was to “let his clerical Rottweiler run the risks for him, and then later watch them become the scapegoats for the more abrasive style of the Personal Rule.”54 Still, it is probable that he was either involved in or aware of the affairs of those under his charge. Bray also cut Featley’s critique of church furniture, candles, cloth pictures, saintly images, and incense. He revised Featley’s claim that “the true adorning of the Church, it is not with the beauty of pictures, but with holinesse,” changing “beauty of pictures” to “the beauty of colours” and “true adorning” to “chiefe adorning,” thereby sanitizing Featley’s condemnation of images.55 Bray’s amendment was one of many made throughout Clavis Mystica. Hunt demonstrated that seventeen folio sheets were deleted from the work and provided a detailed 49 Prynne, Canterburies Doome, sig.Ll1v (also see sig.Sss4r). For Laud’s denial of this claim and response, see Prynne, Canterburies Doome, sigs.Yyy2v–​Yyy3r; Laud, History of the Troubles and Tryal, sig.Xx1v; Laud, Works of William Laud, IV:241. 50 Transcript, IV:108. 51 Hunt, “Licensing,” p.136. 52 Prynne, Canterburies Doome, sig.Yy2v. Also see Laud, History of the Troubles and Tryal, sig. Aaa1r. 53 Edward Dering, A Discourse of Proper Sacrifice (Cambridge, 1644), sig.C3v. 54 Milton, “The Creation of Laudianism,” pp.176–​77, 179. 55 Hunt, “Licensing,” p.142.

Pastoral and Practical Theology  137 analysis of these amendments.56 Hunt’s analysis of the licenser’s changes is worth quoting at length: These changes are slight, but their cumulative effect is considerable. The Catholic use of religious art is no longer perceived as a form of idolatry, but merely as a misguided over-​ reliance on material objects, thus depriving Featley’s anti-​Catholic polemic of its essential justification. Nevertheless, some traces of Featley’s original intentions do survive, albeit in a somewhat muted form . . . and it is significant that the licenser did not take the opportunity to delete the passage altogether. The purpose of the revision, it seems, was not to abolish the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, but simply to redefine it so as to permit the partial toleration of religious imagery.57

While a comparison of the uncensored texts demonstrates that Hunt’s analysis of these amendments is sound, by focusing solely on these changes, there is a danger of seeing Featley as merely a victim of Laudian censorship rather than as an active opponent of Laudianism and the licensing system. As a former licenser, he was aware that by publishing a work using a decade-​old license (obtained by exploiting his licensing privileges), he was effectively undermining the entire licensing system. The previous analysis of Featley’s amendments to Edward Maie’s sermon demonstrated that Featley knew the frustrations of trying to chastise those who sought to subvert the licensing system. Yet rather than standing by a process that he defended and enforced, he used his licensing knowledge to undercut the system itself. This is not to detract from the fact that Bray’s amendments were severe. Rather, this underscores that Featley was not a victim, but an active opponent who, when pressed by the shifts of the 1630s, was far from conforming and inert. He willingly employed subversive tactics in an effort to provide an alternative to Laudian ideals. John Prideaux presented a similar critique of Laudianism in his large collection of nineteen sermons entitled Certaine Sermons (1637), which he also claimed to have published at the request of friends.58 Prideaux was Featley’s Oxford tutor, and the two were fellows at Chelsea College and part of the group that drafted the petition against Richard Montague in 1624.59 Prideaux’s sermons were also targeted in the 1630s, specifically for their critique of the “beauty of holiness” movement. An anonymous manuscript (possibly composed 56 Although the STC 10730 entry (Clavis Mystica) only mentions two amended sheets, there are seventeen. Hunt, “Licensing,” p.145. 57 Hunt, “Licensing,” p.142. Also see Proceedings, Principally in the County of Kent, ed. Lambert Larking (London, 1862), pp.80, 85; Prynne, Canterburies Doome, sigs.P2v–​3r, Ll3v, Nn1r–​v, Qq1r, Rr4v–​Ss1r, Ss4r. 58 Prideaux, Sermons, sig.A2r. 59 Fuller, Church History, sig.Gggg4r; Cosin, Correspondence, I:22, 79–​80.

138  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England by Peter Heylyn) entitled “Exceptions to Dr. Prideaux his sermons” contains excerpts from six different sermons in Prideaux’s Certaine Sermons, most of which center on Prideaux’s apparent critique of Laudian piety. Anthony Milton has suggested that the note taker was Peter Heylyn, which fits well with Heylyn’s consistent record of targeting Calvinist conformists.60 For example, in a court sermon “A Plot for Preferment,” he spoke of the “statelinesse in some so different from Apostolicall humilitie to their meaner & weaker bretheren have not made none Schismatigues & (as wee call them) Puritans.”61 Reading between the lines, Prideaux’s message is clear: the excesses of Laudian ceremonial piety have catalyzed the schismatic tendencies in puritanism.62 The existence of this record reveals that the authorities were keeping close tabs on Prideaux. In a letter of 7 February 1625 to John Cosin, Richard Montague relayed that “Dr. Prideaux’s 9 eggs are rotten, that is must be called in,” referring to Prideaux’s Orationes nouem inaugurales (1626).63 Laudians had reason to be suspicious of Prideaux since he, like Featley, had previously launched a series of attacks on Laudian authorities. For example, in 1629 Prideaux attacked Laudians, specifically Thomas Laurence, the future master of Balliol. It was reported by Robert Skinner in a letter to Laud that in a “discourse” “of Hypocrites,” Prideaux accused Laurence of favoring “popery,” with one observer saying he was surprised that “the Kings Professor, [would] publiqualy . . . profess himself an Adversary at once of the Authority of the Church.”64 Furthermore, in a letter to John Dury, Samuel Hartlib mentioned that “Prideaux is writing a Treatise prooving the unlawfulnes of cringing or bowing to the tables, et [&] says rather dye then doe it, et [&] that the martyrs died for farre lesse matters.”65 Prideaux also defended the “doctrine of Justification by faith alone” as a “wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort,” precisely because this doctrine had been “dangerously impugned, by some of our owne side.”66 Scholars have noted that Laudians responded by making the 1630s turbulent times for Prideaux. In 1631 Prideaux was scolded by Laud and Charles and was almost ejected from his Regius Professorship on account of his resistance to changes at Oxford. Moreover, Peter 60 Milton, Laudian and Royalist Polemic, p.51. 61 SP 16/​406, fol.167v. See Prideaux, Sermons, sig.Nn4v. For similar assessments of this document, see Tyacke, “Religious Controversy during the Seventeenth Century,” p.280; Lake, “The Laudian Style,” pp.280–​81; Milton, Laudian and Royalist polemic, p.51. 62 For a similar theme see SP 16/​406, fol.167r; Prideaux, Sermons, sig.K3r. Although the author of Prideaux’s ODNB article says that these sermons “got him into trouble,” I have found no surviving evidence that Prideaux was reprimanded by authorities for these remarks. A. J. Hegarty, “John Prideaux (1578–​1650),” ODNB. 63 Cosin, Correspondence, I:53. John Prideaux, Orationes nouem inaugurales (Oxford, 1626). 64 LPL, MS 943, p.133. For similar attacks by Prideaux, see Tyacke, “Religious Controversy during the Seventeenth Century,” pp.279, 281; Milton, Laudian and Royalist Polemic, p.75; Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.116–​17. 65 SUL, Hartlib MS 29/​2, fol.48r. 66 Prideaux, Sermons, sig.Hh2r. Also see Milton, Catholic and Reformed, p.215.

Pastoral and Practical Theology  139 Heylyn attempted to discredit Prideaux in the eyes of puritans by publishing The Doctrine of the Sabbath (1634), an English translation of his 1622 Act lecture, which, in this new context, showed his support for the reissuing of the 1633 Jacobean Book of Sports.67 Although Laudians and establishment Reformed divines clashed at various moments in the 1630s, it would be a mistake to see Laudians and Calvinist conformists as wholly at odds with one another. Both Featley and Prideaux defended the English Church ceremonies, and Featley’s sermon collection (like his devotional work) contained strong stances on the importance of the church calendar, festivals, and various other conformist expressions of piety.68 They do, however, react against diminishing the role of preaching and overemphasizing the importance of ceremonies. Nor was Featley opposed to repairing and keeping his own church in good condition. The Lambeth Churchwardens’ Accounts reveals that in 1615, before Featley was installed as rector, “voluntary Contribucions” had been given by members of Lambeth parish “towardes the repayring and beautifying of the Church.” Featley supported this extensive program of repair into the mid-​1630s, with many parishioners, vestrymen, wardens, and even Archbishop Abbot himself contributing to the changes.69 Indeed, on 10 February 1637, “George Scotson[,]‌one of the Churchwardens” at Lambeth, “distributed and laid out the summe of [over] thirtie three poundes” “towardes the repaire of the ruines and decayes” of the “Church and fence of the Churchyard.”70 Moreover, according to Thomas Gataker—​who preached Featley’s wife’s, Joyce’s, funeral sermon—​in her will Joyce gave “to the Church of Lambeth, in which parish she spent the greatest part of her life, and gave up her last breath . . . a faire Communion Cup, to be raysed from the sale of some of her principall Iewels; that so those ornaments” “that had adorned her, while she lived, might the church of God, when she was dead.”71 Following her death in 1639, Featley fulfilled her request, and the chalice and paten, which have inscriptions attesting to the donation, are now housed

67 John Prideaux, The Doctrine of the Sabbath (Oxford, 1634), sigs.E1r, H2r–​v. Also see Tyacke, “Religious Controversy during the Seventeenth Century,” pp.274, 277–​78, 280; Milton, Laudian and Royalist Polemic, pp.48–​53; Milton, “Licensing,” p.649. 68 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sigs.M3r, P2r, Mm1v, Bbbb4v–​5r. 69 Lambeth Churchwardens’ Accounts 1504–​1645 and Vestry Book 1610, ed. Charles Drew (2 vols., London, 1940), I:279. Also see LA, MS P 4/​5/​3/​1. 70 Lambeth Churchwardens’ Accounts, I:118. 71 Gataker, Saint Stevens, sig.E3v; Samuel Denne, Historical particulars of Lambeth Parish and Lambeth Palace in addition to the histories (London, 1795). For other sources related to Joyce Featley, see Featley, Succinct History, sig.H5v–​H7r; Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxonienses . . . A New Edition, with Additions, ed. Philip Bliss (London, 1817), III:158; Guildhall MS 6836, fol.146r; HL/​PO/​JO/​10/​ 1/​44, HL/​PO/​JO/​10/​1/​64, HL/​PO/​JO/​10/​4, HL/​PO/​JO/​10/​1/​121, TNA, E133/​52/​57; Manuscripts of the House of Lords, p.261.

140  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England at the Parish of North Lambeth, where Featley was formerly the minister.72 As Julia Merritt has shown, a commitment to refurbishing churches was not confined to Laudians.73 Featley possessed some concern for the priorities that held by Laudian ministers. Conflicts between Laudians and Calvinist conformists should not obscure the fact that Reformed divines like Featley shared some of the same priorities about the importance of maintaining the fabric of the church and reverence in worship, aspects that were enshrined in the Laudian “beauty of holiness” program.74 Ministers like Prideaux and Featley believed preaching and the ceremonial elements of the service were equally important.75 For Featley, a pastor, like Christ, was a prophet, priest, and king: “The establishing the ministery of the Gospell, and furnishing the Church with able Pastours, hath a dependance on all three offices.”76 In short, for Featley a minister is a prophet through his preaching, a priest through his administration of the sacraments, and a king by exercising authority as an ordained officer of the church.77 Therefore, he opposed attempts to diminish the importance of each of these roles. Third, Featley’s work also contained a strong stance against Catholicism. William Loe recounted that “all his Sermons in a great Book in Folio shew how sound [Featley] was at heart, and discovereth the plots of the Romish Sectaries in abundant manner.”78 Although Featley’s chief aim was to attack Rome, he also may have been subtly critiquing Laudians. On 7 January 1640, before the subcommittee of religion, one of the stationers, John Rothwell, testified that Featley had informed him that Laud approved the licensing of a book by the Catholic priest Sancta Clara (alias Christopher Davenport). He also noted that attempts by Reformed bishops like Thomas Morton to oppose Sancta Clara were deliberately ignored by William Bray.79 Likewise, in 1644, the Commons claimed that Laud was trying “to advance Popery and Superstition” by accommodating Sancta Clara—​even meeting with him while he was writing a work, Deus natura gratia, that “much traduced and scandalized” “the thirty nine Articles.”80 Of course, 72 V&A, RP/​1970/​822. During time of the writing of this book, the chalice and paten were on loan from North Lambeth Parish to the V&A. As St. Mary’s was later converted into the Garden Museum, the North Lambeth Parish now administers the item. 73 J. F. Merritt, “Puritans, Laudians, and the Phenomenon of Church-​Building in Jacobean London,” HJ 41 (1998), pp.935–​60. 74 Fincham and Tyacke, Altars Restored, p.273. For a manuscript account of John Williams’s trial, see HL, MS 1084, fols.84r–​116r. 75 On this theme, see Arnold Hunt, “The Lord’s Supper in Early Modern England,” P&P 161 (1998), pp.39–​83; Hunt, The Art of Hearing, p.52. 76 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sig.L6v. 77 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sigs.L5v, M1r. Also see Daniel Featley, The Summe of saving knowledge: delivered in a catechisme (London, 1626), sig.C9r. 78 Loe, Sermon, sig.E4r. 79 Larking, Proceedings, Principally in the County of Kent, p.95. 80 Articles of the Commons assembled in Parliament, in maintenance of their accusation, against William Laud (London, 1644), sigs.B2v–​B3r.

Pastoral and Practical Theology  141 some of the most zealous supporters of the Laudian regime, like John Cosin and Laud himself, were decidedly opposed to Catholicism.81 Indeed, in one manuscript John Cosin arranged fourteen points where English Protestants “doe not agree with the Roman Catholicks in any thing whereunto they now endeavour to convert us, But wee totally Dessent from them (As they doe from the Ancient Catholick Church) in these points.” He also listed fourteen points of agreement between Protestants and Catholics.82 Nevertheless, Anthony Milton has highlighted that there were significant differences between Laudians’ and Calvinist conformists’ theological perspectives regarding Rome. This is why William Bray deleted and amended many of Featley’s attacks on Catholics. The English controversialist Sir Edward Dering (1598–​1644) described William Bray’s amendments to Featley’s sermons, citing that he deleted “many passages” “against Arminianisme and Popery.”83 Hunt has shown that other Laudian licensers made similar changes to Richard Clerke’s (d. 1634) massive collection of seventy-​four sermons, published posthumously in 1637 by Charles White.84 A manuscript account of 209 changes made to Clerke’s sermons provides evidence of an almost systemic purging of all forms of vitriolic anti-​Catholicism.85 Though Laudian authorities were thorough in their censorship practices, we should be careful not to overstate the magnitude of what was amended in the works. As Laud said at his trial, the discussion “about expunging some thing out of books makes such a great noise, as if nothing concerning popery might be printed.”86 Laud was absolutely correct, for Featley’s censored work is saturated with anti-​Catholicism.87 Although William Prynne argued that the existence of these sections was an unintentional oversight by Bray, several accounts portray Bray as a restrained licenser.88 Moreover, it may be that Bray (like Featley in his own licensing role) did not have ample time to sanitize all antiestablishment criticism and anti-​Catholic polemic from Featley’s work. Laudian censorship was indeed noticeably more aggressive and militant than that of the Jacobean licensers, and Reformed divines lacked sympathetic

81 LPL, MS 943, p.729. 82 LPL, MS 1742, fol.7r. On this manuscript see LPL, MS 1741, fol.1r. 83 Dering, Discourse, sig.c4v. For an excellent treatment of Bray’s amendments to the anti-​Catholic sections of Featley’s sermons, see Hunt, “Licensing,” p.140–​41. 84 Clerke, Sermons, sig.A3v. Also see Hunt, “Licensing,” pp.137–​39. 85 SP 16/​339, fols.136r–​147r. Also see Prynne, Canterburies Doome, Ll1v. 86 Laud, Works of William Laud, IV:241; Prynne, Canterburies Doome, sig.3Y3r. 87 See the following pages for a sampling of the anti-​Catholicism left in or overlooked by the licenser: Featley, Clavis Mystica, sigs.M1r, M2r–​v, O1r, P6v–​Q1r, S1r–​v, Cc4v, Dd3r, Hh6r, Kk3r–​v, Tt2r–​v, Tt5r–​v, Dddd5v, 3K3r, 3K4r–​3K5r, 3V4v–​3V5r, Xxx1r, Gggg3v, Hhhh2v. 88 Prynne, Canterburies Doome, sig.Yyy3v. On Bray’s moderation, see Dering, Discourse, sig. d4r; Robert Porter, The Life of Mr John Hieron (London, 1691), sig.D3v; Hunt, “Licensing,” pp.138, 140, 145.

142  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England licensers.89 This fact alone has given the impression that Calvinist conformists like Featley and Prideaux were the victims of censorship and Laudian oppression. The fact that these adversaries of Laudianism each released a large collection of sermons at the precise moment when Laudian divines were seeking to establish Laudian policy through their visitation sermons, however, suggests that Featley and Prideaux were active opponents in the battle for orthodoxy, attempting to provide an alternative standard of orthodoxy at a crucial ecclesiastical moment. In this way, these sermon collections were anything but static works merely designed for personal edification and pietistic growth. Rather, they were dynamic tools designed to persuade readers of the vitality of preaching and warn them of the errors of popery and overadornment in churches.90 These Reformed divines were seeking to promote, and perhaps even resurrect, a vision of orthodoxy that had once prevailed in the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods but was increasingly being silenced. Persecution could be a catalyst that encouraged marginalized ministers to print their works.91 Featley was aware that circumstances could require shifting his ministry to print. In the very different circumstances of the 1640s, he reflected on being deprived of his preaching post by the Parliamentarians, saying “Preach the Gospel I can now no otherwise then from the Presse, for both my pulpits are taken from me . . . now therefore since I cannot lingua, I must be content as I am able to evangelizare calamo, to preach with my pen.”92 This should caution one against assuming that those who lacked licensing power were less able to exert influence. In reality, Featley’s attempts to censor anti-​Calvinist works and Laudians’ attempts to censor Featley’s works indicates that while the licensing system did inhibit those who lacked formal licensing power, there were certainly ways of actively resisting those who were in “authority.” Since most of Featley’s sermons were preached before the rise of anti-​ Calvinism and Laudianism in the 1620s and 1630s, these covert attacks on Laudianism demonstrate how one minister utilized previously preached sermons for a new ecclesiastical context. Moreover, a work’s genre could be every bit as important as its content. The fact that Featley released a massive collection of sermons at a moment at which the significance of preaching was being challenged is an example of how one could communicate significance through the content of what one printed. This collection may have been a response to Laudian sermon collections, such as Lancelot Andrewes’s 1629 Laud-​Buckeridge edition of XCVI sermons, which Peter McCullough has demonstrated was “a distinctly 89 Milton, “Licensing,” p.642; Hunt, “Licensing,” pp.135, 143–​44. 90 Hunt, The Art of Hearing, pp.3, 5. 91 Walsham, “Preaching without Speaking,” p.232. 92 Daniel Featley, Dippers Dipt (London, 1645), sig.C1v. Also quoted in Walsham, “Preaching without Speaking,” p.219.

Pastoral and Practical Theology  143 ‘Laudian’ project.”93 Indeed, the two most-​printed Laudian works for this period were Andrewes’s Sermons and Cosin’s Devotions, arguably the archetypes of Laudian preaching and prayer, respectively.94 Given that Featley’s Ancilla Pietatis was the chief rival to Cosin’s Devotions (as we will see), his Clavis Mystica may have been perceived as opposed to Andrewes’s Sermons. Pastoral sensitivities also drove Featley’s release of this sermon collection. Given that Featley originally licensed this devotional work and an embryonic version of Clavis Mystica on the same day, he may have intended them to be companion volumes. At least some readers conceived of the works in this way. Featley’s Sacra Nemesis contains a letter from 1641 in which John Schevaren asked Francis Taylor to remember to send to him Clavis Mystica and Ancilla Pietatis, and Friedrich Spanheim, professor in Geneva, singled out and “commended” both works.95 While Ancilla Pietatis was a handbook for a robust prayer life intended largely for private use, Clavis Mystica was a model for a vibrant preaching ministry. A further clue that this sermon collection was intended to be used publicly is that it was printed in a large quarto format and was handsomely bound—​in clear contrast to his private devotional work, which was printed in a much smaller (duodecimo) size. As such, Clavis Mystica would have been a very expensive work indeed.96 Clavis Mystica may have served as a reservoir (much like the Book of Homilies) for either less competent ministers to utilize or for those who sought to supplement the Sunday morning message by reading sermons of well-​known preachers at other public gatherings.97 Hunt has argued that “there were some who believed that, just as the printed Book of Common Prayer had been used to bring about uniformity of worship, so printed sermons should be used to bring about uniformity of doctrine.”98 Thus, Featley may have been attempting to correct some errors in worship and doctrine through issuing these works. At the very least, he issued them to serve as a public and private means of grace for English parishioners, both in his congregation and in the wider church.99 Given the turbulent events of the 1630s and the afflictions of many godly people, it is not a surprise that several of Featley’s sermons speak extensively of God’s comfort to those experiencing affliction.100 93 McCullough, “Making Dead Men Speak,” p.402. Also see Lake, “Lancelot Andrewes, John Buckridge, and Avant-​Garde Conformity,” pp.113–​33. 94 Clegg, Press Censorship in Caroline England, p.146. 95 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.M3v. 96 Hunt, The Art of Hearing, pp.169, 163–​64. 97 Hunt, The Art of Hearing, pp.164, 170–​71, 181–​82. Several scholars have noted that in the 1630s an Oxford conventicle met to read sermons by Richard Sibbes and John Preston and the Book of Homilies. See E. R. Brinkworth, “The Study and Use of Archdeacons’ Court Records: Illustrated from the OXFORD records (1566–​1759),” TRHS 25 (1943), p.114. Also see Hunt, The Art of Hearing, p.171; Walsham, “Preaching without Speaking,” p.218. 98 Hunt, The Art of Hearing, p.183. 99 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sigs.N2r, N3r. 100 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sigs.Ooo3r, Ooo3v, Ppp2r.

144  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England In this way, Featley’s pastoral ministry extended beyond the confines of his own parish to a wider audience in need of the means of grace.

Prayer and Private Piety Featley’s sermon collection was a follow-​up to an eight-​hundred-​page prayer devotional published in 1626. In recent years historians have examined how devotional works shaped and sustained the community of the godly.101 Less attention has been given to the devotional works of figures who held Reformed views yet maintained an affinity for the expressions of piety enshrined in the Book of Common Prayer.102 One such neglected work is Featley’s Ancilla Pietatis (1626). Featley’s work was designed to be used privately as a “handmaid” to help readers to pray and understand the Scriptures, in the same way that a “bladder” aids people in swimming until they become “expert swimmers.”103 The work was also written to be used as a family devotional.104 Ancilla Pietatis was Featley’s most popular work and one of the best-​selling devotional works of its day, reaching nine editions by 1675. It was respected by conformist and nonconformist Protestants—​both John Owen and Charles I esteemed the work, and it may have been consulted in the creation of Charles’s own devotional work, Eikon Basilike (1649). This assertion is based on John Milton’s claim that Eikon Basilike was “modl’d” after “many other good Manuals, and Handmaids of Devotions,” which Erika Longfellow has argued refers to Featley’s work.105 Ancilla Pietatis was 101 Lake, Moderate Puritans, pp.116–​ 68; Webster, Godly Clergy; Andrew Cambers, Godly Reading: Print Manuscript and Puritanism in England, 1580–​1720 (Cambridge, 2011); Kate Narveson, Bible Readers and Lay Writers in Early Modern England (Farnham, 2012); Narveson, “Piety and the Genre of John Donne’s Devotions,” pp.107–​36; Parker and Carlson, eds., “Practical Divinity”; Alec Ryrie and Jessica Martin, eds., Private and Domestic Devotion in Early Modern Britain (Farnham, 20012); Ryrie, Being Protestant in Reformation Britain; Mary Hampton Patterson, Domesticating the Reformation: Protestant Bestsellers, Private Devotion, and the Revolution of English Piety (Madison, WI, 2007); Ian Green, Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England (Oxford, 2000); Maltby, Prayer Book and People. 102 Judith Maltby, “‘By This Book’ Parishioners, the Prayer Book and the Established Church,” in Kenneth Fincham, ed., Early Stuart Church (London, 1993), pp.115–​37; Maltby, Prayer Book and People; Christopher Haigh, Reformation and Resistance in Tudor Lancastershire (London, 1975), pp.306–​7; Christopher Haigh, “The Church of England, the Catholics, and the People,” in Christopher Haigh, ed., The Reign of Elizabeth I (Basingstoke, 1984), pp.206–​9. 103 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.a1r. On this theme, see Ian Green, “New for Old? Clerical and Lay Attitudes to Domestic Prayer in Early Modern England,” Reformation and Renaissance Review 10 (2008), pp.195–​222. 104 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.a2r; Featley, Saving Knowledge, sig.A2r–​v. 105 John Milton, Eikonoklastes in Answer to . . . Eikon Basilike (London, 1649), sig.D2v; Erica Longfellow, “‘My Now Solitary Prayers’: Eikon Basilike and Changing Attitudes toward Religious Solitude,” in Alec Ryrie and Jessica Martin, eds., Private and Domestic Devotion in Early Modern Britain (Farnham, 2012), p.55. Milton endeavored to prove that Eikon Basilike was not written by Charles, but by “the Doctor [who] was one of his chaplaines.” John Milton, Eikon Alethine (London, 1649), sig.N3v. From this and other evidence, many scholars have accepted the tradition that John Gauden probably wrote Eikon Basilike. John Spurr, The Restoration Church of England, 1646–​1689

Pastoral and Practical Theology  145 translated into French and Dutch and earned Featley international acclaim.106 Featley’s Sacra Nemesis contains a number of letters from various foreign divines testifying to the influence of his wider ministry in Europe through his devotional work.107 In addition to a letter by William Herbert, the French translator of Featley’s work, there is a letter written by Featley’s friend Wolfgang Mayer (1577–​1653), a professor of theology at Basel, member of the Swiss delegation at Dort, and self-​proclaimed grandson of Martin Bucer.108 In this letter Mayer explained that the diplomat Sir Oliver Flemming had requested that he compose a Dutch translation of the work. He also said that his Dutch “countreymen very much wonder at the sparkles of devotion that [Featley’s] prayers kindle[d]‌ in the hearts of the faithfull” and have “confesse[d] they are much indebted to [Mayer] for translating the works of [William] Perkins, [Andrew] Willet, [John] Downham, [John] Squire and other English writers, but far more for the translation of [Featley’s] Devotions.”109 Not everyone on the Continent appears to have valued Featley’s devotional work. There is a reference in late 1634 in Samuel Hartlib’s Ephemerides to a “Dr Stoughton” who “spoke in mislike of Dr Featly Book of Prayer.”110 Even though Featley’s work was esteemed with these better-​ known Reformation luminaries and was influential within Continental Reformed circles, it has received relatively little scholarly attention.111 This section will explore how Featley’s polemical and pastoral sensibilities were linked throughout his devotional work. On the one hand, Featley’s work was designed to meet perceived devotional and pastoral needs at a time when many readers were

(New Haven, 1991), p.12; Longfellow, “Eikon Basilike and Religious Solitude,” p.55 and 65; Bryan Spinks, “John Gauden (1599/​1600?–​1662),” ODNB. 106 The French edition, translated by William Herbert (fl. c.1606–​1660), is entitled La Malette De David (Genève, 1650). Also see Pauline Duley-​Haour, “La circulation d’écrits clandestine au Désert,” in Laurent Jaffro and Antony McKenna, eds., Protestants, Protestantisme et pensée clandestine (Paris, 2005), p.109. The Dutch edition is Davids herders-​tassche gevult met werp-​steenen van stichtelijcke gebeden, gepast op alle de dagen der weke, en op de gewoonlicke feesten des jaers; mitsgaders andere meer, dienstigh voor een yeder christen (Enchuysen, 1680). 107 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sigs.L4v–​M4r. 108 On Wolfgang Mayer, see Matthias Graf, ed., Beyträge zur Kenntniß der Geschichte der Synode von Dordrecht. Aus Doktor Wolfgang Meyer’s und Antistes Johann Jakob Breitinger’s Papieren gezogen (Basel, 1825), pp.193–​96; Heinrich Türler et al., eds., Historisch-​biographisches Lexikon der Schweiz (7 vols., Neuchatel, 1929), V:98; Hans Georg Wackernagel, Die Matrikel der Universität Basel herausgegeben von Hans Georg Wackernagel (5 vols. Basle, 1956), II:413; also see Jergen Beyer and Leigh Penman, “The Petitions of ‘a Supposed Prophetesse’: The Lubeck Letters of Anna Walker and Their Significance for the Synod of Dort. A Linguishic and Contextual Analysis,” in Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg, eds., Revisiting the Synod of Dort (Leiden, 2011), pp.107–​10, 112, 120, 129, 130; British Delegation at the Synod of Dort, p.337. 109 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.M3r. For a similar flattering letter from Mayer to James Ussher regarding translating Ussher’s catechism, see The Correspondence of James Ussher, III:1056–​58. 110 SUL, Hartlib MS 29/​2, fol.48r. 111 An exception to this is Ryrie, Being Protestant in Reformation Britain.

146  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England experiencing a season of great suffering. On the other hand, Featley subtly attacked those who ascribed either too little or too much importance to liturgical forms of private worship because he believed that these positions were spiritually unhelpful and inconsistent with Scripture and historic church practices. The most obvious quality of Featley’s work is that it is structured like a medieval primer. Primers were a popular “staple of late medieval devotion.”112 They bridged the gap between private and public devotion by assisting the laity in aligning their prayers to the pattern of public worship. They consisted of psalms and official prayers and were sometimes combined with catechisms that expounded basic Catholic truths.113 Featley pointed readers to their medieval roots by adopting the primer as his basic structure for Ancilla Pietatis but modified it by removing what he regarded as “superstitious,” popish devotional practices. The work is divided into two parts—​devotions for ordinary daily use and devotions for “extraordinary” occasions (feast and fast days). Each of these devotions contains a devotional excerpt, a hymn (drawn principally from the psalms), and a prayer. Each day of the week has an ordinary devotion for both the morning and evening. The morning prayers are patterned after the six days of creation, and the evening prayers after events from Jesus’s life in the six days before the resurrection.114 For example, Saturday’s Sabbath devotions are God’s resting after his work in the six days of creation (morning), and Jesus resting in the tomb following his death (evening).115 Each devotion contains an admonition taken from the Beatitudes.116 Featley used the Beatitudes to encourage his readers to develop their own spiritual character and provided Scripture to help readers meditate on each trait. For instance, Monday morning’s beatitude is “an Exhortation to humility, or poverty of spirit,” which Featley supplemented with an analysis of “the special motives to humility set down in the Scriptures,” the “gracious promises made to the humble,” and biblical examples of humility, including Abraham, Gideon, David, John the Baptist, and the apostle Peter.117 Featley’s work was bound with a catechism, The Summe of Saving Knowledge, which was meant to be “a Modell of all practick[al] Theology,” expounding the

112 Green, Print and Protestantism, p.244. 113 Eamon Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, c.1400–​c.1580 (New Haven, 1992), p.231. On primers see Green, Print and Protestantism, pp.244–​46; E. Bishop and H. Littlehales, “Temporary Introduction,” in The Prymer or Prayerbook of the Lay People I the Middle Ages, ed. E. Bishop and H. Littlehales (London, 1892), pp.vii–​xx; H. C. White, The Tudor Books of Private Devotion (Madison, WI, 1951), pp.53–​133; Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, pp.209–​56; F. A. Gasquet, “The Bibliography of Some Devotional Books Printed by the Earliest English Printers,” Transactions of the Bibliographical Society 7 (1902), pp.163–​89. 114 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.G4r–​v. 115 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.Q2v. 116 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.G4v. 117 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sigs.I5v–​I6r.

Pastoral and Practical Theology  147 doctrine laced throughout the work.118 The catechism is divided into fifty-​two sections (one for every week in a year) and is designed to be consulted by families on the Sabbath. Ideally, the head of the house would lead the family in giving “an account” of how they have progressed in “the knowledge of the Lord” and “to instruct those . . . that are ignorant, in the grounds of true Religion.”119 Featley believed that the Sabbath is “the chief and Soveraign Day,” even arguing that it “challenge[d]‌the precedency of all Festivals, both in regard of Gods strict command for the religious observing it.”120 He even posited that it is “absolutely unlawful and by the Apostle prohibited, to celebrate any festivity, either after the manner of the Gentiles, by profane spirits and playes.”121 Featley urged other ministers to adopt this model. For example, after looking over a prepublication version of his friend Thomas Vicars’s catechism, The Grounds of that Doctrine which is according to Godliness (1630), Featley told him in a letter that although it was “the best I have seene,” it could be improved by “dividing” it “into 52 sections,” one for each Sabbath in the year.122 Featley continued serving as a kind of literary agent, as he had done during his licensing career. Given that Featley was shepherding his own church, St. Mary’s Lambeth, when he composed this catechism, it may be that he was motivated by a mixture of pastoral and practical reasons.123 As Ian Green has argued, ministers often published their catechisms out of “a sense of pressing pastoral need” and to avoid “the drudgery of making enough hand-​written copies for all those who wanted or needed them.”124 Featley’s motivation for structuring the work in this way was pastoral. He wanted readers to have the spiritual means they needed for every occasion. These elements were to foster a continual, regimented, and vibrant private devotional life, especially during times of suffering when they were unsure what to pray or what Scriptures to read. Indeed, the work was written during the 1625–​26 plague outbreak. According to John Featley, Daniel was so sensible of the general calamity that he wrote a work to assist those who could not attend public worship, that they might be able to pursue the “practice of piety.”125 Because of the widespread epidemic, many parishioners were confined to their homes and cut

118 Featley, Saving Knowledge, sig.A3r. On the relationships between the prayers of primers and catechisms, see Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, p.265, Green, Print and Protestantism, p.184. 119 Featley, Saving Knowledge, sig.A2r–​v. 120 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.G3v. 121 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.S3v. 122 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.22r. Vicars’s catechism went into three editions. Thomas Vicars, The Grounds of that Doctrine which is according to Godlinesse (2nd edn., London, 1630; 3rd edn., London, 1631). On Thomas Vicars, see J. H. Cooper, “The Vicars and Parish of Cuckfield in the Seventeenth Century, Sussex Archaeological Collections 45 (1902), pp.12–​30; Fincham, Prelate as Pastor, pp.196, 290–​91; Dent, Protestant Reformers, pp.171–​77. 123 For details of Featley’s parishes at Lambeth and Acton, see Smith, Featley. 124 Green, Christian’s ABC, pp.5–​6. 125 Featley, Succinct History, sig.H8r.

148  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England off from the means of grace facilitated through public worship.126 Since public worship was difficult, the emergency of the plague necessitated a domestic handbook and was an opportunity for people to deepen their private devotional lives. Featley or his publisher printed the lengthy work on small (duodecimo) paper, presumably so that readers could carry it with them and consult the Scriptures and prayers for pastoral guidance and comfort. Featley had lost friends to the horrible disease and reflected that this was “such a plague as our Ancients never heard of and our posterity will scarce believe.”127 William Crashaw, who also composed his short work Londons Lamentation (1626) for those who could not attend public worship, claimed that he buried “forty, fifty, sometimes sixty [people] a day,” totaling “more then two thousand” victims.128 According to one study, the annual plague deaths in London had gone from around ten per year in 1624 to an astonishing 41,300 deaths in 1625.129 On 3 July 1625, Charles I issued a “Proclamation for a General, Publike and Solemne Fast” and produced A Forme of Common Prayer to be used by all faithful subjects.130 Charles’s proclamation was supported by the moderate nonconformist minister, Arthur Hildersham, whose The Doctrine of Fasting and Praier contains the eight sermons he delivered in 1625 in favor of Charles’s fast proclamation.131 Crawshaw’s and Charles’s works were also created to respond to the plague’s hindering of public worship. Featley reflected on the implications of these horrendous events for personal piety, saying, “If ever Private Devotions, powering themselves further in brinish tears, were in season, now they are. Never losses so great to bewailed; never judgments so fearful to be averted; never hearts so hard to be mollified; never consciences so foul, to be rinsed by tears.”132 Featley originally wrote Ancilla Pietatis for his personal benefit when he thought he had contracted the plague, later realizing that he had only been “smitten” “with a dangerous (though not infectious) disease.”133 This was not the first time Featley had anticipated his own death from the plague and circulated his own devotional work to others who were suffering. In 1609, after preaching 126 Longfellow, “Eikon Basilike and Religious Solitude,” pp.63–​ 64; Kevin Sharpe, “Private Conscience and Public Duty in the Writings of Charles I,” HJ 40 (1997), p.655. 127 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sigs.A3v, Ll4r. 128 William Crashaw, Londons lamentation for her sinnes: and complaint to the Lord her God (London, 1626), sig.A3v. Crashaw likewise died from the plague. W. H. Kelliher, “William Crashawe [Crashaw] (bap.1572, d.1625/​6)” ODNB. 129 J. F. D. Shrewsbury, A History of Bubonic Plague in the British Iles (Cambridge, 1970), pp.305, 320. Also see The Court and Times of Charles I, ed. Thomas Birch (2 vols., London, 1848), I:17–​45. 130 Stuart Royal Proclamations, vol. 2, pp.46–​48; Charles I, A Forme of Common Prayer, Together with An Order of Fasting (London, 1625). 131 Arthur Hildersham, The Doctrine of Fasting and Praier, and Humiliation for Sinne. Delivered In Sundry Sermons at the Fast appointed by publique authority, in the yeere 1625 (London, 1633). Also see Lesley Rowe, “The Worlds of Arthur Hildersham” (Warwick University PhD), pp.101–​41. 132 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sigs.A2v–​A3r. 133 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.A1r.

Pastoral and Practical Theology  149 at Bayworth, where recently “the plague hath brak forth,” he “received a book” from his uncle that “touched” “the boyle of T Wentworth which proved a plague sore and one since dyed.”134 Following this contact Featley told a Mr. Hawthorne that “death is almost within my sight yet affrighteth me not knowing that my redeemer saveth who hath already given death its deaths wound.”135 At the height of the 1609 epidemic, Featley wrote a series of pastoral letters to individuals who were affected by the deadly disease—​two of which were to Wentworth regarding his son’s death136—​and also circulated a “poore treatise” (possibly a prototype of Ancilla Pietatis) that he “use[d]‌[him]self.” This, he said, was a “salve” that was “made of the iuce of the leaves of the tree of life which serve to heale the nations.”137 Featley used the imagery of leaves to draw his readers back to the Scriptures, which were the “wat[e]rs of comfort flowing from Gods promises in Christ and our testimony of a good conscience. This lesson we may reade in every leafe of Scripture.”138 In comparing these earlier reflections with Ancilla Pietatis, a pattern emerges: in both cases Featley originally constructed a devotional work for his own spiritual comfort in suffering and circulated it for others’ spiritual benefit. In short, he mediated spiritual comfort to his readers via the channel of his own personal piety.139 For example, Featley’s devotional written for a “dying man” echoes the personal prayer he made when his “infection began to cease.”140 This pattern was not unusual since other works, including John Brinsley’s True watch (1607) and Lancelot Andrewes’s posthumous work A manual of the private devotions and meditations, were originally composed for the author’s benefit.141 During times of exceptional suffering, pastors shepherded their people by providing resources that fostered a deeper, private devotional life to carry them through the physical and spiritual trials they faced. Since Featley’s work was patterned after a medieval primer, to neglect it was to abandon the church’s rich, historical tradition. It is possible that Featley’s

134 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47. fols.37v, 63v. 135 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.63v. 136 Bodl., Rawl, D.47, fols.38v–​39v, 219v–​224r. Featley wrote a similar pastoral letter to “Ja’ and “Mr. Hawthorne.” See Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols.37r–​v, 63v. For the 1609 plague, see Shrewsbury, A History of Bubonic Plague in the British Iles, p.299. 137 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols.38v, 219v. 138 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.223v. My emphasis. 139 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.G2r. 140 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sigs.Ii5r–​Ll3v, Ll4r–​v. 141 John Brinsley The true watch (London, 1607), sig.A5r; Lancelot Andrewes, A manual of the private devotions and meditations (London, 1648). For the various manuscript copies of Andrewes’s work, see Paul Welsby, Lancelot Andrewes, 1555–​ 1626 (London, 1958), pp.264–​ 67 and F. E. Brightman, “Introduction,” in The Preces Privatae of Lancelot Andrewes Bishop of Winchester, ed. and trans. F. E. Brightman (London, 1903), pp.xiv, lviii. Also see Ian Green, “Varieties of Domestic Devotion in Early Modern English Protestantism,” in Alec Ryrie and Jessica Martin, Private and Domestic Devotion in Early Modern Britain (Farnham, 2012), pp.13–​14.

150  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England adoption of the more traditional structure may have been motivated by his desire to help his readers avoid the dangers of some more “voluntaristic” approaches to private devotion that encouraged them to find assurance of their salvation by identifying internal evidences of grace.142 Leif Dixon has shown that this was not the only pastoral approach adopted by ministers.143 Nevertheless, Featley seemed aware of the pastoral hazards that resulted from excessive self-​examination, and his friend Thomas Gataker testified to this reality when he wrote to a parishioner who was plagued by anxieties about his salvation, which appear to have resulted from extreme introspection. Gataker counseled him to not “doubt” “that God hath begun that good work of his in you” and “condemn . . . in [him] self ” and “strive against” his own “distrust & doubting” and “to live & dy by waiting upon God, in the constant use of all good meanes.”144 While Featley’s work was double predestinarian in doctrine and even recommended a moderate form of self-​examination, it is devoid of either advice on how to make one’s election sure or specific advice for how to advance in the Christian life. In a sermon from Clavis Mystica, Featley contended that “to argue from a strong perswasion of our election, and from thence to inferre immediately assurance of salvation, is, as Tertullian speaketh in another case, aedificare in ruinam (to build on ruines).” Instead, he counseled that “the safe way to build our selves in our most holy faith . . . is to conclude from amendment of life, repentance unto life.” To those who wanted to “know whether he be a true sonne of God, and member of Christ,” he counseled that “he can by no thing so infallibly finde it in himselfe,” but “by the gift of perseverance.”145 Featley posited a pattern of private devotion that mirrored the rhythmic pattern of the liturgical calendar and sought to arrange the days, weeks, months, and years of his readers’ devotional lives according to that pattern. He believed that one’s private devotional life was “enriched . . . by the cycle of public remembrance.”146 Although Featley could have been motivated (at least in part) by the fact that works that contained set prayers were in much higher demand than works of puritan practical divinity, ultimately, he was convinced that this more cyclical pattern of private religious devotion, which recognized the importance of utilizing set prayers and observing the various fast and feast days, was the most

142 Como, Blown by the Spirit, p.117. 143 Dixon, Practical Predestinarians. 144 CUL MS, D iii. 83(19), pp.3, 12. Also see John Stachniewski, The Persecutory Imagination: English Puritanism and the Literature of Religious Despair (Oxford, 1991), pp.17–​84. 145 Featley, Clavis Mystica, sigs.C2v, C4v. 146 Alec Ryrie and Jessica Martin, “Introduction: Private and Domestic Devotion,” in Alec Ryrie and Jessica Martin, Private and Domestic Devotion in Early Modern Britain (Farnham, 2012), p.2.

Pastoral and Practical Theology  151 biblical approach and the most effective and edifying means for fostering a vibrant and deep life of private piety for those living in fear of the plague.147 Private devotion was integral to early modern English life, and established church leaders desired that their members have private devotions that mirrored the public worship of the English Church. Unsurprisingly though, private devotional practices were notoriously more difficult to control than forms of public worship. Since the plague hindered people from attending public services and forced them to obtain spiritual sustenance and guidance within the confines of their homes, handbooks to private devotion could help to regulate heterodox theology in the household.148 The principles that should govern private piety were often the subject of much debate. Some sought to link their private devotional lives with the liturgical calendar and forms of prayer set out in the Book of Common Prayer, while others chose not to adopt a prescribed liturgical outline and instead organized their own prayer lives and Scripture readings.149 Ecclesiastical positioning and polemicism were laced through Featley’s devotional work. John Featley claimed that when Featley wrote Ancilla Pietatis, “he laid aside his Polemick Divinity, and wholly devoted himself to the study and practice of Piety and Charity.”150 A careful reading of the work reveals, however, that Featley had not abandoned his polemical activities. Instead, throughout Ancilla Pietatis, Featley attempted to construct a middle ground between theological perspectives that prioritized prescribed prayers or more voluntary religious expressions by attacking those who ascribed either too little or too much importance to received traditions and liturgical forms of private worship. This middle way was forged with significant ecclesiastical positioning on Featley’s part to avoid being censured by ecclesiastical authorities in the late 1620s and through the 1630s. Featley had reason to be cautious of his anti-​Calvinist opponents since they had only a year earlier, in 1625, coordinated James’s royal reprimand of Featley for licensing two puritan works. Featley was aware of the increased confessional polarization ensuing during these years and was positioning himself to avoid being censured. He maintained his allegiance to the established church by 147 Green, Print and Protestantism, pp.242, 250, 251, 269; Maltby, Prayer Book and People. Also see Ian Green, “ ‘Puritan Prayer Books’ and ‘Geneva Bible’: An Episode in Elizabethan Publishing,” TCBS 11 (1998), p.316. 148 Martin and Ryrie, “Introduction: Private and Domestic Devotion,” p.1; Green, “Varieties of Domestic Devotion in Early Modern English Protestantism,” pp.9–​10; Felicity Heal, Reformation in Britain and Ireland (Oxford, 2003), pp.95–​98. Also see Derek Plumb, “A Gathered Church? Lollards and Their Society,” in Margaret Spufford, ed., The World of Rural Dissenters, 1520–​1725 (Cambridge, 1995), pp.132–​63; Alexandra Walsham, “Holy Families: The Spiritualization of the Early Modern Household Revisited,” in John Doran, Charlotte Methuen and Alexandra Walsham, eds., Religion and the Household (Woodbridge, 2014), pp.222–​60. 149 Martin and Ryrie, “Introduction: Private and Domestic Devotion,” p.1. 150 Featley, Succinct History, sig.H8r.

152  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England attacking those who opposed conformist positions, defending the Christian calendar and set prayers, and submitting to authorities on “things indifferent.” He “marveled” at those who “baulked the Christian Fasts”151 and “struck out of their Kalendar” the feast days as a reaction to “Popish Superstition.”152 Featley’s claim that a magistrate had the right to overrule one’s private conscience on “things indifferent” is a clear indication that although he was willing to accommodate puritan scruples on various matters, he was an unwavering conformist in his commitment to the authorities’ right to settle disputes over liberty of conscience. Featley also provided a number of different devotions for fasts—​not only for particular important days in Lent (Ash Wednesday and Good Friday), but devotionals for “private fasts” “from sin,” “for sin,” and “against sin.” He said that “it seem[ed] strange to [him] that any religiously devoted persons should go about to deface, much more utterly to expunge [feasts] out of all Books of common Prayer and publick Devotion.” He saw “no reason why any should distast Feasts” since “Religion in all ages hath rather been glutted with superfluous Festivals, than famished for want of necessary.”153 And he refuted the argument that the celebration of feasts is the same as the Jewish festivals forbidden by the New Testament.154 To those who argued that celebrating feasts was popish practice, he asserted that it is “an abuse of arguing” to contend that because Catholics observe the feasts, Protestants should “[abolish] the right use.”155 Central to his argument was that the celebration of feast and fast days was consistent with the church’s practice since the days of the early church.156 Ancilla Pietatis is filled with quotations from a number of church fathers, including Augustine, Pliny, Cyprian, Jerome, and Bernard.157 He argued that the apostles kept the feast days and held that the observance of feast days had the consent of other “Reformed Churches” that similarly observed these days. He even claimed that the Augsburg, Bohemian, and Helvetic Confessions “perfectly accord with the Sanctions of our Church.”158 Featley was preoccupied with making sure his prescriptions of piety were consistent with international Reformed Protestantism and the best Reformed churches.

151 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, no signature (p.351). On fasts, see Collinson, Richard Bancroft and Elizabethan Anti-​puritanism, pp.129–​47. 152 On the Protestant Calendar, see David Cressy, Birth, Marriage, and Death: Ritual, Religion and the Life-​Cycle in Tudor and Stuart England (Oxford, 1997); R. Hutton, The Rise and Fall of Merry England: The Ritual Year, 1400–​1700 (Oxford, 1994). 153 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.S1r–​v. 154 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.S3r. 155 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.A5r. Also see Featley, Clavis Mystica, sig.P2r. 156 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.A5v. 157 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sigs.B1v, B2r, D8v. 158 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sigs.S5v–​S6r. Featley’s approach was not unique. See Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.428–​528; Green, Print and Protestantism, pp.242, 251, 252, 253, 256, 263.

Pastoral and Practical Theology  153 He defended the use of set prayers in conjunction with the calendar, arguing that extemporaneous prayers were less beautiful and lacked the “Art[fullness]” of prayer.159 Featley’s defense seems to resonate with language not dissimilar from that of the “beauty of holiness” movement. As Lake has argued, “Laudianism” was “a coherent, distinctive and polemically aggressive vision of the Church, the divine presence in the world and the appropriate ritual response to that presence.” This phenomenon emphasized “the importance of the beauty of holiness, defined in both material and liturgical terms, its concomitant was a similar reevaluation of the role of both prayer and sacraments particularly in their relation to preaching.”160 With other conformists, Featley argued that disputes over adiaphora—​“things indifferent”—​should be subject to the magistrate rather than one’s private conscience. This was John Whitgift’s and other conformists’ position against puritans in the 1590s.161 Though he acknowledged that these customs and days were not “necessary and essential parts of Gods worship, but things indifferent, which without scandal may be omitted,” he believed that the Scriptures “forbiddeth Christians to make scruple of conscience themselves, or uncharitably to censure any other in regard of the keeping or not keeping days.” He refuted those who defended “their Christian liberty” by not obeying the “laudable custom and justifiable constitutions” of the church and believed that it was “will-​worship” to argued that everything performed in “the service of God” needed “precise warrant from the word.”162 For example, in an undated letter to his “very loving Friend Mr Turner,” Featley advised him to stop writing about “enlarging” “christian liberty” since it “open[s]‌a gap to sin” in “weake consciences.” Instead he should “enploy” his “able pen against the sorcerers of Egypt” (i.e., Roman Catholics), who were “taking advantage of the least differences among us who hold the like pretious faith.”163 The message was clear—​it was a more worthy investment of one’s time fighting against their common enemy than squabbling about their various differences. Featley rebuked those who believed that the magistrates should refrain from demanding conformity lest they injure the consciences of those under them. He believed that this was nothing more than an attempt to evade conformity to the established church. Instead, it was the duty of faithful ministers and subjects to 159 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.A6r. Some puritans were also apologists for set prayers. See John Preston, Saints daily exercise (London, 1629), sigs.F8v–​G1v; Richard Baxter, A Christian directory (London, 1672), sig.Gggg1r–​v ; Brinsley, The true watch; Parker and Carlson, eds., “Practical Divinity,” p.8. 160 Peter Lake, “The Laudian Style: Order, Uniformity and the Pursuit of the Beauty of Holiness in the 1630s,” in Kenneth Fincham, ed., The Early Stuart Church, 1603–​1642 (Basingstoke, 1993), pp.162, 168. 161 Lake, Moderate Puritans; Shagan, “The Battle for Indifference.” 162 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sigs.S6r–​v, S3v, S1v. 163 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.29v.

154  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England “yeeld” with “reverence” to ecclesiastical authorities and “conforme themselves; to the holy and decent orders of the [established] Church, performing all rites, and ceremonies enioyned by it.”164 For Featley, one’s individual interpretation of Scripture and private conscience on secondary issues could not supersede the judgment of the established church. Featley’s defense of the established church was part of a larger attempt to avoid being reprimanded by the Laudian regime and situate himself in a favorable position if the event that the ecclesiastical tide turned away from Laudianism. Featley dedicated Ancilla Pietatis to his former patron Katherine MacDonnell, the Duchess of Buckingham, who apparently had gravitated toward the anti-​Calvinists’ cause.165 Featley’s most comprehensive defense of the conformist position on the church calendar, set prayers, and obedience to the authorities on “things indifferent” was printed and reprinted five times from 1626 and 1639.166 During these years, Laudians possessed significant ecclesiastical power and censured those who voiced their discontent with the Laudian vision of the ceremonies and the “beauty of holiness” movement. There were similarities between Featley’s devotional and John Cosin’s Collection of Private Devotions or The Hours of prayer (1627), another Protestant “primer” published the year after Ancilla Pietatis was released. Cosin’s work was extremely popular, going through ten editions before 1710. Cosin was an apologist for set prayer, the use of the church calendar, and submitting to authorities on adiaphora.167 He argued that “for the good & welfare of our soules, there is not in Christian Religion anything of like continuall use and force throughout every Houre of our lives, as is ghostly Exercise of Prayer and Devotion.”168 Cosin believed that Christian men and women must obey “the ancient Lawes, and old godly Canons of the Church” by completely “avoid[ing], as neer as might be, all extemporal effusions of irksome & indigested Prayer.”169 Christians should follow Jesus’s instruction in the Lord’s Prayer. For “when Christ had bidden us [to] enter into our chamber & pray privately,” he sets before us a pattern in order “that when we speak to, or call upon the awfull Maiesty of Almighty God, wee might bee sure to speake in the grave & pious la[n]‌guage of Christs Church . . . and not to lose our selves with confusion in any sudden, abrupt, or

164 Featley, Saving Knowledge, sigs.C4r, C5v, C9r. On these themes, see Shagan, “Battle for Indifference,” pp.123, 128; Lake, “The Historiography of Puritanism,” p.355. 165 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.A2v. She was sister-​in-​law to the Countess of Denbigh, to whom Featley dedicated his Practice of Extraordinary Devotion. 166 Featley’s work was reprinted in 1626, 1628, 1630, 1633, and 1639. 167 Featley and Cosin similarly provided sections ministering to women in childbirth. Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, Ff7v–​Gg7v; John Cosin, A Collection of Private Devotions, ed. P. G. Stanwood and Daniel O’Connor (Oxford, 1967), pp.287–​88. 168 Cosin, Collection of Private Devotions, sig.A2r–​v. 169 Cosin, Collection of Private Devotions, sig.A5r–​v.

Pastoral and Practical Theology  155 rude dictates, which are framed by Private Spirits, and Ghosts of our owne.”170 Cosin’s message was clear—​the biblical pattern was for prayers to be set rather than extemporaneous. Featley’s and Cosin’s works were printed and reprinted almost during the same years and appear to have been in direct competition with each other. Given this, it is noteworthy that Featley does not appear to have directly responded to Cosin’s work, especially since there is evidence that Richard Montague assisted with the production of Cosin’s Collection. In a letter of 21 December 1626 from Montague to Cosin he wrote, “I have sent you halfe of the Calendar and all the saints whose dayes I found there briefly related.”171 Then, on 12 January 1627, Montague told Cosin he would “dispatch” Cosin’s “calendar sheets” to him.172 Featley’s silence could also be attributed to the fact that on 14 June 1626 Charles I issued a proclamation for the “Establishing of the Peace and Quiet of the Church of England” in order to quell the quarrels between Reformed divines and anti-​Calvinists.173 Featley’s other nemesis, Richard Neile, also helped facilitate the publishing of Cosin’s Collection, just as he had done with Montague’s New Gagg and Appello Caesarem.174 Thus, it may be that Featley decided not to attack Cosin in order to avoid another head-​to-​head battle with the same trio—​Cosin, Neile, and Montague—​who had orchestrated his censuring in 1625. Indeed, this was the fate of Featley’s Reformed colleagues Henry Burton and William Prynne, who not only wrote heavily polemical treatises against Montague but also argued that Cosin’s work was crypto-​popery disguised as devotion, intent on seducing his readers toward a reunion with Rome.175 As a result, Burton and Prynne were brought before the high commissioners for their reaction against Cosin.176 In contrast to Burton’s and Prynne’s direct attacks, Featley’s only jibe at Cosin was indirect, by way of Robert Milbourne’s “Printer to the Reader” appended to Featley’s Cygnea Cantio. While it is tempting to accept Prynne and Burton’s assessment that Cosin’s work was crypto-​popery, a more persuasive reading is that Cosin was driven by pastoral considerations not altogether dissimilar from those that motivated Featley’s anti-​Catholic works—​namely, to curb 170 Cosin, Collection of Private Devotions, sigs.A6v–​A7r. 171 BL, Add. MS 4274, fol.101r. 172 Cosin, Correspondence, I:105. Also see The Court and Times of Charles I, I:227; Cosin, Collection, ed. Stanwood, p.323; P. G. Stanwood and A. I. Doyle, “Cosin’s Correspondence,” TCBS 5 (1969), pp.74–​78. 173 Stuart Royal Proclamations, vol. 2, pp.91–​93. 174 Prynne, A Brief Survey and Censure, sig.N2r. For Neile’s facilitating Montague’s publications, see Bodl., Rawl. MS 573, fol.21r; Cosin, Correspondence, I:22, 34–​36, 84. 175 Prynne, A Briefe Survey and Censure, sig.B1r; Henry Burton, A Tryall of Private Devotions (London, 1628), sigs.¶3v–​¶4r. Also see Smart, Vanitie & downe-​fall, sig.*2r; Corbett’s Parliamentary History of England, II:486–​87; SP 16/​65, fols.101r–​106v. 176 For the articles against Burton and his reply see SP 16/​529, fols.49r–​50r, SP16/​119, fol.85r–​v. For Prynne’s censuring, see SP 16/​141, fols.21r–​22v. Also see Smart, Vanitie & downe-​fall, sig.*2r; Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, sig.X2r, Prynne, Canterburies Doome, sigs.Y3r–​Y4r, Bb3r.

156  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England wavering Protestants from converting to Catholicism.177 Cosin’s Collection was crafted to assuage the Countess of Denbigh, Susan Villiers, sister of the Duke of Buckingham, as she pondered converting to Rome. Upon arriving in England, Henrietta Maria and her court ladies jeered that the Church of England “had neither appointed, nor set forth, any Houres of Prayer, or Breviaries” that they could use for devotion. Lady Denbigh, being “scandaliz’d,” brought this to Charles’s attention, who, after consulting with the bishop of Carlisle, Francis White, requested that John Cosin compose the work. George Montaigne licensed the Collection, which Cosin apparently completed in an astonishing three months, using the 1560 Elizabethan Prayer Book as a model and drawing on an array of medieval sources to supplement the Book of Common Prayer.178 All this was done to draw out the commonalities between the Church of England and Roman ceremonies. It is a testimony to Featley’s continued marginalization that Cosin’s devotion was requested in the first place. In the months immediately following the publication of the first edition of Ancilla Pietatis, Featley had added a dedication to the Countess of Denbigh to the second part of his work. There we learn that Featley gave the countess a printed account of his conference “with the Jesuites”; whether this was Fisher Catched (1623) or Romish Fisher (1624) he does not say.179 Featley glossed over the countess’s doubts and spoke of her “constancy in the truth, and love to Sion and her solemn assemblies.”180 Featley’s attempting to win the countess by giving her his anti-​Catholic polemical treatises reveals that he was still relying on his previous pastoral strategies for combating doubts in wavering Protestants. Perhaps this is why Featley’s Ancilla Pietatis contained more overt expressions of anti-​Catholic polemic. For example, included among his feast day devotions is “Great Britain Feast, Upon the Fifth of November. For the happy deliverance of ” the English government “from the most traitorous and blood intended Massacre by Gunpowder in the Year 1605.”181 Like the other feast days, this is paralleled with a biblical narrative—​namely the events from the book of 177 One important caveat is that the first edition of Cosin’s work was amended and reissued because it contained prayers for the dead. SP 16/​78, fol.43r–​v. With regards to pastoral motivations Cosin’s work was similar to Montague’s. Milton and Walsham, eds., “Richard Montague,” p.74; David Hoyle, “A Commons Investigation of Arminianism and Popery in Cambridge on the Eve of the Civil War,” HJ 29 (1986), p.424. 178 John Evelyn, The Diary of John Evelyn, ed. E. S. de Beer (6 vols., Oxford, 1955), III:45–​46; John Holles, Letters of John Holles, 1587–​1637, ed. P. R. Seddon (3 vols., Nottingham, 1975–​83), II:352; Transcript, IV:135. Cf. Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, sig.Z3r–​v. 179 Daniel Featley, Ancilla Pietatis (2nd edn., London, 1626), sig.S3r. In the seventh edition he moved the dedication to the Countess of Denbigh to the front and removed the dedication to the duchess entirely. 180 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis (2nd edn., London, 1626), sig.S4r. 181 HLRO, PU/​1/​1605/​3J1n1. Also see Featley, Clavis Mystica, sig.Zzz5v. On depictions of the Gunpowder Plot in the Book of Common Prayer, see Green, Print and Protestantism, pp.247–​49; Alexandra Walsham, Providence in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1999), p.265.

Pastoral and Practical Theology  157 Esther. In this scenario, the Catholic plotter Guy Fawkes is likened to Haman, who sought to exterminate the Jews. Additionally, the woodcut at the beginning of Ancilla Pietatis contains New Testament depictions from the five major fast days Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost.182 There he replaced Catholic annunciation iconography with personifications of “Devotion” and a “Handmaid.”183 Featley was continuing his long-​standing commitment to anti-​Catholic polemic through the medium of devotion. He still believed the best way to deter doubting Protestants from converting to Catholicism was to demonstrate Protestantism’s superiority by drawing contrasts between Rome and the established church. This is the opposite of Cosin, who sought to discourage the countess’s conversion by underlining the continuities between Roman and English Church ceremonies. Nevertheless, the fact that both Featley and Cosin composed devotional works with the countess in mind underlines a point made in previous chapters, that Reformed and anti-​Calvinist divines were motivated by similar pastoral sensibilities—​ namely, discouraging doubting Protestants from converting to Catholicism. White’s request for Cosin’s Collection after Featley’s work was printed underscores that a less antagonistic assessment of Catholicism’s status as the true church was replacing the more polemical position of ministers like Featley. Though Featley was trying to avoid being censured by authorities, his work contained a number of points opposed some ministers’ vision for the established church. This study aims to revise the interpretation that Ancilla Pietatis was a thoroughly conformist work since certain aspects of Featley’s work were designed to counter what he perceived to be an overemphasis on the importance of the liturgical calendar, feast and fast days, medieval tradition, and public worship, at the expense of private piety.184 Featley claimed that although he did not want to “detract any thing from publick Devotion” (but only “to add to private”), he ultimately believed that while “publick makes more noise . . . private (for the most part) hath a deeper channel.”185 In this way, private and public piety complemented one another: “For the sacrament receives strength and vigour from the Word; the Word preached from publick Prayer; publick prayer from private devotion.”186 He highlighted that although Jesus daily preached and prayed in the temple, “yet ye shal find him oftner on the Mount, or in the Garden, or in some private solitary place praying alone, than in the Temple.”187 Lest one conclude he desired that one’s private

182 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis (London, 1626), sigs.A10v–​A11r. 183 184

Longfellow, “Eikon Basilike and Religious Solitude,” p.64. Martin and Ryrie, “Introduction: Private and Domestic Devotion,” p.15.

185 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.B2v. 186 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.B1r.

187 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.B2v.

158  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England devotional life could supersede a regularly steadfast commitment to public worship, he said: The duties of Piety ought not to clash, justle, or any way cross one another. Private reading and publick hearing, must both have their places, seasons, and turns. If thou art so strained in time, or overlaid with business, that thou canst not allow a fit time for both, let the private, voluntary, alwayes give place to the publick necessary duty. The Commandments of God, and the Church wherein thou livest, ought to over-​sway thy private opinion, fancy, or inclination, or perhaps diabolical temptation. If thy Pastour be so strictly charged to preach unto thee, certainly thou art necessarily bound to hear him.188

The tension in his approach becomes most clear: a life of steadfast devotion to God experientially begins with a vibrant private devotional life. This private worship would produce a commitment to attend public worship and, if one was pressed for time and must choose between the two, a commitment to public worship should supersede one’s private devotional life. Regarding the liturgical calendar, he argued that “times and seasons have no inherent holiness in them no more than places” and “certain time and places are [only] denominated holy, by reason of holy actions done in or upon them by God or man.”189 He also contended that no day should be esteemed more important than another: “Munday’s Prayer as well fits Tuesday, and Tuesday’s Wednesday . . . no day hath an interest in the Devotion for it, then another.”190 Furthermore, he believed that some people placed too much emphasis on feast and fast days—​“placing the immediate and principal worship of God in it” and “[ascribing] unto them inward or inherent holiness” that gives way to “superstition.”191 In short, he argued that “if devoutly to keep Church Fasts without superstition, be Popery, I would all were such Papists, and if to observe most strictly private Fasts without Hypocrisie, be Puritanism, I would all were such Puritans.”192 Taken together, these statements constituted Featley’s subtle attempt to correct those who overemphasized the importance of the liturgical calendar, feast and fast days, and public worship at the expense of private piety. Featley’s indirect polemics eventually caught up with him. In his second edition, Featley added a reference to “George the Arian,” saying he should not “have a day in the Kalender” since he “never saw day in this world.”193 According to 188 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.D3v. 189 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.S1v. 190 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.A6v–​A7r; Martin and Ryrie, “Introduction: Private and Domestic Devotion,” p.2. 191 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, no signature (pp.351–​52); Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.S2r. 192 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.Dd2r. 193 Daniel Featley, Ancilla Pietatis (4th edn., London, 1630), sig.V8r.

Pastoral and Practical Theology  159 Anthony Wood, Featley’s allusion to Saint George as “a mere figment” resulted in his being “forced to cry peccavi, and fall upon his knees before Dr. Will Laud.”194 In an effort to backpedal, Featley added a marginal note to the fifth edition in 1633 wherein he claimed to “speake of George of Alexandria, the great opposition of S. Athanasius and intruder into his seat” rather than “any George that either was, or is supposed to have bin a Martyr in Diocleasians daies.” Moreover, he “marvale[d]‌why Mr. P. H. in the last Edition of his defense of S. George, traduceth this passage” since he “impugne[d] not his Martyr, nor hath he reason to defend this confessed Arian.”195 This cryptic reference is to Peter Heylyn, who flagged Featley’s statement in the second edition of his Historie of Saint George (1633) and orchestrated this censure between 1631 and 1633.196 Heylyn’s work sought to prove that Saint George was a historical rather than a fictional figure. Throughout the 1630s, Heylyn targeted the Laudian regime’s perceived opponents, including John Rainolds, Pierre du Moulin, and Richard Crakanthorpe, by lifting passages from Reformed ministers’ works in an effort to demonstrate their opposition to the king and established church.197 For example, in 1634 Heylyn claimed to have “found high treason in” William Prynne’s Histrio-​mastix in the section “against . . . S. George” and brought Prynne before the Court of High Commission.198 These disputes were greater than the historical account of a single figure. Since Heylyn’s account drew heavily on those church traditions venerated in the medieval period, Featley’s and others’ attack on Saint George’s historicity was interpreted as an assault on the Laudian view of the importance of medieval church history and an attempt to equate this view with popish innovation.199 Featley’s reprimandation is a testimony to Heylyn’s zealous hatred of Reformed ministers and supports Anthony Milton’s argument that Laudians specifically 194 Wood’s source for this account is “Will. Cartwright of Ch[rist] Ch[urch] [who] hath noted it in the margin of a copy of [Ancilla Pietatis], which did belong to him.” Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, II:38–​39. Also see John Aubrey, Remaines of Gentilisme and Judaisme, ed. James Britten (London, 1881), p.69. 195 Daniel Featley, Ancilla Pietatis (5th edn., London, 1633), sig.V8r. Also see Daniel Featley, Ancilla Pietatis (6th edn., London, 1639), Daniel Featley, Ancilla Pietatis (7th edn., London, 1647), Daniel Featley, Ancilla Pietatis (8th edn., London, 1656), sig.T5v, and Daniel Featley, Ancilla Pietatis (9th edn., London, 1675), sig.S5r. 196 Peter Heylyn, The Historie of . . . St. George of Cappadocia (London, 1633), sig.E4r. This section is absent in the first edition (Cf. Peter Heylyn, The Historie of That most famous Saint and Souldier of Christ Iesus (1st edn., London, 1631), sig.E8r). Also see Milton, Heylyn, p.30. 197 Heylyn, Historie of Saint George (2nd edn.), sig.E1r–​E4v. For Rainolds’s polemic against George, see John Rainolds, De Romanae Ecclesiae idololatria [sic] (Oxford, 1596). For George Hakewill’s response that was hindered in its publication, see George Hakewill, Apologie of the Power and Providence of God (3rd edn., Oxford, 1635); Heylyn, Historie of Saint George (2nd edn.), sigs. E6v–​E7r. Also see Milton, Heylyn, pp.30–​31, 40, 44; Milton, “The Creation of Laudianism,” p.170. 198 Documents relating to Proceedings against William Prynne in 1634 and 1637, ed. S. R. Gardiner (London, 1877), p.32. The original letter is BL, Add. MS 5994, fol.187r. Also see SP 16/​534, fols.122v–​ 134r; William Prynne, Histrio-​mastix (London, 1633), sigs.Qqqq4r–​Rrrr4r. 199 Milton, Heylyn, p.30.

160  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England targeted conforming Reformed divines like Featley because they believed their “brand of moderate Calvinism was” more dangerous than Reformed divines on the verge of separation. This was because “much of the rationale of Laudianism relied upon seeing certain more radically Protestant doctrines . . . as inherently subversive and the preserve of an oppositionist radical puritan fringe.” Featley and others were seeking “to keep within the orbit of the established orthodox Church of England the very same puritans whom the Laudians were trying to eject from it.”200 Further, Featley’s attack on George was subtle and very easy to miss. It is also significant that these assaults occur in a devotional work rather than in a printed collection of sermons, where they might be more easily detected and censured. This substantiates Milton’s suspicion that devotional works could contain “hidden attacks on Laudian practices” since they were less targeted by “the keen eye of Laudian licensers.”201 Finally, Featley expended energy to avoid being censured—​carefully positioning himself in his exchanges with anti-​Calvinists and in his published accounts. As mentioned in a previous chapter, Milton argued that in the 1630s licensers “massaged [works] to enable them to speak with a Laudian accent.”202 Yet Featley massaged his own works so that they would seem less threatening to those operating in the realms of ecclesiastical power.

The Court of High Commission and the Committee of Plundered Ministers Notwithstanding his opposition to Laudianism, he continued to cooperate with the regime, acting as a mediator for the Court of High Commission. In this role, Featley was a mediator between troublesome puritans and Laudian prosecutors, encouraging puritans to submit to Laudian regulations. Although it is unclear how long Featley acted in this capacity, it was at least since 12 June 1634, when the Court of High Commission stipulated that one Thomas Prigger was “enjoined to repair to Featley.”203 The Court of High Commission was stringent and “most odious in the eyes of the godly ministry,” issuing the most severe sentences to defendants.204 The puritan lawyer Roger Quatermayne and his published conference with Featley, which took place in 1640, reveals the mediating role Featley played. Quatermayne had been summoned to the Court of High Commission to be

200

Milton, “Licensing,” p.646. Milton, “Licensing,” p.649. See p.100; Milton, “Licensing,” p.645. 203 SP 16/​261, fol.39r. 204 Webster, Godly Clergy, p.183. 201 202

Pastoral and Practical Theology  161 questioned about holding a conventicle, which, according to Laud, was a religious gathering wherein “ten or twelve or more or less, meet together, to pray, reade, preach, expound.”205 Though Quatermayne claimed there was nothing schismatic about this meeting, Laud styled Quatermayne “the Ring-​leader of all the Separatists.”206 In an essay on this episode, Patrick Collinson followed Quatermayne in arguing that conventicles were not intended to be either subversive or schismatic but were voluntary religious gatherings organized by puritans to complement their devotional lives.207 As Quatermayne said, “I did always thinke that publicke duties did not make voyd private, but that both might stand with a Christian.”208 It is beyond the scope of this chapter to determine definitively whether Quatermayne was guilty of schismatic activities. Quatermayne may have been innocent: despite meeting with the court six times, he was set free.209 In Quatermayne’s first encounter with the Court of High Commission on 23 April 1640, authorities asked him to take the oath ex officio, “to answer to such Articles, as were in the Court against.”210 The oath ex officio had a long history and was used in the Elizabethan period as a tool for probing suspicious persons, wherein it bound the defendant to provide truthful answers to questions posed. As Jonathan Michael Gray has noted, by calling upon “God as witness to the truth of his statement or promise,” the oath effectively imposed divine judgment on those who either lied or refused to answer the question.211 Quatermayne, aware of these dangers, was one of many puritans who refused to take the oath in the 1630s, arguing that taking it was contrary to Scripture.212 At this point, authorities sent him to Featley “to resolve” him.213 During their conference Featley “tooke much paines to perswade [Quatermayne that] the Oath was lawfull,” even citing a time when Featley himself “had taken the Oath”—​saying by “warily, and wisely subscribed thereunto; did [he] avoyd much danger, which other wise had fallen upon him.”214 This detail is potentially a reference to Featley’s being forced to grovel before Laud for his attack on Saint

205 Roger Quatermayne, Quatermayns conquest over Canterburies court (London, 1642), sig.E3r. 206 Quatermayne, Quatermayns conquest, sigs.D3v, D2r. 207 This section is indebted to Patrick Collinson, “The English Conventicle,” in Patrick Collinson, From Cranmer to Sancroft (London, 2006), pp.145–​72. 208 Quatermayne, Quatermayns conquest, sig.E2v. 209 Quatermayne, Quatermayns conquest, sigs.D2v, F3v. 210 Quatermayne, Quatermayns conquest, sigs.B1r–​B2r. 211 Jonathan Michael Gray, “Conscience and the Word of God: Religious Arguments against the Ex Officio Oath,” JEH 64 (2013), p.495. 212 Quatermayne, Quatermayns conquest, sigs.B1r–​B2r. 213 Quatermayne, Quatermayns conquest, sig.B2r. 214 Quatermayne, Quatermayns conquest, sig.B4r–​v. For Featley’s fuller explanation for reasons justifying the taking of the oath ex officio, see Featley, Dippers Dipt, sigs.X1r–​Z3r.

162  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England George. Given that this event occurred between 1631 and 1633, it is possible that Featley’s current mediatory role was part of his reparation for his past actions. Featley also provided scriptural support for the oath, citing four passages—​including Jeremiah 4:2, the “one” verse “that [Quatermayne believed] is purtenant to the purpose”—​ none of which resolved Quatermayne’s “Conscience.”215 Resolving matters of conscience, particularly on matters “indifferent,” was a significant issue for puritans in both the 1580s and 1590s.216 In the 1630s, puritans utilized similar strategies to alleviate their consciences—​including resorting to mental reservation when taking oaths to evade authorities, who sought to uncover and punish nonconforming clergy.217 Quatermayne also explained that Henry IV and Mary I used the oath “to punish and put to death” the Lollards and “to suppresse the people & truth of God.”218 The mention of the Marian persecutions may have been Quatermayne’s attempt to align the Laudians with those zealous Catholics who persecuted God’s people. Though Featley was unable to convince Quatermayne to take the oath, he promised to relay to the court “nothing that shall do you any hurt.” Featley’s report (as described by Quatermayne) relayed that Quatermayne was “conformable to the Doctrine, Discipline, and all holy Orders and Constitutions of our Church,” save his scruple in taking the oath ex officio. Given more time to “resolve his Conscience,” Featley expected he would “conforme himselfe to the publike Justice of this Kingdome, and submit” to authorities.219 According to Quatermayne, Featley’s report following their second meeting actually protected him and “preserved [him] out of prison.”220 In this second meeting, Featley also met with “Jo Garbraim, and divers others” “at [Featley’s] house.” Featley continued his mediating role, finding “them all willing to be informed, as they professe to me, and some of them conformable in all things to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, save onely they make scruple of the Oath Ex Officio.”221 That Featley met with several others indicates that this may have been a regular occurrence.222 Featley’s assessment, however, is completely contrary to the 215 Quatermayne, Quatermayns conquest, sig.B4r–​C1v. The other passages were Exodus 22:11, 1 Kings 8:31, Ezra 10:7, Romans 13:1. 216 Walsham, “Ordeals of Conscience,” pp.32–​48; Johann Sommerville, “Conscience, Law, and Things Indifferent: Arguments on Toleration from the Vestiarian Controversy to Hobbes and Locke,” in Harold Braun and Edward Vallance, eds., Contexts of Conscience in Early Modern Europe, 1500–​ 1700 (New York, 2004), pp.166–​79, p.168; Lake, Moderate Puritans, pp.196–​97; Lake, “Dilemma of the Establishment Puritan,” p.27; Shagan, “Battle for Indifference,” p.128; Sullivan, The Rhetoric of Conscience, p.21. 217 Webster, Godly Clergy, pp.202–​3, 246–​47. 218 Quatermayne, Quatermayns conquest, sig.C2r. 219 Quatermayne, Quatermayns conquest, sigs.C2v–​C3r. 220 Quatermayne, Quatermayns conquest, sig.D1v. 221 Quatermayne, Quatermayns conquest, sigs.D1v–​D2r. 222 Also see Loe, Sermon, sigs.E4v–​F1r; Stephen Wright, The Early English Baptists, 1603–​1649 (Woodbridge, 2006), p.97.

Pastoral and Practical Theology  163 court’s claim that these figures were suspicious and nonconforming persons. This is remarkably similar to when Featley licensed two “conforming” puritans’ works, which James believed posited views contrary to the church’s doctrine and discipline. As in the 1620s, Featley was using his consulting role to keep puritans in the English Church in the 1630s and 1640s, encouraging them to shift their theological positions slightly and urging the authorities to show restraint and accommodate marginal figures. Featley accepted Quatermayne’s and others’ own milder portrayal of their actions. Featley was a consistent puritan ally, siding with them against the opponents of Reformed theology. This episode contributes to our understanding of Laudian-​puritan relations in the 1640s. Several scholars have shown that at the end of the 1630s and early 1640s Laudians were beginning to soften their stance against puritans and to promote Calvinist conformist figures in an effort to prop up the Laudian regime and demonstrate their willingness to collaborate with their previous opponents. Here Laudians appeared reluctant to pursue heavy-​handed stringent oppression of godly divines and were willing to entertain the secondhand appraisal of Reformed ministers. Featley was one of a number of Reformed ministers—​including Joseph Hall, John Williams, and John Hacket—​invited to preach at court. The Lord Chamberlain’s records reveal that Featley preached before the king on 29 March 1639 and 14 April 1641.223 Milton notes that “of the list of Lenten preachers at court in 1642, more than one-​third had been either unenthusiastic or positively hostile toward the Laudian reforms of the 1630s.”224 This pattern was apparent in episcopal promotions. In the late 1630s, Featley was selected to be a royal chaplain in ordinary, and Prideaux was appointed vice chancellor at Oxford and, eventually, bishop of Worcester.225 Since being the king’s chaplain was the chief training ground for future bishops, Featley may have hoped to be promoted.226 Taken collectively, Featley’s actions reveal that he was strategically poised to move in the event that the political winds changed in the early 1640s. In 1643, however, Featley’s political maneuvering caught up with him when a group of his parishioners presented him to the Committee of Plundered Ministers for introducing Laudian innovations to his church at Lambeth.227 When Featley left Cornwall in 1617 to serve as Archbishop Abbot’s chaplain, he was appointed as the rector of St. Mary’s Church in Lambeth. He moved out of 223 TNA, LC 5/​135 vii, pp.4, 10; TNA, LC 5/​134, fol.456r; Nicholas Cranfield, “Chaplains in Ordinary at the Early Stuart Court: The Purple Road,” in Claire Cross, Patronage and Recruitment in Tudor and Early Stuart Church (York, 1996), pp.137–​47. 224 Milton, Heylyn, p.115. 225 Peter Heylyn, Aerius redivivus (Oxford, 1670), sig.Cccc2r; Tyacke, “Religious Controversy during the Seventeenth Century,” p.282; Milton, Heylyn, p.115. 226 Cranfield, “Chaplains in Ordinary at the Early Stuart Court,” p.121. 227 Similarly John Prideaux was arrested by Parliament on 12 July 1642. Hegarty, “John Prideaux,” ODNB.

164  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England the church’s rectory (and into his wife’s house) when his service to Abbot was terminated in the mid-​1620s, but he continued as the church’s minister.228 In his own account of the trial, Featley sought to vindicate himself from these charges and portrayed himself as a conformist defender of the English ceremonies, who nevertheless opposed Laudian policy.229 Although we have few sources on Featley’s pastoral role in the 1630s, this episode gives us a window into Featley’s parish activities during this period.230 On 16 March 1643 Featley appeared before the Committee of Plundered Ministers, chaired by Mr. White—​whom John Featley styled the “stoutest Champions” of the “Sectaries”—​to give an account of the seven articles presented against him.231 Featley denied all seven articles and testified that they primarily “were patched together by a Tailor of two names,” Ambrose Glover (Andrewes), John Featley recording that they were crafted by “three mechanick Brownists.”232 Responding to the first article—​ which charged him with defending “new Ceremonies, [such] as standing up at the Gloria patri” and preaching in favor of and practicing “bowing at the Name of Iesus”—​Featley argued that none of these practices were new innovations.233 The former was long practiced “in Colledges, Cathedrall Churches, and Chappells of Noble men, and some Parish Churches” and was “a commendable custome to expresse some outward reverence in that Doxologie.”234 Since these practices were adiaphora, it made no difference whether he performed them or not, and he argued that the Presbyterian position (if “a thing is not commanded [in Scripture], Ergo it is forbidden by Law”) was “no good inference.”235 He also argued that bowing at the name of Jesus was practiced during James’s and Elizabeth’s reigns, was part of Bancroft’s Canons, was taught by Girolamo Zanchi, and was affirmed by Scripture in Philippians 2:10.236 Featley’s reply is significant. Since his account of the trial was published in 1644—​the year after he had been ejected from the Westminster Assembly, 228 Featley, Succinct History, sigs.H3v–​H4r, H7r. 229 Drawing on Featley’s work, John Featley also details these events. Featley, Succinct History, sigs. I6v–​I9r; for John Walker’s summary of Featley’s Gentle Lash, see J. Walker, Attempt towards recovering an account of the numbers and sufferings of the clergy (London, 1714), Part I, pp.75–​77. 230 For one other interesting window into the events at Lambeth church, see a letter to Thomas Ridley and George Hakewill from Featley and other parishioners petitioning about “some houses in the parish suspected” of housing “leud women and their disorders very offensive and scandalous.” Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fol.46r. 231 Featley, Succinct History, sig.I8r–​v. Featley claimed there had been threats on his life from Alexander Bagwell and soldiers under Captain Andrews’s direction. Featley, Gentle Lash, sig. B1v; Featley, Succinct History, sig.I7r–​v. For the separatist tendencies of Featley’s accusers, see LJ, V:622; 651–​52, 656; Keith Lindley, Popular Politics and Religion in Civil War London (Aldershot, 1997), p.263. 232 Featley, Gentle Lash, sigs.B1v, B2v. Also see Featley, Succinct History, sigs.I6v–​I8r. 233 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.B2v. For the fifth article, see Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.C4r–​v. 234 Featley, Gentle Lash, sigs.B2v–​B3r. 235 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.B3r. 236 Featley, Gentle Lash, sigs.B3v–​B4v.

Pastoral and Practical Theology  165 having been accused of being a royalist spy—​Featley was highlighting the classic difference between his Presbyterian opponents and himself over adiaphora. Additionally, by detailing the tolerance of these practices in previous ages of the church’s history, Featley was demonstrating that it was not he, but they, who were the innovators. The mention of Philippians 2:10 in defense of bowing at the name of Jesus was also significant since, as Peter Lake has shown, Laudians employed this text in their quest to provide scriptural warrant for their ceremonial practices.237 Even though Featley would eventually state his case against Laudian innovations, his appeal to Philippians 2:10 indicates that he affirmed their contention that there was some scriptural basis for conformist piety. The second article indicted Featley with railing and moving “the Communion table “to “the east” of the Chancel, bowing “towards the East end of the Chancell” and refusing “to give the Sacrament” to any who would not “kneele at the Railes.”238 Featley denied moving the Communion table, claiming that it remained where “it did when [he] came first to the Parish,” only moving it twenty years previously when the churchwarden “M. Woodward,” “brought it downe to the middle of the Chancell.” Even then, since parishioners found it to be a “very inconvenient” location, it was moved back so that people could “best” “heare and see the Minister at the Communion.”239 Featley claimed that he opposed Laudian innovations, citing that he refused to bow toward the east and “mainly opposed” “any new popish ceremonies”; “could never be brought, neither by perswasions, nor by threats, nor by presentments, or citations” by any authority “to turne the Communion Table Altar-​wise”; and actively preached against calling a Communion table an altar.240 Featley’s relation is partly verified by the Lambeth Churchwardens’ Accounts. For in March 1620, it “was agreed by a generall Consent of the Vestrie” that a “a Frame” was “made about the Comunion Table for the Comunicantes to receive the Comunion in a more decent Manner.”241 Nevertheless, Featley failed to mention that the Communion table was moved in 1635 during the metropolitical campaign to demand that all tables be moved to “the alterwise position.”242 The Lambeth Churchwardens’ Accounts details that one pound, seven shillings, six pence was “Paide to [a]‌Joyner for the remouevinge the Com’on table.”243 Although it is unclear whether he was forced to place the table in the altarwise position, his neglect of mentioning moving the 237 Peter Lake, “The Laudians and the Argument from Authority,” in Bonnelyn Young Kunze and Dwight Brautigam, eds., Court, Country and Culture: Essays on Early Modern British History in Honor of Perez Zagorin (Rochester, NY, 1992), p.157. Cf. Prynne, Anti-​Arminianisme, sig.Bb4v. 238 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.B4v. 239 Featley, Gentle Lash, sigs.B4v–​C1r. 240 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.C1r–​v. 241 Lambeth Churchwardens’ Accounts, I:219. 242 Fincham and Tyacke, Altars Restored, pp.108–​9. See LPL, MS 943, pp.475–​78; Collectanea II: A Collection of Documents from Various Sources, ed. T. F. Palmer ([London], 1928), pp.190–​91. 243 Lambeth Churchwardens’ Accounts, I:109.

166  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England table in 1635 reflects his unwillingness to admit that, although he may have opposed Laudian changes, he may have made compromises. A brief survey of like-​ minded ministers reveals similarities between Featley’s response to railing to the table and that of other Calvinist conformists, like Thomas Morton, Dean Young, and Joseph Hall.244 Featley claimed that he railed the table so that people could receive Communion “as neare as might be to the example of Christ and his Apostles” and that this was a unanimous congregation decision.245 He alleged that he “never repelled any for not kneeling” when receiving Communion, save only Ambrose Andrews’s noncompliant protégé, who refused to “conform himselfe to the humble gesture prescribed by the Church.”246 Featley initially refused him Communion, but he later gave the sacrament to him. Featley’s response to denying Communion to a parishioner accords with the advice he wrote to his friend Robert Barrell, a minister at Maidstone. Featley counseled Barrell to “applie the parable of the tares mingled with the good wheat in the field [from Matthew 13] to prove that the holy Communion is not to be fore borne because prophane persons are there.” Although the “open[ly] blasphemous and knowne contemnors of religion” “ought not to be admitted to . . . holi communion,” if one is merely “profane” “in heart” he should not “be excluded from the communion.”247 Featley appears to have been opposed to the notion that the minister should determine precisely who was fit to receive Communion and was willing to distribute it to any who came with a reverent, humble, and repentant heart. Michael Zell, however, has highlighted that Barrell apparently was a later apologist for railing the Communion table and setting it against “the east end [wall] of the chancel” and exhibited “rage and passion” toward those opposed to taking “Communion at the rail.”248 This is indicative of the complexity of positions within Featley’s circle during this time. Subsequent articles accused Featley of being an apologist for organs and set prayer. All of these he likewise generally affirmed, with his usual list of caveats, providing defenses from Scripture and tradition. Although he affirmed the sixth article’s charge that he refused to “give or lend [money] to the King or Parliament,” he said it was because he wanted to know how the funds were being used.249 244 Tyacke, Anti-​Calvinists, p.212; Nicholas Tyacke, “Anglican Attitudes: Some Recent Writings on English Religious History from the Reformation to the Civil War,” in Nicholas Tyacke, Aspects of English Protestantism, c.1530–​1700 (Manchester, 2001), p.191; Fincham and Tyacke, Altars Restored, p.248. 245 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.C1r. 246 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.C1v. 247 Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols.20v–​21r. 248 Michael Zell, Early Modern Kent, 1540–​1640 (Kent, 2000), p.304. Also see Larking, Proceedings Principally in the County of Kent, pp.19, 164, 167, 202, 203; Waltar Gilbert, The Accounts of the Corpus Christi Fraternity, and Papers Relating to the Antiquities of Maidstone, together with a list of Mayors, and other Corporate Officers, from the Earliest Times (Maidstone, 1865), pp.98–​99. 249 Featley, Gentle Lash, sigs.C2r–​v, D1v–​D2r.

Pastoral and Practical Theology  167 The final article’s charge was perhaps the most serious, accusing Featley, in a sermon of 4 December 1642, of speaking against Parliament’s reforms. He reportedly said that Parliament scorned “Gods true Ministers” and seized “the keyes . . . from the Church, and [placed] them in such hands” “so that Sacriledge, Whoredome, Sodomie, Murther, Felony, Pillage, Plunder” now reigned in the land. Now ministers “pretend they fight for Religion, and the priviledges of Parliament,” and “in every Pulpit in London” they “cry Arme, Arme; Fight, Fight, Blood, Blood, Battel, Battel, Kill, Kill.”250 Although Featley denied preaching “that [particular] Sermon,” he confessed that “in another Sermon” he preached “against the great disorders committed in the Church & Common-​wealth” and those who did not “feare God and honour the King.”251 While Featley partly accepted this final charge of noncompliance, he turned the indictment back on his accusers by claiming that they were those most guilty of insubordination to both divine and kingly authority. Although in the final meeting on 23 March 1643 a number of witnesses came forward against Featley, the committee deemed that none of these were “competent witnesses”—​“men of good ranke & quality”—​so Featley was released of the charges in a vote of sixty-​nine to sixty on July 11.252 In his diary, the MP for Okehampton, Laurence Whitacre, mentioned that Featley was released on account “of his good deserts to the Church heretofore, and because he was chosen one of the Synode”—​namely the Westminster Assembly.253 The fact that Featley neglected to mention this important detail indicates that, in his later account following these events, he was portraying himself as merely a victim of the Parliamentarians. Featley, however, was not a staunchly committed royalist either since he chose to remain in London in 1642–​43 and to attend the Westminster Assembly rather than going with the king to Oxford. There are also similarities between Featley’s trial and his testimony against Laud in the early 1640s. In his deposition at Laud’s trial, Featley noted the changes made to the archbishop’s chapel. He said that he was never at the Archbishop’s chappell but once, & then he saw nothing of Innovacon but what was in Bishop Abbott’s tyme excepting the communion table which then stood tablewise, now the table was alter wise. In Bishop Abbotts tyme there was no crucifix, nor bowing at the servise, nor copes as was now at consecracon; nor no bowing to the Alter. And the Chapel was better adorned than in Bishop Abbotts tyme. A picture of Christ behind the Alter.”254

250 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.D2r–​v. 251 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.D2v.

252 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.D4r–​v ; Featley, Succinct History, sig.I8r; CJ, III:161. 253

254

BL, Add. MS 31116, fol.62r. Manuscripts of the House of Lords, p.409.

168  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England Prynne likewise related how Featley and Nathaniel Brent testified against Laud.255 They detailed how Laud made significant changes to his own Lambeth Palace chapel, introducing “bowing towards the Table, Altar” and “meer Innovations” patterned after the Catholic Church.256 Featley’s testimony against Laud around the same time as his own trial is an example of how, in the shifting and turbulent circumstances of the early 1640s, there were multiple layers of allegiances, wherein it was possible for a person to side with those he partly opposed against a greater enemy for the common good.

Conclusion This study has shown how one minister’s pastoral motivations underpinned his publication of works on prayer and preaching. Although Featley licensed these works a day apart, he released them at strategic moments, seeking to demonstrate that a vibrant life of piety had to include both robust preaching and a fervent commitment to prayer.257 In this way, this study revises the notion that there were essentially two categories of early Stuart churchmanship—​namely, Reformed divines who believed that their main duty was preaching the Word and anti-​Calvinist ministers who believed that their primary responsibility was delivering public prayers, administering the sacraments, and carrying out a pastoral ministry of visitation. Although these are helpful distinctions, we must beware of a strictly dualistic approach. In light of one kind of error—​namely that some historians have been guilty of positing “a false dichotomy between the word and the sacraments”—​this study of Featley sheds light on another: constructing a dichotomy between those ministers who emphasized prayer versus ministers who emphasized preaching.258 Featley did not give priority to one over the other but emphasized equally the importance of preaching and praying. These twin means of grace were not rivals but complemented one another: a vibrant private prayer life and commitment to hearing the public preaching of Scripture were God’s dual means of growth in the Christian life. There are limitations to dividing ministers into simple devotional camps and drawing clear lines of continuity between devotional works, for ministers attempted to position themselves within the various pietistic streams. In Featley’s case, this range of devotional expression can be seen through his print publications.259 Indeed, Featley’s theological positions on private devotional 255 Brent also appears to have cooperated with the Laudian regime. SP 16/​293 fols.265v–​266r. 256 Prynne, Canterburies Doome, sig.H3v (also see sigs.H4r–​v, I1r, P2v–​3r, Hhh1r, sigs.Ooo4v–​ Ppp1r). Also see John Rushworth, Historical Collections. The Second Part (London, 1680), sig.Oo1v. 257 For example, see Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.I3v. 258 Hunt, “The Lord’s Supper in Early Modern England,” p.78. 259 Green, Print and Protestantism, p.240; Ryrie, Being Protestant in Reformation Britain, pp.8–​9.

Pastoral and Practical Theology  169 practices responded to, and to some extent were shaped by, the political and ecclesiastical environment of the late 1620s and 1630s. This is not to say that it is impossible to group different devotional writers and works together. Rather, historians must proceed with caution when investigating these “merely” devotional works and probe them for hidden agendas lurking beneath the surface. Featley’s use of polemical rhetoric in his devotional work challenges Ian Green’s view that devotional works supposedly “were not deemed to be suitable places for polemical contests.”260 Indeed, polemicism was integral to Featley’s positioning of himself within the ecclesiastical mainstream by attacking various nonconformist views in order to avoid being reprimanded by the regime himself. As Ethan Shagan has argued, seemingly “moderate figures” used polemicism to occupy the middle ground.261 It is possible that Featley inserted his subtle assault on Peter Heylyn in his devotional work because he believed that it was less likely to be noticed there than in his collection of sermons. Additionally, Featley and his fellow Calvinist conformists were not merely victims of Laudian oppression. Rather, these divines waited for the optimal moment to publish their massive sermon collections in 1635–​37 in order to provide an alternative to Laudian policies. Laudian adversaries were actively promoting a rival vision of orthodoxy at a crucial ecclesiastical moment, using their sermon collections to persuade readers of the vitality of preaching and warn them of the dangers of overadorning churches and of Catholicism. Likewise, as the subheading of Clavis Mystica makes clear, Featley deliberately printed the sermons in which he exposited “diverse difficult and mysterious texts of holy Scripture.” By showcasing his exposition of difficult Scripture texts, he challenged those who were attempting to diminish the importance of preaching in the 1630s. In short, by homing in on Scripture texts that necessitated the services of a preacher to understand them, he indirectly underscored the vitality of preaching without explicitly saying it. Chapter 2 explored how Featley used his role as a licenser to keep puritans within the English Church. This collection possibly served that mission as well, especially since in the 1630s Laudians had commissioned Featley as a mediator to encourage puritans to submit to Laudian regulations and to remain within the English Church. Taken together, Featley’s devotional work and sermon collection represent the ideals of Calvinist conformist pastoral theology—​including a commitment to robust preaching, fervent prayer, the established forms of the English Church, as enshrined in the Book of Common Prayer, and a mindful use of the church calendar. It also included a zeal to defend those established forms against Catholics and nonconformists who expressed resistance to those expressed forms. These

260 Green, Print and Protestantism, p.241; Green, Christian’s ABC, pp.39–​41. 261

See Shagan, Rule of Moderation.

170  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England ideals were presented as an alternative to Laudian orthodoxy during a time when Laudian supremacy was far from a foregone conclusion. If Laudianism were to collapse under the pressure of the turbulent political climate, Featley and his fellow Calvinist conformists had put forward an alternative pastoral theology that was primed to be reinstated. Featley’s pastoral and polemical sensibilities were conjoined throughout the 1630s in his works on prayer and preaching. For Featley, devotion and confrontation were linked.262 Featley drew parallels between his polemical defenses of God’s truth and pietistic practices by reflecting on how devotion and confrontation were actually two sides of the same coin, two kinds of fire: “Men of rational understanding and discourse, are [delighted] by collision of contrary Arguments to strike out the fire of Divine Truth. And even this fire, as well as that other which is the natural heat of Devotion kindleth, yieldeth much warmth to the conscience.”263 For Featley, passion for God and a commitment to defending God’s truth went hand in hand. For these reasons, it would be a mistake to separate Featley’s ecclesiastical positioning—​his attacks on those who ascribed either too little or too much importance to received traditions and liturgical forms of devotion—​from the fact that he believed these positions were spiritually unhelpful and inconsistent with the Scriptures and the tradition of the church. By contrast, Featley believed that a pastor protected his flock by attacking faulty forms of worship and preserved the most valuable devotional practices by attacking those who threatened to undo them.



262 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sig.A1v.

263 Featley, Ancilla Pietatis, sigs.A1v–​A2r.

6

The Ecclesiology and Polity of an English Calvinist Conformist On 12 June 1643 Parliament issued an ordinance summoning “an Assemblie of Learned and Godlie divines.” This gathering, known as the Westminster Assembly, was “for the settling of the Government and Litturgie of the Church of England” and “for the vindicating and clearing the doctrine . . . from false Aspersions and Interpretations.”1 Made up of approximately 150 members, the assembly was convened on 1 July 1643 to refine orthodoxy in England following a decade of Laudian reform. Although it originally set out to revise the Thirty-​nine Articles, the assembly eventually produced a confession and two catechisms—​collectively known as the Westminster Standards. Over the past three centuries, numerous Reformed and Presbyterian denominations have adopted these documents as their confessional and denominational standards, and many have argued that they represent the high point of Reformed orthodoxy in early modern England. Since the publication in 2012 of The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, we have a more accurate account of what took place at this convention. Of the 204 people invited to the assembly, 43 declined their invitation, 31 of whom were clergymen.2 Although some declined for reasons of health or the distance they would have had to travel to attend, it seems more than half declined their invitation because of their commitment to the monarchical episcopacy, despite their close theological and social ties with assembly members.3 Richard Baxter related that although the Parliament invited the “Learnedest” episcopalian figures in Britain in order to be “Impartial” and so that “each Party . . . [would] have liberty to speak,” almost all these divines declined the invitation “because it was not a Legal Convocation, and because the King declared himself against it.”4 Indeed, Chad Van Dixhoorn notes that while Thomas Thorowgood “allege[d]‌ 1 MPWA, I:165. For older studies see A. F. Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly: Its History and Standards (Philadelphia, 1884); S. W. Carruthers, The Everyday Work of the Westminster Assembly (Philadelphia, 1943) and R. S. Paul, The Assembly of the Lord: Politics and Religion in the Westminster Assembly and the “Grand Debate” (Edinburgh, 1985). Also see Hunter Powell, The Crisis of British Protestantism: Church Power in the Puritan Revolution, 1638–​44 (Manchester, 2015). 2 MPWA, I:170–​75. 3 See MPWA, I:106–​47. 4 Richard Baxter, Reliquiae Baxterianae (London, 1696), sig.L1r. Calvinist Conformity in Post-​Reformation England. Greg A. Salazar, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2022. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197536902.003.0007

172  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England that he sympathized with episcopacy while in attendance,” he was, however, a nominal member, who “almost certainly did not stay for the duration of the gathering” and whose “performance [sic] at the assembly was undistinguished.” Likewise, although the episcopalian Thomas Westfield is recorded to have been in attendance, he too did not make a substantial contribution at the assembly.5 Although Daniel Featley was the only one of roughly fifteen episcopalians who accepted the summons and participated meaningfully at the Westminster Assembly, he later said he regretted his attendance precisely because Charles had opposed it.6 This chapter will explore Featley’s participation in and eventual imprisonment by the Westminster Assembly. Since this chapter will first deal with Featley’s activities during, before, and then after the Westminster Assembly, it will slightly diverge from a strictly chronological approach. This method, however, will most effectively highlight how Featley shifted his theological positions during the 1640s. It will examine why Featley attended the convention instead of siding with the royalists, especially since nearly all of the other assembly members were opposed to some of his theological positions. An analysis of Featley’s assembly speeches and later prison writings against Presbyterians and Anabaptists reveals that, during the 1640s, Featley adjusted to the monumental shifts that took place by returning to a familiar series of maneuvers to avoid marginalization by puritan and established church divines. An analysis of how Featley’s pursuit of the middle way was fueled by a survival instinct contributes to understanding the ever-​elusive theme of “moderation.” For during the 1640s the bounds of Featley’s theological confessionalism were tested. Indeed, by examining the theological positions and pressures that motivated and shaped Featley’s actions in the escalating conflict, the tension in his positions is most clearly shown. Although it is tempting to view Featley’s potentially ambiguous positions as at odds with one another, in actuality Featley held to a consistent set of theological views that were typical of other Calvinist conformists, including his commitment to episcopacy, royalism, pedobaptism, and repulsion of Protestant sectarianism.

Featley at the Westminster Assembly Featley was an active participant during his short stint as an assembly member. He was part of the second standing committee, which was responsible for revising the Thirty-​nine Articles.7 He was also on a committee appointed to investigate 5 MPWA, I:139, 143. 6 MPWA, I:14; Hampton, “A ‘Theological Junto,’ ” p.436; Works of James Ussher, p.231; Divorce Tracts of John Milton, p.449. 7 MPWA, I:180, 183; Quantin, Church of England, p.252.

Ecclesiology and Polity  173 antinomianism. This makes sense given his previous interactions with puritan “antinomians” in the 1620s and indicates that antinomianism continued to be an ongoing issue with puritans in the 1640s.8 The Minutes and Papers gives us a window into the debates that took place between assembly members over theological issues and an awareness of the differences of opinion between assembly members. They reveal that Featley played an active role in these debates.9 An awareness of these debates cautions us against assuming that assembly members were naturally united on theological issues simply because they arrived at the theological consensus enshrined in the Westminster Standards. Featley printed eight speeches he gave at the assembly in his Sacra Nemesis (1644), which were reprinted—​presumably by John Featley—​in the fifth, sixth, and seventh editions of Featley’s Dippers Dipt in 1647, 1651, and 1660. These speeches were meaningful contributions to several theological debates and give historians a valuable window through which to understand the assembly proceedings. Two speeches concerned whether the three Catholic creeds should be unreservedly accepted, five speeches concerned the imputation of Christ’s active obedience in justification, and his final speech opposed the Solemn League and Covenant. While his final speech was against the consensus, his other speeches sided with the majority of the assembly.10 Although Featley’s contribution to these debates has been fruitfully explored by scholars in recent years, this study will not reproduce this work.11 It will add, however, that Featley appears to have been considerably more reliant on patristic sources than other assembly members, quoting extensively from major church fathers like Justin Martyr, Jerome, Augustine, Gregory the Great, and John Chrysostom.12 This confirms our previous analysis of Featley’s use of patristic tradition in debates 8 CUL, MS Dd. xiv.28.4, fol.40v; MPWA, II:122. 9 MPWA, I:200–​201, II:48–​50, 94–​96. Also see John Lightfoot’s journal: CUL, MS Dd. 14.28.4, fols.3v–​4r, 25v–​26r; 33v, 40v, 44v–​45r, 47v–​48r. I am grateful to Chad Van Dixhoorn for giving me his transcription of this manuscript. Cf. John Lightfoot, The Journal of the Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines, From January 1, 1643 to December 31, 1644, ed. John Rogers Pitman (London, 1824). 10 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sigs.C2v–​G2r, G4v–​H1v; for the reprinted editions, see Daniel Featley, Orationes Syndicaeus, appended to Daniel Featley, The Dippers Dipt (6th edn., London, 1651), sigs. Dd1r–​Gg3v and Daniel Featley, The Dippers Dipt (7th edn., London, 1660), sigs.Dd1r–​Gg3v. 11 For the best study of Featley’s speeches and attendance at the assembly, see Van Dixhoorn, “Reforming the Reformation,” pp.214–​15, 273, 42–​43, 47–​48, 50–​51, 95, 149–​50, 170, 198, 215, 228, 239–​40, 243, 245–​49, 261, 271, 273, 287–​88, 298–​303, 308–​9, 314, 319, 322–​24, 328, 331–​35, 338–​ 39. Also see Alan Strange, “The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the Westminster Assembly,” in Michael Haykin and Mark Jones, eds., Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism (Göttingen, 2011), pp.31–​51; Mark Jones, “John Calvin’s Reception at the Westminster Assembly (1643–​1649),” Church History and Religious Culture 91 (2011), pp.221–​22; Quantin, Church of England, pp.252–​53; Muller, PRRD, IV:326–​32; Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, ed. Alex Mitchell and John Struthers (Edinburgh, 1874), pp.lxv–​lxvii. 12 MPWA, II:48–​50, 94–​96. I am grateful to Chad Van Dixhoorn for our fruitful conversations about these issues and for first alerting me to Featley’s uniqueness among assembly members in his privileging of patristic sources.

174  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England with Catholics and anti-​Calvinists and reveals that this was a lifelong strategy. As Featley argued in his debate with John Fisher: “As the River Iordan is a most cleer and sweet River neer the springs and head . . . in like manner, the Doctrine of the Church, neere the Fountain and Spring, in the time of the Apostles, ranne most sweetly and cleerly.”13 Featley’s approach diverged from the modus operandi of the other assembly members, who believed doctrinal matters must be settled primarily on the basis of Scripture. Van Dixhoorn has even suggested that the printing of Featley’s speeches was designed to “expose the anti-​creedalism present at the Assembly.”14 By exploring the differences between Featley and his fellow assembly members on patristic authority in the context of debates over confessionalization, this study builds on Jean-​Louis Quantin’s study on the construction of confessional identity in the seventeenth-​century English Church. Indeed, Featley would contend for the use of patristic tradition even when such arguments would significantly marginalize him among his puritan contemporaries. Featley’s approach diverged from the modus operandi of the other assembly members who believed doctrinal matters must be settled primarily on the basis of Scripture. However, this was only the beginning of the disagreements between Featley and other assembly divines. The differences that would eventually divide Featley from the other assembly members were deeper than simply issues of ecclesiology. The value that ministers placed on tradition continued to be an issue in the 1640s among puritans and Calvinist conformists, just as it had in the 1630s. Finally, historians should be cautious about accepting Featley’s accounts at face value since these were his own retrospective perspectives on his participation at an assembly from which he was eventually dismissed and imprisoned. It is to this event that we will now turn.

Why Featley Accepted His Invitation to the Assembly One question that has perplexed historians is, given the Westminster Assembly’s opposition to some of Featley’s theological positions, why did Featley attend the assembly, instead of siding with the royalists and going to Oxford? Crucial to giving a satisfactory answer is exploring the reasons why Featley accepted the summons. The summons pronounced that “the present Church Government” based “upon the hyerarchy is evill and justly offensive and Burthensome to the kingdome” and “a great impediment to Reformation and growth of Religion.”

13 Featley, Romish Fisher, sig.O4r.

14 Quantin, Church of England, p.252; Van Dixhoorn, “Reforming the Reformation,” p.268.

Ecclesiology and Polity  175 Therefore, it needed to be replaced with one that was “most agreeable to Gods holie word and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the Church att home and neerer agreement with the Church of Scottland and other reformed churches abroade.”15 Since other Reformed episcopalians declined their invitations, Featley later attempted to procure royalist favor by claiming in his prison writings that he regretted his decision to attend the gathering, saying that this choice “was his greatest fault,” and that he “often wished himselfe out of it.”16 Several theories have been proposed by Featley’s contemporaries and later historians regarding what motivated Featley to side with the Parliamentarians in the summer of 1643. Thomas Fuller accepted Featley’s claim, saying that during the assembly Featley’s “body was with them, whilst his heart was at Oxford.”17 Peter Heylyn surmised that Featley attended the assembly “to shew his Parts, or to head a Party, or out of his old love to Calvinism.”18 Edward Hyde maintained that his attendance was “purely out of conscience, and for the service of the King and Church, in hope that he might be able to prevent many extravagancies, and to contain those unruly spirits within some bounds of regularity and moderation.”19 Each of these conclusions, however, was derived from viewing the events through the lens of the writer’s own retrospective post-​Restoration conceptions about the dichotomies that evidently led to the English Civil War (i.e., Reformed theology and anti-​Calvinism, royalism and Parliamentarianism, and radicalism and conservatism). It is not surprising that Peter Heylyn reduced Featley’s attendance to a love for Reformed soteriology since his writings portray Reformed doctrine as at odds with true royalism and a correct embodiment of the English Church. Further, both Edward Hyde’s and Thomas Fuller’s minimizations of Featley’s attendance accord with their overall biases—​no self-​respecting true royalist and episcopalian would have dared to associate himself voluntarily with Parliamentarian Presbyterians, unless his motive was to oppose them and champion true religion. Analysis of the escalating conflict of the years leading up to the assembly reveals why Featley actually accepted the summons. From 1641 to 1643 Featley witnessed the growing marginalization of royalism and episcopacy by increasingly powerful Parliamentarians. This began as early as March 1641 with Featley’s participation in the subcommittee of religion—​sometimes known as the Williams Committee, named after the committee’s chair, the bishop of Lincoln, John Williams. This committee, made up of Reformed episcopalians

15 MPWA, I:165–​66. 16 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.A3r; Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.B3r. 17 Fuller, Worthies, sig.Xxx1v. 18 Heylyn, Aerius redivivus, sig.Cccc2r–​v. 19 Edward Hyde, The History of the Rebellion and civil wars in England begun in the year 1641, ed. William Dunn Macray (Oxford, 1888), p.204. Also see Featley, Succinct History, sig.I9r.

176  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England and moderate Presbyterians, was convened to reach a consensus regarding ministers’ concerns about issues of established church polity and ceremonies following more than a decade of Laudian reform. Although the committee initially looked like a promising solution to these issues, it was dissolved by Parliament within a few weeks. Then, in January 1642, Charles fled from London to Oxford following a series of unsuccessful attempts to seize political control of the country. This geographical departure effectively reinforced these divisions and opened up physical space between the two parties. Surrendering this political stronghold to their enemies, however, had devastating implications for royalists. Although war was now probable, it was obvious that Charles and the royalists were in a weaker position.20 Throughout 1642 the circumstances continued to darken for royalist ministers in London. On 29 October a number of ministers, including two of Featley’s fellow episcopalian Williams Committee members, John Hacket and Richard Holdsworth, were imprisoned.21 Then, on 2 December, a committee was convened to relay the names “of all malignant, scandalous and seditious ministers” in London to the Lord Mayor by that next Friday.22 It was reported by England’s memorable accidents that these ministers should “be removed” from London since they sow “discord and continually both in publique and in private incite the people against the Parliament and perswade them not to contribute any moneys Plate, Armes or Horse for the defence of the King and Parliament.”23 Indeed, failing to contribute was one of the accusations the Committee of Plundered Ministers made against Featley. At this time Featley too began experiencing the grim circumstances of war firsthand, enduring two different attacks on his life on 12 November 1642 and 19 February 1643 at his churches at Acton and Lambeth, respectively.24 Immediately following the second attack, in March 1643 some of his parishioners reported him to the Committee of Plundered Ministers for introducing Laudian innovations into his Lambeth church. If the committee found him guilty, Featley would be imprisoned and stripped of his ministerial positions and the two parish livings. Given how events had unfolded for other royalist ministers, it seemed Featley 20 Cust, Charles I, pp.326–​27; Russell, Fall of the British Monarchies, pp.454, 466; David Smith, Constitutional Royalism and the Search for Settlement, c.1640–​1649 (Cambridge, 2002), p.88. I owe these insights to my discussions with David Smith. 21 For an overview of other royalist ministers who were charged with opposing Parliament on the eve of the English Civil War, see Edward Dobson, Declaration, Vindication and Protestation of Edward Dobson (London, 1644), sig.A2r; Lindley, Popular Politics and Religion, pp.265–​69. Also see Manuscripts of the House of Lords, pp.333–​34. 22 LMA, COL/​CC/​01/​01/​041, fol.42r. 23 England’s memorable accidents, 28 November—​5 December 1642 (London, 1642), sig.N4v. 24 He may have developed his friendship with the esteemed poet Lady Anne Southwell (1574–​ 1636)—​who mentioned “our beloved Doctor Featlye” in his commonplace book—​during his tenure as a minister at Acton. Folger Shakespeare Library, MS V.b. 198, fol.26r.

Ecclesiology and Polity  177 would lose everything. A beacon of hope came for Featley in the middle of the trial, however; on 24 June 1643, Parliament issued the Westminster Assembly’s summons, and Featley was invited to the gathering. On 1 July 1643, only days before the trial verdict, Featley took his seat at the first assembly meeting. His participation seems to have made all the difference in improving his fortunes, for on 11 July Featley was released of all charges in a close vote of sixty-​nine to sixty.25 In his diary, the MP for Okehampton, Laurence Whitacre, linked Featley’s favorable outcome with his participation in the assembly, saying that Featley was acquitted on account “of his good deserts to the Church heretofore, and because he was chosen one of the Synode.”26 Featley was not the only royalist minister preserved by accepting the assembly summons. In his diary the Norfolk minister Thomas Thorowgood narrated that in 1642 he “entertained” groups of royalists in his “house [for] severall dayes.” This news eventually reached “the Committee where [he] was accused & threatened” and expected to be imprisoned “for receaving them.” Although four soldiers came to arrest him, “Providence” intervened when he was appointed “to the Assembly.”27 At the beginning of the English Civil War, one way for outspoken Reformed royalist divines to avoid persecution was to declare allegiance to the Parliamentarian cause by attending the Westminster Assembly. It is impossible to prove definitively that Featley accepted his assembly invitation to avoid imprisonment and the loss of his ministerial positions and livings. The timing of the events leading up to the decision and Featley’s actions before and after the assembly, however, indicate that this was probably his chief motivation. Since Charles condemned the Solemn League and Covenant and the assembly immediately following the summons, Featley knew the predicament he was entering into with the royalists.28 Featley’s livings were undoubtedly important to him. Reflecting on losing them, he said that “the sequestration of [my] Benefices made [me] livelesse, or rather according to the Apostles phrase, twice dead and pluckt up by the rootes: For as good upon the matter to be dead, as deprived of all meanes of livelihood.”29 Featley understood that he could not keep his livings without siding with the Parliamentarian cause. Indeed, although in his own account of the vote Featley exaggerated his favorable outcome, saying the decision “was reversed in open Parliament by 80 at least,” he likewise mentioned that “now he is settled in both his Benefices and lockt fast into the Assembly.”30 25 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.D4r–​v ; Featley, Succinct History, sig.I8r; CJ, III:161. 26 BL, Add. MS 31116, fol.62r. 27 Thomas Thorowgood, “Transcript of the Letter and Diary,” in Basil Cosens-​Hardy, “A Puritan Moderate: Dr. Thomas Thorowgood, S.T.B., 1595 to 1669,” Norfolk Archaeology 22 (Norwich, 1926), pp.321–​22. The original diary and letter are NRO, NNAS S2/​18/​1–​3. Also see Van Dixhoorn, “Reforming the Reformation,” p.349; Cosens-​Hardy, “Puritan Moderate,” pp.311–​18. 28 Daniel Featley, The League Illegal (London, 1660), sigs.I3r–​I4r. 29 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.B3r–​v. 30 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.B3v.

178  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England It is testimony to Featley’s flexibility that in his prison writing he managed to justify the decision on the basis of his circumstances at the time while ultimately admitting that he regretted his decision. For example, he claimed that “he conceived that he might doe more hurt to himselfe by his presence there, then good to others by his assistance. And therefore when he heard that like the Candle hee was blowne in and out with the same breath, hee past not at all for it, deeming himself neither a gainer by the one, nor looser by the other.”31 He also claimed that his participation was contingent on the assembly’s compliance with established church orthodoxy and practice, however, saying that “he joyn’d with the Assembly, so long as they joyn’d with the Truth; And when they undermined it, he countermined them.”32 And that he “often wished himselfe out of it . . . because this Assembly was not called by the sound of Moses his silver trumpet [i.e., by royal authority], neither were the Members thereof elected or nominated by the bodie of the Clergie.”33 Nevertheless, we must be careful not to assume too much about Featley’s political sensibilities, for no one who was caught up in these developments knew how events would ultimately play out. In this light, it may be inferred that one of the reasons Featley recanted his decision and penned two lengthy defenses of episcopacy and royalism from prison was to dispel any doubts about his royalist episcopalian status, especially given his initial decision not to follow the king to Oxford and to participate in the assembly of Charles’s enemies. In fact, Featley and his nephew claimed that it was Featley’s refusal to submit to the assembly’s enforcing subscription to the Solemn League and Covenant that signaled his time at the assembly might be limited.34 As John Featley related, His Speech in the Assembly against this Covenant was at that time so distasted, that his impatient and too zealous Breathren suffered him not to render those his Reasons in defence of Episcopacy which are added to this work. When they therefore hasten to swear the League, he retired to his house to grieve and pray & from that time forward he was neither secure in his study nor safe in his house. It was his seeming sin that he so freely delivered his conscience; and his punishment was Plundring, Sequestring, Imprisonment, and Death.35

It is impossible to know precisely how Featley’s plans developed as this conflict escalated. It is feasible, however, that it was part of his contingency plan 31 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.B3r. 32 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.A4r. Similarly, Thomas Thorowgood related he “saw no evil in going, for the Divines by the Act were called, not to determine but to be consulted with.” Also see Thorowgood, “Transcript,” p.323. 33 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.B3r. 34 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.A4r; Featley, League Illegal, sigs.b3v–​b4r. 35 Featley, League Illegal, sigs.b3v–​b4r.

Ecclesiology and Polity  179 to “continue his attendance” at the assembly until he could leave on “faire tearmes.”36 Although this opportune time never arrived, Featley’s crafting of an exit plan demonstrates that he had planned to maneuver his ship to safer waters if he faced turbulent circumstances. In reality, the only way forward in the conflict was to choose a party and remain therein. Alan Ford has related that James Ussher understood that in the escalating conflict, steering a middle course was “hardly a practical long-​term policy.” Thus, on 1 September 1642, when the Commons rejected his arguments in favor of episcopacy, Ussher joined Charles in Oxford. Although this initial action signaled that he sided with the royalists, “the decisive public breach” was Ussher’s rejection of the Westminster Assembly summons because the king “forbade” him from attending.37 Attendance at the Westminster Assembly was the litmus test for determining the political allegiance of Reformed clergy. By examining the terminological parallels between the Westminster Assembly summons and the Solemn League and Covenant, Chad Van Dixhoorn has shown that “the wording of the Solemn League and Covenant focused on wording which was previously used in the Assembly’s summoning ordinance.” The Covenant, like the summons ordinance, “called for the extirpation of prelacy, which was defined as ‘Church government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissaries, deanes and chapters, archdeacons and all other ecclesiastical officers depending upon the hierarchy.’ ” This was a deliberate decision that underlined “the continuity between the mandate of the Covenant and their own initial task.”38 It also intentionally “put those divines who objected to the Covenant in an awkward place. How could Featley, Burges, and friends object to the very phrases that they had tolerated only months before?”39 These parallels nullified Featley’s disapproval of the Covenant on the basis of canon law. “Since both sets of canons had been made without the consent of Parliament—​or rather, in opposition to Parliament—​ Featley’s protest on the basis of canon law was unlikely to garner much support among those who had already dared to come to Westminster against the king’s express command.”40 Indeed, all the other divines who were initially hesitant about the Covenant eventually subscribed, even Thomas Thorowgood, who eventually pledged his allegiance to the Covenant “after the rest & not till I had given my reasons especially in reference to Episcopacy, for I presumed the Kings Majesty & his posterity were well fenced therin.”41 The editor of 36 Featley, Succinct History, sig.I12r; Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.B2r. 37 Ford, James Ussher, p.260. 38 Van Dixhoorn, “Reforming the Reformation,” pp.47–​48. Also see Richard Baxter, Calendar of the Correspondence of Richard Baxter, ed. N. H. Keeble and G. F. Nuttall (2 vols., Oxford, 1991), I:410. 39 Van Dixhoorn, “Reforming the Reformation,” pp.47–​48. 40 Van Dixhoorn, “Reforming the Reformation,” pp.42–​43. 41 Thorowgood, “Transcript,” p.323. Also see Cosens-​Hardy, “Puritan Moderate,” p.316.

180  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England Thorowgood’s diary, Basil Cosens-​Hardy, even speculated about the genuineness of Thorowgood’s convictions, questioning whether “Thorowgood would not have been able to produce an equally effective apologia from the other point of view, had the necessity ever arisen.”42 In this instance, it seems that Thorowgood surpassed Featley in his political savvy, for he understood that the time for siding with Charles had passed, and his ongoing survival was dependent on subscription to the Covenant. Yet this also reminds us that Featley was ultimately committed to the established church and episcopacy and that his political flexibility was a tactical accommodation motivated by forced compromises that allowed him to continue fighting for the ideal of a restored English Reformed church.

Featley and the Williams Subcommittee on Religion Featley’s political flexibility described previously was part of a larger attempt to position himself ecclesiastically throughout the 1640s. This is displayed both in his participation in the Williams Committee in 1641 and in his refutation of Anabaptists in 1645.43 In recent years a number of scholars have contributed to our understanding of the Williams Committee.44 Stephen Hampton persuasively argued that although the committee attempted to remove Laudian innovations and uphold Reformed orthodoxy, it resisted a full-​scale “Genevan” reformation and was not prepared to concede established church ceremonies, even at a politically charged moment.45 There is more to be said, however, about the committee’s public portrayal of itself as a unified voice, which was part of a failed attempt to gloss over significant intracommittee theological divisions. Featley’s participation in the committee was about more than attaining resolution to ecclesiastical issues, as it was part of a series of maneuvers in the turbulent years of the early 1640s. Thomas Fuller related that in March 1641, “the Lords appointed a Committee of their own Members for settling of peace in the Church” and “a Sub-​committee, to prepare matters fit for their cognizance.”46 Since they were established for the 42 Cosens-​Hardy, “Puritan Moderate,” p.318. 43 Webster, Godly Clergy, pp.318, 323. For John William’s letter to some of the Williams Committee members, see Laud, History of the Troubles and Tryal, sigs.Z4v–​Aa1r (pp.174–​75). 44 Kenneth Fincham, “William Laud and the Exercise of Caroline Ecclesiastical Patronage,” JEH 51 (2000), pp.89–​91; William Abbott, “James Ussher and ‘Ussherian’ Episcopacy, 1640–​1656: The Primate and His Reduction,” Albion 22 (1990), p.241; Ford, James Ussher, pp.241, 247–​48; Milton, Laudian and Royalist Polemic, pp.115–​16; Quantin, Church of England, p.206. Also see W. A. Shaw, A History of the English Church during the Civil Wars and under the Commonwealth, 1640–​1660 (2 vols., London, 1900), I:65–​70. 45 Hampton, “A ‘Theological Junto,’ ” pp.433–​54, especially pp.443, 446, 448–​49. 46 Fuller, Church History, sig.Zzzz1v. On the William’s subcommittee, see BL, Add. MS 6424, fol.49r.

Ecclesiology and Polity  181 reformation of the previous Laudian regime, it made sense that John Williams—​ “Laud’s most celebrated clerical adversary”—​chaired both committees.47 Featley was a member of the later subcommittee, which was one of several ventures that contributed to the wider debate regarding the future of episcopacy on the eve of the English Civil War.48 The subcommittee met six times from 12 March through 12 May in the Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster Abbey and was made up of almost all the influential Reformed episcopalians in England, including James Ussher, Thomas Morton, Joseph Hall, Samuel Ward, Robert Sanderson, Ralph Brownrigg, Richard Holdsworth, John Hacket, and Daniel Featley.49 It is a testimony to the conciliatory aims of the committee that several prominent Presbyterian divines were members, including William Twisse, Cornelius Burgess, John White, Stephen Marshall, Edmund Calamy, Thomas Young, and Thomas Hill.50 In reaction to the Laudian “innovations” of discipline instituted in the 1630s, the committee was established to formulate an alternative “uniform model of [church] government to be presented to the Parliament of all the kingdoms there to receive strength & approbation.”51 As Parliament was increasingly resistant to continuing episcopal government, the committee was convened to devise a form of episcopacy that would be palatable to Parliament. The fact that Reformed episcopalians were working with puritans was also a sign to Parliament that a commitment to episcopacy did not mean an allegiance to Laudianism. Since Reformed episcopalians were open to ecclesiastical compromise in 1641, the prospect of avoiding a civil war was possible. The subcommittee was one of the final officially sanctioned attempts to find compromise between royalists and Parliamentarians over episcopacy.52 It also may have been a preemptive response to The Abolishing of the Book of Common Prayer (1641), showing that revising rather than abolishing the prayer book was still a viable option, and some Presbyterians were open to negotiations.53 47 Hampton, “A ‘Theological Junto,’ ” p.435; Fuller, Church History, sig.Zzzz1v. 48 See Judith Maltby, ed., “Petitions for Episcopacy and the Book of Common Prayer on the Eve of the Civil War 1641–​1642,” in Stephen Taylor, ed., From Cranmer to Davidson: A Church of England Miscellany (Woodbridge, 1999); Maltby, Prayer Book and People. 49 On Samuel Ward, see Margo Todd, “The Samuel Ward Papers at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge,” TCBS 8 (1981–​85), pp.582–​92; Margo Todd, “Puritan Self-​Fashioning: The Diary of Samuel Ward,” JBS 31 (1992), pp.236–​64; Margo Todd, “An Act of Discretion: Evangelical Conformity and the Puritan Dons,” Albion 18 (1986), pp.581–​99. 50 Fuller, Church History, sig.Zzzz1v; Abbott, “James Ussher and ‘Ussherian’ Episcopacy,” p.241. 51 SP 16/​477, fols.150v–​151r; CSPD 1640–​41, pp.484–​85. Also see BL, Harleian MS 6424, fol.49r; William Laud, The History of the Troubles and Tryal of . . . William Laud (London, 1695), sigs.Z4v–​ Aa1r. Also see Abbott, “James Ussher and ‘Ussherian’ Episcopacy,” p.241; Hampton, “A ‘Theological Junto,’ ” p.435. 52 Fuller, Church History, sig.Zzzz1v. On campaigns for modified episcopacy following the dissolving of the committee see Webster, Godly Clergy, p.326. 53 The Abolishing of the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1641); Hampton, “A ‘Theological Junto,’ ” p.443. For Thomas Gataker’s openness to reduced episcopacy, see Gataker, A discours apologetical,

182  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England Most scholarship on the Williams Committee has highlighted the mediatory role that it played. Given the theological diversity of the committee members, however, one understands precisely how and why they sought mediation. Contemporaries attested to the camaraderie of the committee amid theological diversity. John Williams’s biographer, John Hacket, claimed that although the group members were “of very contrary Opinions,” “all Passages of Discourse were very friendly between part and part” during their six meetings.54 On the surface, the pursuit of unity between Calvinist conformist divines and puritans was not surprising. Featley headed up an assembly comprised of puritans and Calvinist conformists that began preparing (though it never finished) a practical divinity manual to be translated and used throughout Europe.55 In May 1631, George Abbot apparently allowed John Dury to obtain signatures for the Instrumentum Theologorum, a manuscript intended to bring peace and unity among the various European churches.56 Accordingly, in June 1631 Dury had acquired signed declarations from thirty-​eight divines.57 Like the Williams Committee, this assembly included a number of Calvinist conformists and prominent puritans including Daniel Featley, Richard Sibbes, Richard Holdsworth, John Davenport, Thomas Westfield, Philip Nye, Cornelius Burgess, Thomas Goodwin, Stephen Marshall, William Gouge, Samuel Ward, Thomas Gataker, Henry Burton, George Walker, and John Rogers.58 That puritans and Calvinist conformists were working together to create a work of practical divinity indicates that practical divinity was a unifying topic for these divines. Furthermore, Featley was part of a wider movement to unite Reformed churches across Europe. A letter written in Latin dated 10 January 1633 from the nearly twenty divines of the Herborn Synod in Germany to English divines, including Featley, Richard Sibbes, Richard Holdsworth, and “the rest of men outstanding

sig.D4v. On Charles’s attempt at compromise over issues of episcopacy, see Sharpe, Personal Rule of Charles I, p.793; Milton, “Sacrilege and Compromise,” pp.135–​37, 152–​53. 54 Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, sigs.T1v–​T2r; SP 16/​482, fol.1r–​v. Also see Webster, Godly Clergy, pp.323–​24. 55 Baxter, Christian Directory, sig.A3r; Webster, Godly Clergy, p.257. 56 Anthony Milton, “‘The Unchanged Peacemaker’? John Dury and the Politics of Irenicism in England, 1628–​1643,” in Mark Greengrass, Michael Leslie, and Timothy Raylor, eds., Samuel Hartlib and the Universal Reformation (Cambridge, 1994), p.95. 57 BL, Sloane MS 1465, fol.2r–​ v. There are four different versions of the Instrumentum Theologorum in the Hartlib papers, SUL, Hartlib MS 6/​6, fols.5r–​v, 9r–​v ; SUL, Hartlib MS 17/​3, fols.1r–​4r; SUL, Hartlib MS 20/​11, fols.45r–​46r. For treatises by John Dury and letters he wrote to English Reformed divines, see BL, Sloane MS 402 and BL, Sloane MS 1465. Also see Milton, “The Unchanged Peacemaker,” pp.95–​117; G. H. Turnbull, Hartlib, Dury and Comenius: Gleanings from Hartlib’s Papers (Liverpool, 1947), pp.141, 148; Webster, Godly Clergy, p.257; G. Westin, Negotiations for Church Unity, 1628–​1638 (Upsala, 1932), pp.106–​8, 226–​34. 58 BL, Sloane MS 1465, fol.2r–​v.

Ecclesiology and Polity  183 in doctrine, piety, and the most celebrated,” expressed this hope for “the union of the Churches, and the abolition of the schism.”59 Discussions regarding changing English church government were about achieving unity within the established church and were motivated by concerns to craft ecclesiastical structures that would welcomed by Continental divines. These English divines believed “it is necessary to proceed in such a way as may not be scandalous to the churches abroad, and may give satisfaction to both parties contending at home, and may be durable and fortified with the consent of the ecclesiastic and the authority of the Parliament.”60 Despite this pursuit of unity, there was substantial disagreement among these members regarding church polity. Since significant attention has been given to the various theological positions of the committee members regarding church government, these positions will be mentioned only briefly here.61 And the presence of theological diversity among the Calvinist conformist divines provides a necessary caution against homogenizing and giving agency to Calvinist conformity as an ideology. Some held James Ussher’s “reduced episcopacy” position, which was clearly laid out in his Reduction (1656). Ussher argued that while it was not possible to construe the contemporary notions of bishop solely on the basis of Scripture, the church is best governed by bishops who served as superintendents over other ministers. Although Ussher’s Reduction was published posthumously, it was already circulating in manuscript form. Some have speculated that Ussher’s scheme was submitted to the committee, though it appears that Ussher was hesitant to present the work since he wanted to preserve his good standing among Parliamentarians and avoid catalyzing the conflict.62 Webster claims it was the Smectymnuans’ tracts “that persuaded Ussher to withdraw his scheme.”63 One can only speculate about how events would have unfolded if Ussher had presented his Reduction as a solution to the ecclesiastical conflict. Given that the work was respected by figures in both camps, it is feasible that it could have provided a fruitful compromise. Since John Williams presented his proposal to the House of Lords on 1 July 1641, this work may have

59 SUL, Hartlib MS 59/​10, fols.82r, 84r. Also see SUL, Hartlib MS 14/​2/​1, fol.2r–​v and SUL, Hartlib MS 59/​10, fols.124r–​127v. The letter is dated 1 November 1632. 60 SP 16/​477, fol.150v. 61 I am grateful to Stephen Hampton for our fruitful discussions regarding the diversity of ecclesiastical positions of the Williams Committee members. 62 James Ussher, The reduction of episcopacie (London, 1656); Ford, James Ussher, pp.223–​56; Abbott, “James Ussher and ‘Ussherian’ Episcopacy”; Ian Atherton, “Cathedrals in the British Revolution,” in Michael Braddick and David Smith, eds., The Experience of Revolution in Stuart Britain and Ireland: Essays for John Morrill (Cambridge, 2011), p.102; Hampton, “A ‘Theological Junto,’ ” p.447; Milton, Laudian and Royalist Polemic, p.115. 63 Webster, Godly Clergy, p.323.

184  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England informed the committee’s discussions.64 By contrast, Joseph Hall argued for jure divino episcopacy, believing that Scripture mandated that bishops rule the church.65 Others advocated Presbyterianism. As Alan Ford argues, while “dismantling the Laudian regime was easily achieved,” “the task of deciding what structures should replace it was much slower and more difficult.”66 One sign of the underlying divisions within the committee was that three of the members were part of the “Smectymnuus” group that issued two pamphlets directly refuting Hall’s works.67 “Smectymnuus” was the acronym made up of the initials of the works’ five authors: Stephen Marshall, Edmund Calamy, Thomas Young, Matthew Newcomen, and William Spurstowe.68 It is a testimony to the committee’s attempts to gloss over these disagreements that, although Hall and the three Smectymnuus members were actively involved in the committee, none were listed on the title page of the committee’s official published proceedings.69 Fascinatingly, just as notions of puritan homogeneity were forged through the presentation of a uniform consensus, so these public portrayals of theological unity among Calvinist conformist have blurred the diversity that existed between individual Calvinist conformists. While it is difficult to determine where Featley fits within this spectrum of theological positions, his view was perhaps most closely aligned with James Ussher’s. In his Grand Sacrilege he claimed “that I have held, and do hold, that a Church cannot bee without a Priest, or a Pastor: but it may bee, and sometimes is without a Bishop,” as with the churches in Geneva, France, the Low Countries, and “divers in Germany.” These, he argued, “are true Reformed churches, and yet they have no Bishops.” Thus, “a precise government of the church is not simply of the essence of the church. And therefore, albeit it be granted, that those churches have not the best government, nor the Apostolicall discipline in all points: yet because they have the

64 LJ, IV:296–​97; Fuller, Church History, sig.Zzzz2r; Hacket, Scrinia Reserata, sig.T2r. For Ussher’s and Williams’s influence, see Milton, Laudian and Royalist Polemic, p.115. Also see Hampton, “A ‘Theological Junto,’ ” p.437. 65 Joseph Hall, An Humble Remonstrance to the High Court of Parliament (London, 1640), sigs. C4r–​v, D2r, D3r–​v, E1v; Joseph Hall, Episcopacie by Divine Right Asserted (London, 1640), sigs.E3v, F1v; Ford, James Ussher, p.236. 66 Ford, James Ussher, p.236. 67 Although the Smectymnuus divines were opened to a “limited episcopacy.” Smectymnuus, An Answer to a Booke Entituled, a Humble Remonstrance (London, 1641), sig.a4rv. 68 Webster, Godly Clergy, pp.319–​26; Elliot Vernon, “The Sion College Conclave and London Presbyterianism during the English Revolution” (Cambridge University PhD, 1999), pp.59–​63, 71, 75, 98, 389; Thomas Kranidas, “Style and Rectitude in Seventeenth-​Century Prose: Hall, Smectymnuus, and Milton,” Huntington Library Quarterly 46 (1983), pp.237–​69; Vivienne Larminie, “Smectymnuus (act.1641),” ODNB. 69 A Copy of the Proceedings of some worthy and learned Divines, appointed by the Lords to meet at the Bishop of Lincolns in Westminster (London, 1641); Hampton, “A ‘Theological Junto,’ ” p.438.

Ecclesiology and Polity  185 Apostolicall doctrine sincerely taught and believed in them, and the Church Sacraments rightly administered, I beleeve that they are true Churches.”70

Similarly, he disclosed that he was “not perswaded that any platforme of Government, in each particular circumstance is Jure Divino.”71 He did argue, however, that “episcopacy is an Apostolicall Institution,” and “the Church never so flourished, as within 500 years after Christ, when it was governed by Bishops.”72 Since Featley defended episcopacy as a legitimate form of church government, he believed it was necessary “to qualifie the word Prelacie when it is ranked with poperie and superstition” in the Solemn League and Covenant.73 With regard to the “words in the New Covenant,” he argued that the phrase “I will endeavour the extirpation of Poperie and Prelacie, that is, government by Archbishops, Bishop” should only “passe” with the “qualifying clause ‘papall or tyranicall or independent.’ ”74 In short, by qualifying prelacy this way, he sought to undercut the notion that episcopacy itself was inherently evil and preserve its standing as a legitimate form of church government. Although it would seem that the committee was merely seeking to reverse the reforms that the Laudian regime had implemented during the 1630s, underneath there was an element of political flexibility. The committee’s official proceedings refuted the main Laudian “innovations”—​turning the table altarwise, receiving Communion at the rails, and adding some saints’ names to the church calendar.75 Nevertheless, some committee members, like Featley, yielded to these changes in order to preserve their ecclesiastical positions. This conformity was interpreted by many as a betrayal of true orthodoxy. As we have seen, when the Committee of Plundered Ministers tried Featley only two years after this committee, he nearly lost his livings on account of his conformity to Laudianism. By taking a strong stand against the Laudian reforms before the conflict escalated further, however, the committee members were preemptively demonstrating that they were emphatically opposed to Laud and seeking to make amends for their former actions. Showcasing their distaste for Laudianism could potentially provide a safety net for these divines if mediation proved impossible. It is a testimony to Featley’s political sensibilities that prior to the Westminster Assembly he emphasized opposition to a more robustly conformist position, while following the assembly he championed his affirmation of conformity. Featley’s positions should not be viewed as at odds with one another. Rather, the shifts were the results of forced 70 Featley, Grand Sacrilege, sig.Ll3v. Also see Featley, League Illegal, sig.F4r; Featley, Succinct History, sigs.K12v–​L1r. 71 Mercurius Aulicus, sig.Kkkk2r. 72 Mercurius Aulicus, sig.Kkkk2v. 73 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.G4v; Featley, League Illegal, sig.G3r; Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.K1r. 74 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.C3r. 75 A Copy of the Proceedings of some worthy and learned Divines.

186  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England compromises and tactical accommodations that were allowing him to continue pursuing his goal of restoring the English Reformed church. Although it had a promising start, the subcommittee broke up as the result of the Root and Branch Bill and the diminishing of political support from Parliament.76 Reflecting on this, Thomas Fuller said that “some are of [the] opinion that the moderation and mutuall compliance of these Divines, might have produced much good, if not interrupted, conceiving such lopping might have saved the felling of Episcopacy. Yea they are confident, had this expedient been pursued and perfected . . . it might, under God, have been a means, not only to have checks, but choakt our civill War in the infancy thereof.”77 Perhaps its failure was because even though one of the aims of the committee was to present “a uniform model of church government,” the publication of the committee’s proceedings, A Copy of the Proceedings of some worthy and learned Divines, never mentioned church polity. In fact, the Copy addressed nearly every element of “discipline” except church polity. This “elephant in the room” would prove to be one of the central points of contention between royalists and Parliamentarians. The problem, of course, was theological diversity within the supposedly unified committee and the inability of the committee to craft an ecclesiastical proposal for maintaining an established church that all divines could agree on. As we have seen, while some Calvinsit conformists (like Featley, Ussher, and others) affirmed reduced episcopacy, other Calvinist conformists (like Joseph Hall) were committed to jure divino episcopacy, and still others (the moderate puritans) essentially held to a presbyterian polity. Though one of the goals of the committee was to unite the wider English Church and to address the internal divisions among puritans and Calvinist conformists, in the end these differences were never addressed with formidable action. As the conflict escalated, however, the underlying divisions between the “godly” that surfaced during the 1620s and 1630s became more visible. By the 1640s, even sponsored mediatory endeavors and “unified” public statements could not mend the rift between the two parties. The portrayal of consensus between divines in 1641 starkly contrasted with the sheer brutality of the Civil War and further attests that these were no small differences. In short, theological diversity between Calvinists had significant ramifications. Indeed, this exploration of the diversity between Calvinist conformist divines, and the issues that divided Calvinist conformists and moderate puritans, explain why arriving at an ecclesiological compromise was unattainable. The

76 Edmund Calamy, An Abridgement of Mr Baxter’s History of His Life and Times (London, 1702), sig.N5v. Here I am siding with Hampton (drawing on Thomas Fuller, John Hacket, and Edmund Calamy Jr), who rejects the notion (proposed by Peter Heylyn and others) that the committee broke up as a result of Parliamentary disagreements over collegiate churches and English cathedrals. For these two views, see Hampton, “A ‘Theological Junto,’ ” pp.446–​48. 77 Fuller, Church History, sig.Zzzz2r.

Ecclesiology and Polity  187 Presbyterian members of the Williams Committee were involved in imprisoning Featley following his dismissal from the Westminster Assembly. We will turn now to Featley’s final prison works, which further reveal his attempts to redeem his diminishing reputation.

Featley’s Imprisonment by the Westminster Assembly The narrative of the events of Featley’s final weeks at the assembly before being imprisoned by his fellow assembly divines is a remarkable tale. Discerning which details of the events are true and which are either false or exaggerated is a challenge, however. And it is unclear what took place during Featley’s final days before his imprisonment. This is because the fullest account is derived from John Featley’s biography of Featley, which is a skewed source. Moreover, since in the escalating conflict John had fled England for the Island of St. Kitts (and was there at the time of the assembly), his account relied on Featley’s retrospective relation of the events—​which was Featley’s attempt to vindicate his largely marred reputation.78 According to John Featley, in mid-​September 1643 some “Schismasticks and Sectaries,” who envied Featley’s gifts and disdained his defense of episcopacy and opposition to the Covenant, hatched “a Plot” “to affright him into future compliance, or at least silence in the Synod” and even to secure Featley’s dismissal from the assembly and eventual imprisonment.79 During this time a “Felt-​maker,” Armiger Wardner, befriended Featley and confidentially relayed to him a message from James Ussher—​who was with the royalists in Oxford—​that Charles “was very much offended [by] his complying with the assembly: and that he charged him upon his high displeasure, never more to meet with the Divines.”80 In his Sacra Nemesis, Featley told a similar story, and was clear that he never held written correspondence with Ussher during the assembly; he only received this “pretended message” from Armiger Wardner.81 Although Featley was initially suspicious of the message—​being surprised that Ussher did not write to him directly—​Wardner reassured him it was due to the “danger of the times.”82 Indeed, it is no surprise that Featley had his fears. As Chad Van Dixhoorn has argued, “There was real danger in coming to Westminster,” for one of the assembly members, John Foxcroft, was captured and imprisoned, although he “was later released without harm.”83 Featley was now face to face with the dilemma he had

78 Featley, Succinct History, sig.I6r.

79 Featley, Succinct History, sig.I11r–​v ; Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.B4r. 80 Featley, Succinct History, sigs.I11r. 81 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.B2r.

82 Featley, Succinct History, sigI11v. 83

Van Dixhoorn, “Reforming the Reformation,” p.43; Lightfoot, Journal, p.174.

188  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England encountered throughout his entire ministry—​how to maintain cordial ties with his puritan (and now firmly Parliamentarian) contemporaries while upholding his allegiance to the monarchy and established church. Featley’s predicament was also only heightened by the fact that he only recently had been appointed Charles’s chaplain in the ordinary.84 As Featley later related, when he received the letter he was “much appalled and troubled, not knowing how to steer his course between the Symplegades, nor obey the contrary commands of two such masters.”85 Only two months earlier Featley had been tried by the Parliamentarian Committee of Plundered Ministers and narrowly escaped losing his pastoral post and his livings, and now he was being pressured by the opposing party to leave the assembly. In the midst of the eroding middle ground, Wardner posed a solution to his predicament, offering to take a letter to Ussher on his return containing “a few lines . . . acquainting him with some passages in the Assembly: and with his desire of his Majesties leave to continue his attendance there” until he could leave the assembly on “faire tearmes.”86 Although Featley was “very desirous” “to make his peace with the King,” he wanted to be cautious during these turbulent times, asking Wardner if he “thought there could be any danger in sending” the letter. With the reassurance from Wardner that all would be well, Featley dictated a note to this effect and sent Wardner on his way.87 Unbeknownst to Featley, Wardner was “a great stickler for the new Reformation” who supposedly fabricated the message from Ussher to entrap Featley.88 Following his receipt of a written reply from Featley to Ussher, Wardner apparently “soon departed, laughing in his sleeve,” and showed the “note to diverse, and closeth with the Committee,” who read the note and accused Featley of being a royalist spy and communicating “intelligence” to Oxford.89 The royalist Edward Hyde claimed that it was Featley’s speeches in defense of episcopacy that provoked Parliament to organize this sting operation against Featley.90 On 30 September 1643 Featley was imprisoned in Lord Peter’s house in Aldersgate Street. He was removed from the assembly and imprisoned; his books were seized, his goods were plundered, and his handsome livings were sequestered.91 There are several significant features of this account. First, it is notable that Featley is portrayed as taking little responsibility for writing the note. Rather, 84 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.A2r. 85 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sigs.B3v–​B4r. Also see Featley, Succinct History, sigs.I11v–​I12r. 86 Featley, Succinct History, sig.I12r; Sacra Nemesis, sig.B4r. 87 Apparently it was Featley’s “kinsman” who actually wrote the letter, and even tried to persuade him not to send it. Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.B2r; Featley, Succinct History, sigs.I12v–​K1r. 88 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.B3v. 89 Featley, Succinct History, sig.K1r–​v ; Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.B4r. 90 Hyde, History of the Rebellion, p.203. 91 SP 16/​498, fol.46r; CJ, III:259; MPWA, II:155; Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sigs.B3r, N1v; Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.A3r; Featley, Succinct History, sigs.K3v–​K4r.

Ecclesiology and Polity  189 writing to Ussher was not Featley’s idea but Wardner’s. This narration of the events was a deflection of responsibility from Featley to the messenger. There are hints that Featley was fully aware of his predicament, however. His pursuit of reassurance from the messenger that he was not in danger of committing a politically treasonous action is an indication that he was quite aware that, in continuing to play both sides, he was actually engaging in wrongful activity. It is an indication of Featley’s political flexibility that even after his arrest and imprisonment, he continued to plead ignorance by portraying himself as one who was easily duped by an ordinary layman acting on behalf of his now Parliamentarian enemies rather than owning up to his actions. Additionally, the message (or pretended message) and Featley’s reply were both a testimony to his predicament, whether Charles or Ussher actually had a message for Featley or not. Indeed, Featley’s reply makes clear that in his own eyes he was a royalist, and Charles’s message (or pretended message) indicates that Featley knew that, as a royalist, he had no business being at an assembly summoned not by royal authority but by Parliament. Indeed, this is why Featley was alarmed by Charles’s message. Featley’s reply to Charles, however, is a further indication of his political sensibilities. Rather than admitting his wrongdoing in attending the assembly, he attempted to obtain permission from Charles to continue staying at the gathering. Although Featley knew his decision to attend the assembly was a tactical accommodation to avoid loosing his living and a forced compromise undertaken to continue putting forward to the assembly his ideal of an Reformed English church, expressing this would have put his status as either a genuine member of the assembly or a true royalist in jeopardy. Following his imprisonment, in 1644 Featley sought to vindicate himself from all these accusations by writing two anonymous works, Sacra Nemesis and The Gentle Lash. He attempted to clear himself of all charges and then demonstrate that he was both a nontreasonous, Reformed member of the assembly and a committed royalist and episcopalian. For example, he claimed that his note to Ussher was entirely innocent. The Commons accused him of being “a spie & intelligencer to Oxford” and claimed that Featley’s letter “containe[d]‌great imputations upon the proceedings of the Assembly and divers members both of the Assembly & Parlaiment.”92 In response, Featley claimed that this “note unsealed” (not letter) contained “noe imputations at all upon the Assembly or Parl[iament]” or an account of the “good service he had done the King” but was “a mere relation of the three last resolves upon the question in matter of faith” at the assembly.93 Featley 92 SP 16/​498, fol.46r; CSPD, June 1641–​Dec 1643, p.489. 93 SP 16/​498, fol.46r; Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.B2r; Featley, Succinct History, sig.K2r. In Daniel Featley’s printed account, he claimed that the note included a “complaint of unsufferable wrong offered the Doctor by the Parliament Souldiers, whom plundered him both at Acton and Lambeth” (Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.B2v). He later complained that he still had not been shown the original note (SP 16/​498, fol.46r; Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.C1r).

190  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England also argued that since the 22 October 1643 law against sending correspondences to Oxford had not yet been passed, he was guilty of no crime.94 In his Gentle Lash Featley went further, claiming that “the Letter was intercepted, opened, and falsely transcrib’d, whereunto the malicions [sic] penman, adding what would most, by wronging him.”95 Likewise, he argued before that, in writing to Ussher, he was merely writing to another “chosen member” to the assembly.96 This argument was a red herring since Ussher’s rejection of his invitation and public denouncement of the assembly gathering effectively made the previous assembly summons null and void.97 The decision about whether to accept or reject the summons became the litmus test that determined which side one was on. Second, he provided several reasons why the Parliamentarians fabricated this account to imprison him. Featley claimed that one of the chief reasons he was targeted was that greedy Parliamentarians wanted his handsome livings, which “were like a Pinne and a Web in the eye of Envie.” He asserted that since they were “conveniently seated neere London, the one hath a goo[d]‌friend of the Ayre, the other of the Thames,” “the Mouth of some of the Asembly watered after them.”98 Indeed, Philip Nye was given Featley’s Acton living, John White was given Featley’s books and Lambeth living, and Mr. Bond given the Savoy living Marc Antonio De Dominis had given him.99 Moreover, he was no royalist spy. Rather, members of the Commons had already made up their minds that anyone who sent a letter to Oxford was a spy by default.100 Finally, Featley and his nephew claimed he was imprisoned because of his “loyalty to his Conscience and his Prince” and his opposition to the Solemn League and Covenant.101 The final point hits closest to the mark in determining why Featley was targeted and imprisoned. Likewise, Featley portrayed himself as being theologically in step with and defended by international Reformed Protestant divines on the Continent. For example, in his Sacra Nemesis Featley included letters from foreign Reformed divines—​including William Herbert (the French translator of Ancilla Pietatis), John Henry Homalin, John Schavaren, and Pierre du Moulin—​attesting to his Reformed credentials and innocence.102 One divine, John Stables, wrote that he was “sorry to hear of the close Imprisonment of worthy Dr. Featley” and that “one is and hath ever been so stout a Champion for religion, to be so used by the 94 Featley, Succinct History, sig.K2r–​v. 95 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.A2v. 96 Featley, Succinct History, sig.K2r. 97 Kennedy, “King James,” p.125. 98 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.B3r–​v. 99 CJ, III:259, 262; Featley, Succinct History, sig.K4r. 100 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.A4r; Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.C1r. 101 Featley, Gentle Lash, sigs.A2v–​A3r. Also see Featley, Succinct History, sig.I10r–​v ; Hyde, History of the Rebellion, p.203. 102 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sigs.L4v–​M4r.

Ecclesiology and Polity  191 reformers.”103 Featley also included a letter from the Dutch translator of Featley’s Ancilla Pietatis, Wolfgang Mayer, who, in 1642, may actually have recommended Featley be appointed the next chair of divinity at Leiden University.104 John claimed that Featley declined because he was “unfit to alter his climate, by reason of age and other infirmities, and for other reasons” that his nephew did not disclose.105 Daniel Featley claimed he was previously hesitant to release these letters for fear of “whet[ting] the venomous tooth of envie against him.” But “considering in what condition the partie now is, I held it a dutie of Christian charitie and equitie, to impart them to the indifferent reader for the vindicating his person and adding some light to his reputation now labouring in the eclipse.”106 Most obviously, Featley’s strategy is an example of how one divine attempted to use his past Reformed credentials, relational connections with international Reformed Protestants forged through his past chaplaincy, and international print reputation to boost his standing among English Reformed divines. This indicates that foreign Reformed approval continued to shape the English Reformed landscape in the English revolution. Featley’s use of these testimonies was part of a wider program of demonstrating that he was a legitimate member of the Westminster Assembly and a defender of “the true Reformed religion” who was being imprisoned as an enemy of Parliament. Featley described how, in 1642, he was not only “chosen by 390 votes to be a member of the Assemblie” but was specifically commissioned by “the whole house of commons to answer a popish Priest” and his work A Safeguard from Shipwreck, To a Prudent Catholike.107 Featley’s response, Virtumnus Romanus (1642), written to serve as an “Antidote against those places where the rankest poison is couched,” contains arguments similar to his other anti-​Catholic works and was a reprint of the A Safegard from Shipwreck with Featley’s marginal notes.108 According to Featley, the priest’s work was written “to shew all Romane Catholikes a way to escape not only all bonds, and imprisonment, but all other penalties of the law against Popish Recusants” by “making their religion and conscience . . . to comply with the religion professed by the State wheresoever they live” and taking the oath of allegiance and supremacy.109 According to Anne Davenport, Parliament believed that the Catholic appeal to take of these oaths was part of an attempt “to infiltrate the English government

103 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.M4r. 104 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sigs.M2v–​M3r. 105 Featley, Succinct History, sig.15r–​v. 106 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.M4r. 107 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.K2r; Daniel Featley, Vertumnus Romanus (London, 1642). The work’s title page contains the official Parliamentary commission for the work, dated 22 October 1642. 108 Featley, Virtumnus Romanus, title page. 109 Featley, Virtumnus Romanus, sig.*3v.

192  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England through outward conformity.”110 Therefore, while Featley’s debunking of the priest’s arguments was, in many ways, extremely similar to his other anti-​ Catholic arguments, his acting as Parliament’s defender was a demonstration of his Reformed credentials. He further pleaded his credentials as a champion of “the true Reformed Religion,” asking several questions: Did he not stand “up for the true reformed Religion in the Kingdomes both of England and France? Did he not oppose Arminianisme when it was in its fullest Ruffe? And when the Crime was capitall to speake against it, were his lipps sealed?”111 As we have seen, this defense was costly. According to Featley, his publishing two works against Richard Montague resulted in his losing the possibility of preferment. Even in the most difficult years of Laudian persecution, Featley argued that he did “not like cowards . . . run away to New England, when old England was on fire.” Instead, he claimed that he “courageous[ly]” “lookt the Lyon in the very face”—​a reference to an encounter with William Laud—​“and when he ror’d, he trembled not.” Further, he claimed that “when all turn’d Altars, [he] was not moveable.”112 Featley’s retrospective reading of these years should be qualified. The last two chapters have shown that while Featley did oppose anti-​Calvinism in the late 1620s and 1630s, this hostility was also matched by a measure of ecclesiastical positioning. Nevertheless, Featley managed to convince some prominent Restoration puritans to accept his perspective. For example, speaking of Featley’s imprisonment, Richard Baxter said that it “much reflected on the Parliament, because whatever his Fact were, he was so Learned a Man, as was sufficient to dishonour those he suffered by.”113 This is an illustration of how a post-​Restoration puritan, who approved of the assembly—​namely, Baxter—​was persuaded to accept Featley’s testimony. Featley’s prison writings also demonstrated that he was a defender of the true established church and the monarchy. By opposing the Solemn League and Covenant, he claimed he was upholding his commitment to his ordination vows and the king. The Solemn League and Covenant was an agreement made in 1643 between the English Parliament and the Scots to reform the “Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government, according to the Word of God, and the Example of the best Reformed Churches” following the years of Laudian innovations.114 Part 110 Anne Ashley Davenport, Suspicious Moderate: The Life and Writings of Francis a Sancta Clara (1598–​1680) (Notre Dame, 2017), p.266. 111 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.A3v. 112 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.A3v. 113 Baxter, Reliquiae Baxterianae, sig.L1r. On Baxter’s ecclesiology, see Paul Lim, In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty: Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in Its Seventeenth-​Century Context (Leiden, 2004). 114 A Solemne League and Covenant, sig.A2v. Also see An exhortation to the taking of the Solemn League and Covenant for Reformation and defence of Religion (London, 1643); Richard Ward, The analysis, explication and application of the sacred and solemn league and covenant (London, 1643); ODCC, p.1515; Milton, Catholic and Reformed, pp.448–​528.

Ecclesiology and Polity  193 of this program was not only “the Extirpation of Popery, Prelacie” or “Church-​ government, by Arch-​Bishops, Bishops” (and any hierarchical form of church government) but also an attempt to uphold both “the Rights and Privileages of the Parliaments” and “the Kings Maiesties person and authority, in the preservation and defense of True Religion.”115 The last phrase was especially important since Parliament also endeavored to punish any person suspected of “hindering the Reformation of Religion.”116 Even though Featley’s opposition to the Covenant signaled that he was a potential enemy of Parliament, he claimed that by subscribing to it he and they would be breaking a previous ordination vow to obey the king and his bishops. Featley said, Both myself and all, who have received orders in this Kingdom, by the imposition of Episcopall hands, have frelly engaged our selves by oath to obey Ordinarie, and to submit to his godly judgment, and in all things lawfull and honest to receive his commands; if then we now swear to endeavour the abolishing of Episcopacy, we swear to renounce our canonicall obedience.117

As Mercurius Aulicus said, “The ministers of the Church of England . . . at their Ordination take an Oath that they will reverently obey their Ordinary, and other chiefe Ministers of the Church, and them to whom the government and charge is committed over them.” Thus, “If we shall sweare the extirmpation of Prelacy, we shall sweare to forsweare our selves.”118 This, of course, underscores that although the political circumstances forced Featley to make a number of tactical accommodations and forced compromises, his theological convictions and loyal commitment to the established church remained consistent throughout his career. Featley was not the only minister who was reluctant to accept the Solemn League and Covenant. William Prince and even the would-​be assembly prolocutor Cornelius Burgess had reservations about subscribing to the Covenant, though each of them pledged their allegiance in the end.119 Featley even claimed that he “endeavoured to prove, that all the Divines that were wrapt in that new bond were intangled in perjurie by breaking the Oathes of canonicall obedience.”120 He argued that it was not he who was politically disobedient but the covenanters, who, by submitting themselves to the Covenant, had broken their previous vows to king and country. Additionally, he pointed 115 A Solemne League and Covenant, sigs.A2v–​A3r. 116 A Solemne League and Covenant, sig.A3r. 117 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.H1r–​v. 118 Mercurius Aulicus, sig.Kkkk2v. 119 MPWA, I:10. 120 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sigs.B2v–​B3r; MPWA, I:10–​11. Also see Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig. K2r–​v.

194  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England out that he never took “an Oath of Allegiance or secrecy to the Assembly.” Nevertheless, since he had previous pledged allegiance to the king, “He had a Warrant both as a Subject, and a Servant to discover any thing, which by consequence might be derogatory to his Government.”121 To those who recanted the “Oath of Canonical obedience [they took] to their Bishops,” he boldly charged them that if they discarded their ordination vows, then “they must repent also of their Orders given them by Bishops. For their Orders were given them upon the undertaking to perform” these duties.122 Featley’s rebuke was designed to strip these divines of their ministerial credentials and the authority that came with the office, thereby weakening the legitimacy and authority of their opposition to his doctrinal positions. Featley’s theological commitments to and defenses of royal supremacy and antisectarianism were at the core of his argument. He took exception to the phrase in the Solemn League and Covenant that required the swearer to “defend the Rights and Priviledges of Parliaments, and defend His Majesties person and authority in defence of the true Religion and Liberties of the Kingdome,” arguing that “the Members are put before the Head; the Parliaments Priviledges before the Kings Prerogative, and the restraint of defending the King, onely in such and such cases, seemes to imply something, which I feare may be drawne to ill consequence.”123 His posthumous work The League Illegal, however, contained a full defense of royal supremacy and repulsion of sectarianism. Before exploring the substance of his argument, it is worth mentioning that The League Illegal must be approached with caution since John Featley published it. John Featley was a more stalwart royal supremacist than his uncle and may have issued this work in an attempt to portray his uncle in a similar light. Nevertheless, it is possible that Featley himself wrote the work since he defended royal supremacy in other writings, chiefly The Sea-​Gull (1644). The Sea-​Gull was a brief commentary of “a large Picture . . . representing the story of Conanus and Ursula (taken out of the golden Legend) most grossely mistaken for His Majesties tendring the Scepter of his Kingdomes into the hands of the Queene and Pope.” Nevertheless, the “Intelligent Reader” could discern that this picture concerned “the grosse abuse of the His Majesties Subjects, by such, who suggest to the vulgar, that this Picture hath reference to His Majestie, and His Royal Consort.”124 Similarly, in The League Illegal he argued that “no Subjects living under a Christian Prince who is a professor of the true Religion” could “enter into a publick and solemne 121 Featley, Gentle Lash, sig.**r–​v. 122 Featley, League Illegal, sig.F3v. 123 Mercurius Aulicus, sig.Kkkk2v. 124 Daniel Featley, The Sea-​Gull (London, 1644), sig.A2r. For an anonymous reply to The Sea-​Gull, see Anon., The Sussex Picture (London, 1644). Also see Loe, Sermon, sig.E4v.

Ecclesiology and Polity  195 covenant for the reformation of religion, without the consent (much lesse against the expresse command) of their Soveraign. For such disobedience and sleighting of their King cannot stand with the duty we ow [sic] him of fear and loyalty.”125 With this, Charles was “the supreme head of the Church, and Common-​wealth, under Christ; and all his Subjects,” including “Parliament,” who “are but Members of the same Body politick.” Therefore, the covenanters could not “enter into a covenant . . . without the head,” especially since Charles had publicly condemned the Covenant on 24 June 1643.126 He grounded his argument on Scripture, quoting six different Scripture passages, including Romans 13:1.127 Romans 13 was the scriptural passage that persuaded other Reformed divines to side with the royalists. James Ussher’s sermon “The soveraignes power, and the subjects duty,” preached on 3 March 1644 from Oxford on Romans 13:1, justified why he could not “take arms or use any violence against the supreme power, no not in defence of religion.”128 However, Alan Ford has shown that Ussher’s conclusion was by no means the only position on this text and there were “tensions within the Calvinist tradition on this issue.”129 Featley also argued that since the Solemn League and Covenant was not “grounded upon holy Scripture,” the “Christian and Loyall Subject may without scruple of Conscience, and danger of ensnaring his soul, [refuse to] enter into it.”130 This is because “No Covenant, especially publike and solemn between two Nations for reformation of Religion, may be taken without warrant from Gods word.”131 Although Featley asserted, “I made a Covenant with my self ” “never to question this Covenant,” “yet because my conscience tells me that it hath not approbation from the Three that bear record in heaven,” in the end he did not subscribe to it.132 Although we know that puritans used Scripture to defend issues of conscience, Featley’s approach is an example of how strong royalist defenders of adiaphora could also appeal to the centrality of Scripture when making theological arguments in defense of royal supremacy and antisectarianism. Featley also defended episcopacy in historical and theological terms, listing sixteen reasons in defense of episcopacy.133 Among these reasons was his belief that “the Church most flourished” when it was ruled by bishops and that throughout the church’s history it was opposed by heretics like Arius,

125 Featley, League Illegal, sig.C4r–​v.

126 Featley, League Illegal, sig.C4v (for Charles’s condemnation the covenant see sigs.I3r–​I4r). 127 Featley, League Illegal, sig.C4v. 128

James Ussher, The soveraignes power, and the subject of duty (Oxford, 1644), sig.C3v.

129 Ford, James Ussher, p.261. Also see Todd, “An Act of Discretion,” p.585. 130 Featley, League Illegal, sig.C3r.

131 Featley, League Illegal, sig.D1r–​v. 132 Featley, League Illegal, sig.C3r.

133 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sigs.H1v–​I2r; League Illegal, sigs.G4v–​I2v.

196  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England who claimed “there ought to be no distinction in the Church between a Bishop and a Presbyter.”134 Reading between the lines of Featley’s argument, one might deduce that those who opposed the polity that had benefited the church and had been upheld by orthodox divines throughout the centuries ran the risk not only of resisting the true church but also of engaging in heresy. As Featley said, “If Episcopacie hath proved inconvenient, and mischievous in this age, which was most beneficial and profitable in all former ages, the fault may be in the maladies of the patient, not in the method of the cure.”135 He also appealed to the Continental Reformed churches, which allowed for hierarchical government, saying that “next to the primative Church, we owe a reverend respect to the reformed Churches beyond the seas; who either have bishops, as in Poland, Transilvania, Denmark, and Swethland; or the same function is in nature though not in name.”136 He, likewise, cited traces of episcopacy in the “classes in the Netherlands, Intendents and Super-​intendents in Germanie, Presidents in reformed Synods in France; and Masters, Provosts, and Heads of Colledges, and Halls in our Universities, who have a kind of prelacie and authoritie over the fellows and students, whereof the major part are Divines, and in holy orders.”137 The continuity between Featley’s position and that of the Continental divines is also implicitly assumed by the printed letters from foreign Reformed divines, attesting to his innocence. In short, in Featley’s mind, the theological positions held by Calvinist conformist divines were consistent with international Reformed Protestantism. And by outlining the consistency between his position and international Reformed divines, Featley intended to engender support for re-​establishing his ideal of a Reformed established church in England. Featley left room for the possibility that episcopacy could be abolished, however, claiming that “if episcopal government must be overthrown, it must be done in a lawful way, not by popular tumults but by a Bill passed in Parliament, and that to be tendered to his Majestie for his royall asent.”138 This qualification should be approached cautiously and with full appreciation of the fact that the king had no intention of abolishing episcopacy. In this way, Featley’s argument was a further critique of the faulty manner in which the Parliamentarians went about opposing a sound form of church government.



134 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sigs.H2r, H3r. 135 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.H4v. 136 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.H3v. 137 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.H1r. 138 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sig.H4r.

Ecclesiology and Polity  197

Featley’s Dippers Dipt and the Defense of True Orthodoxy Featley’s final prison work was The Dippers Dipt (1645). This work attacked English Baptists in the 1640s, branding them as heretics. It was published seven times between 1645 and 1660 and was arguably Featley’s most famous work. Much of this historiography has focused on the content of Featley’s arguments in The Dippers Dipt. And the themes of heresiography in the 1640s and attacks on English Baptists have been explored extensively in recent years.139 In this work Featley attacked his opponents using a similar arsenal of tactics that he employed against Catholics and why he chose to engage Baptists in the mid-​1640s. The Dippers Dipt was one of a number of works written against Anabaptists and other “heretics.”140 Paul Lim has explored how, in their attacks on Baptists, Featley, Robert Baillie, Ephraim Pagitt, Thomas Edwards, and Samuel Rutherford all utilized an “ecclesiological slippery slope argument” to transform their ecclesiological differences into full-​blown indictments of “antitrinitarian heresy.”141 “Anabaptisme,” Featley argued, “is an heresie long since condemned both by the Greeke and Latine Church.”142 And these writers “print not onely 139 David Loewenstein, Treacherous Faith: The Specter of Heresy in Early Modern English Literature and Culture (Oxford, 2013); Christopher Marsh, The Family of Love in English Society, 1550–​1630 (Cambridge, 1994); Lake, Boxmaker’s Revenge; Como, Blown by the Spirit; Catharine Davies, A Religion of the Word: The Defence of the Reformation in the Reign of Edward VI (Manchester, 2002); John Coffey, “A Ticklish Business: Defining Heresy and Orthodoxy in the Puritan Revolution,” in David Loewenstein and John Marshall, eds., Heresy, Literature and Politics in Early Modern English Culture (Cambridge, 2006), pp.108–​36; Lake, “Puritanism, Familism, and Heresy,” pp.82–​107; J. W. Martin, Religious Radicals in Tudor England (Hambledon, 1989). Ann Hughes has done some significant work on Thomas Edwards’s heresiography: Hughes, Gangraena and the Struggle for the English Revolution; Ann Hughes, “Thomas Edwards’s Gangraena and Heresiological Traditions,” in David Loewenstein and John Marshall, eds., Heresy, Literature, and Politics in Early Modern English Culture (Cambridge, 2006), pp.137–​59. There also has been work undertaken on English Baptists. See Matthew Bingham, Orthodox Radicals: Baptist Identity in the English Revolution (Oxford, 2019); Wright, Early English Baptists, 1603–​1649; Murray Tolmie, The Triumph of the Saints: The Separate Churches of London, 1616–​1649 (Cambridge, 1977); B. R. White, The English Baptists of the Seventeenth Century (Didcot, 1983). In addition to these works, others have briefly mentioned Featley’s Dippers Dipt. See Paul Lim, Mystery Unveiled: The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England (Oxford, 2012), pp.87–​93; Divorce Tracts of John Milton, pp.449–​50. 140 For a comparison of Featley’s work with some of these other works, see Loewenstein, Treacherous Faith, pp.97–​98. The most influential work of the 1640s was Thomas Edwards, Gangraena (London, 1644), which detailed three hundred errors of various heretical sects (Loewenstein, Treacherous Faith, p.16). Among the other works responding to “heretics” in the 1640s, see Stephen Marshall, A Sacred Panegyrick (1644); Ephraim Pagitt, Heresiography: or, A description of the heretickes and sectaries of these latter times (London, 1645); Thomas Gataker, Vindication of the Words Published By Him (London, 1653); John Bastwick, The Utter Routing of the Whole Army of Independents and Sectaries (1646); William Prynne, A fresh discovery of some prodigious new wandring-​blasing-​ stars, & firebrands (London, 1645); Robert Ballie, Anabaptism, the true fountaine of Independency, Brownisme, Antinomy, Familisme, and the most of the other errours, which for the time doe trouble the Church of England, unsealed (London, 1647); Richard Baxter, The Quakers Chatechism (London, 1651); Thomas Wall, A Comment on the Times or Character of the Enemies of the Church (London, 1657); Richard Vines, The Authours, Nature, and Danger of Haeresie (London, 1647). 141 Lim, Mystery Unveiled, pp.87–​93. 142 Featley, Dippers Dipt, sig.D1r.

198  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England Anabaptisme . . . but many other most damnable doctrines, tending to carnall liberty, Familisme, and a medley and hodg-​podge of all Religions.”143 While there was variation between heresiographers in determining when error became heresy, these issues magnified whenever they attacked separatists.144 Charges of heresy could unite divergent ministers against a common enemy.145 The work itself provides details of a 17 October 1642 debate between Featley and the prominent London minister and (so-​called) “Particular” Baptist William Kiffin at Southwark.146 This was not Featley’s first dispute with Baptists. Featley claimed that he first met Anabaptists in the 1620s when he encountered, a “venomous serpent” “neer the place of my residence” at Lambeth.147 Stephen Wright identified this as the group of Baptists led by Elias Tookey.148 On account of Featley’s previous interactions, Anabaptists considered him to be a great enemy. Samuel Fisher referred to Featley as the “fileleader in doing all the disgrace he could to dipping.”149 Kiffin too was a skilled debater, who was victorious in many disputes with pedobaptists.150 Indeed, Kiffin continued to debate others after his dispute with Featley. He challenged Thomas Edwards to debate him in a published public letter dated 15 November 1644.151 According to Kiffin’s later biographer, William Orme, Edwards never took him up on this challenge or respond in print.152 The Presbyterian merchant Joshua Ricraft dubbed Kiffin the “grand ring leader” of the Baptists, and Kiffin’s biographer claimed that his opponents nicknamed him the “Mufty of all Hereticks and Sectaries.”153 Featley always enjoyed a challenge, and it seems that Kiffin’s prominent reputation lured him to participate in this debate. Debating with Kiffin or other Baptists, however, could prove to be dangerous. For example, on 3 December 1645, a lengthy six-​hour dispute was supposed to take place between the Presbyterian minister 143 Featley, Dippers Dipt, sig.B2v. 144 Hughes, Gangraena, p.90. 145 Loewenstein, Treacherous Faith, p.16. 146 Featley, Dippers Dipt, sig.D1r. William Orme claimed that there was another figure with Featley, “a Scotchman.” William Orme, Remarkable passages in the life of William Kiffin (London, 1823), p.102. On William Kiffin, see Michael Haykin, Kiffin, Knollys, and Keach: Rediscovering Our English Baptist Heritage (Leeds, 1996); T. Crosby, The history of the English Baptists, from the Reformation to the beginning of the reign of King George I (London, 1640), III:3–​5, 311; Orme, Remarkable passages; B. A. Ramsbottom, Stranger Than Fiction: The Life of William Kiffin (Harpenden, 1989), pp.27–​33; Ole Peter Grell, Calvinist Exiles in Tudor and Stuart England (Aldershot, 1996), pp.90–​97. 147 Featley, Dippers Dipt, sig.B4v. 148 The group also had a previous connection to the earliest English Baptist leader, John Murton (Wright, Early English Baptists, pp.61, 72). 149 Samuel Fisher, Christianismus Redivivus (London, 1655).sig.Zz4r. 150 For Kiffin’s responses to other pedobaptists in debate, see William Kiffin, A briefe Remonstrance of the Reasons of those people called Anabaptists for their Separation (London, 1645). 151 William Kiffin, To Mr. Thomas Edwards (London, 1644). 152 Orme, Remarkable passages, p.104. Also see Edwards, Gangraena, I:6, II:44. 153 Michael Haykin, “William Kiffin (1616–​1701),” ODNB; Joshua Ricraft, A looking glasse for the Anabaptists and the rest of the separatists (London, 1645), title page; Anon., The Life and Approaching Death of William Kiffin (London, 1659 [i.e.,1660]), title page.

Ecclesiology and Polity  199 Edmund Calamy and Baptists William Kiffin, Benjamin Cox, and Hanserd Knollys at the home of a local merchant. The debate was apparently canceled by Thomas Adams, the Lord Mayor, on account of reports that the Baptists had planned “to manage that Dispute with our Swords, Clubs, and Staves.” Adams purportedly said “that if Mr. Calamy escaped with his life, it would be well.”154 Ironically, these kinds of episodes only catalyzed suspicions and fears about the bloody, radical nature of the Baptists. In comparison with accounts of Featley’s disputes with other opponents, there are fewer details of his debate with Kiffin. Featley’s work was aimed at the wider Baptist movement, including ministers like Andrew Ritor, whom Featley refuted in an entire section of his work.155 Speaking of Ritor, Featley claimed that he disdained those “who by their foul-​murthering doctrine and practise endeavour to deprive the heires apparent, not of an earthly but of a celestiall crown, and all the children of the faithfull throughout the whole Christian world of the ordinarie means of eternall life.”156 He said that Ritor’s argument that infant baptism “over-​throws the verie nature of the covenant of grace” since “that which is built upon the covenant of grace, to wit, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed,” “is nothing else but the settling to the seal of the covenant of grace upon the pre-​supposition of faith present or future in the person of him that is baptized.”157 Indeed, although, as we will see, Featley appealed to history and tradition in his arguments against Baptists, his defense of pedobaptism was substantially theological and grounded in a robust covenant theology that was consistent with other Reformed pedobaptists. Furthermore, while the contents are directed at Kiffin, Ritor, and others, the work itself was probably prompted by battles with his “fellow prisoner” at Aldersgate, the General Baptist minister Henry Denne.158 In his Antichrist Unmasked, a work against Featley and Stephen Marshall, Denne related that he and Featley debated only once “face to face,” though Featley had promised to give his full response in print.159 This gives us a rare window into Featley’s time in prison. Indeed, the only other comment we have is from John Featley,

154 B. Coxe, H. Knollys, and W. Kiffin, A declaration concerning the publike dispute (London, 1645), sigs.A2r–​A4r. 155 Featley, Dippers Dipt, sigs.M2r–​O1v; Andrew Ritor, A Treatise of the Vanity of Childish-​ baptisme (London, 1642); Andrew Ritor, The Second Part of the Vanity & Childishnes of Infants Baptisme (London, 1642). For two other replies to Ritor’s work, see Samuel Chidley, Christian Plea for Christians Baptisme: Raised from the grave of Apostasie (London, 1643); William Cooke, A Learned and Full Answer to A Treatise Intituled; the Vanity of Childish Baptisme (London, 1644). 156 Featley, Dippers Dipt, sig.M2v. 157 Ritor, The Second Part of the Vanity & Childishnes of Infants Baptisme, sig.D4v; Featley, Dippers Dipt, sig.N1v; Wright, Early English Baptists, p.61. The Scripture reference is Genesis 17:7. 158 Henry Denne, Antichrist unmasked in two treatises (London, 1645), sig.B2r. Also see Wright, Early English Baptists, p.146. 159 Denne, Antichrist unmasked, sig.A2r.

200  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England who tells us that in prison Featley apparently preached every Sunday “to his fellow-​sufferers,” until he was prevented by Isaac Pennington.160 For example, we learn that at the beginning of his imprisonment, Featley was not allowed to have access to his books, complaining that “all Books, and helps of mine owne Notes and Collections [had been] . . . lately taken from me”—​though he was eventually allowed to have three books at a time to write Roma Ruens (1644) for Parliament.161 As John Featley related, in prison a Catholic ignited an age-​old question about the visibility of the Protestant church. Since Parliament “could not answer it themselves, nor perswade the Reverend Synod,” they asked Featley. Being in prison and without his books, John described his uncle as like “a poor Israelite under the Egyptian yoke” required to “make the brick” without “straw.” When “he complained that he wanted his Books: and without them he could not” provide a suitable answer to reply to the Catholics, his request was granted, “provided that he should never have more than three of them at one time.”162 Though Featley argued that he and his Anabaptist enemies were opposites, they did have one thing in common: both saw themselves as opposed to Parliament and the Westminster Assembly. For example, Andrew Ritor expected that “a Nationall Synod” of supposedly “learned godly Divines”—​like the recently convened Westminster Assembly—​would only end with the persecution of Baptists. He explained, “I cannot suspect that the best of them in this case, especially discerning the malignant Spirits of some already this way breaking out like little sparks from a great flame, against such as concurre not in judgment with them, as is evident by their revilings both in Pulpits and private.”163 In the polarized climate of the 1640s, even the worst of enemies could unite against a common foe. Featley’s work exerted influence in shaping arguments against Baptists in the 1640s and after. There are at least two manuscripts with notes taken on Featley’s work, one of which was forty-​six folios in length.164 Moreover, as with several other of his books, Featley’s work had international reach and boosted his reputation among Continental Reformed Protestants. In a letter to Samuel Hartlib, John Dury recommended Featley’s work alongside a number of notable Presbyterian writers.165 Featley’s work was considered to be a blueprint for how to combat the Baptist heretics and provided inspiration for some later titles.166 160 Featley, Succinct History, sig.K4r–​v. 161 Featley, Dippers Dipt, sig.C1r. For Featley’s complaint, see Denne, Antichrist Unmasked, sig.F1r. 162 Featley, Succinct History, sig.K5r–​v. On reading in prison, see Andrew Cambers, Godly Reading, pp.212–​42. Also see T. P. Connor, “Malignant Reading: John Squire’s Newgate Prison Library, 1643–​ 46,” The Library, 7th Series 7 (2006), pp.154–​74. 163 Ritor, Vanity of Childish-​ baptisme, sig.D1v. Also see Adrian Chastain Weimer, Martyrs’ Mirror: Persecution and Holiness in Early New England (Oxford, 2011), p.79. 164 See LPL, MS 2017, fols.10r–​46v and WSRO, Mitford MS 1222, flyleaves. 165 SUL, Hartlib MS 4/​3, fol.89r. 166 For example, Samuel Young, The duckers duck’d, and duck’d, and duck’d again, head, and ears, and all over (London, 1700).

Ecclesiology and Polity  201 Featley’s arguments resulted in Baptists making revisions to the 1644 London Baptist Confession of Faith. The confession contained fifty-​three doctrinal points and was signed by the ministers who responded to Featley in print—​ William Kiffin, John Spilsbury, Samuel Richardson, and twelve others from seven churches in London.167 Kiffin, in particular, played a significant role in the drafting of the confession.168 Speaking of the confession, Featley claimed that of these fifty-​three points, no more than six would “passe with a faire construction: and in those six none of the foulest and most odious positions wherewith that Sect is aspersed are expressed.”169 Stephen Wright has explored how Baptists made significant efforts to respond to Featley’s critiques in their revisions to the second confession of 1646.170 Like other heresiographers, he portrayed himself as being, in John Coffey’s words, a “skilled practitioner of an exact science.”171 For example, the famous frontispiece of Featley’s Dippers Dipt has fourteen different vignettes depicting various Anabaptist sects.172 Featley wanted to give the impression that his appraisal was merely attesting to an objective theological reality; there really were over a dozen brands of sectarian Anabaptists, each of which needed to be carefully critiqued. This approach was not unique to Featley. Thomas Edwards likewise listed sixteen different sects and cataloged over three hundred errors.173 Most importantly, Featley once again returned to his time-​tested polemical strategy—​using history and tradition to prove that his adversaries were not members of the true church. This feature of Featley’s work has been overlooked by the vast majority of historians who have studied The Dippers Dipt.174 Of course, the use of tradition was not unique to Featley or even pedobaptists, for Featley’s opponent William Kiffin likewise grounded his doctrinal positions in Scripture and history.175 However, as in his debates with Catholics and anti-​Calvinists, Featley was exceptional in his reliance on history to prove that Anabaptists were heretics. Drawing on “the Scriptures and the joynt consent of all the Protestant Churches in the world,” Featley argued that the true church is marked by “the 167 The confession of faith of those churches which are commonly (though falsely) called Anabaptists (London, 1644), sig.A2v. 168 Orme, Remarkable passages, p.101. 169 Featley, Dippers Dipt, sig.Ee4v. Featley signals out and responds to articles 31, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45. See Featley, Dippers Dipt, sigs.Ff1r–​Ff4r. 170 Wright, Early English Baptists, pp.146, 148–​49. Also see Tolmie, Triumph of the Saints, p.63. 171 Coffey, “Ticklish Business,” p.110. 172 Also see Featley, Dippers Dipt, sig.F4v; Loe, Sermon, sig.E4v. 173 Loewenstein, Treacherous Faith, p.16. John Coffey claimed it was only 180 errors. Coffey, “Ticklish Business,” pp.110–​11. 174 Exceptions include Lim, Mystery Unveiled, p.91; John Coffey, “‘The Last and Greatest Triumph of the European Radical Reformation’? Anabaptism, Spiritualism, and Anti-​Trinitarianism in the English Revolution,” in Bridget Heal and Anorthe Kremers, eds., Radicalism and Dissent in the World of Protestant Reform (Göttingen, 2017), p.213. 175 William Kiffin, A sober discourse of right to church-​communion (London, 1681), sig.A2r–​v.

202  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England sincere preaching of the Word, and the due administration of the Sacraments.”176 Just as Featley argued that Richard Montague and other English “Arminians” were linked to Dutch Arminianism, so he claimed that English Anabaptists were descendants of radical Anabaptists in Germany. He issued two “histories” of Anabaptist events in Germany to demonstrate that the English Baptists—​like their Continental counterparts—​were not a genuine band of true Christians but rather a notoriously foreign, seditious, blasphemous, and violent sect of unconverted people.177 Similarly, just as Catholics were heretics because of their wrong doctrinal positions regarding transubstantiation and withholding the cup from the laity, so Anabaptists had committed heresy in diverging from the traditional sacramental practices by refusing to baptize infants. His refutation of English Baptists likewise contained a litany of references to patristic sources and Continental divines. These were all used to prove that by “decrying down paedo baptisme, and with-​holding Christs lambs from being bathed in the sacred Font,” Baptists had committed a “foul error, or rather heresie” that was “condemned for such both by the primitive and the reformed churches.”178 Like other heresiographers, Featley used “Anabaptists” as a term of abuse that was designed to recall the events of the Radical Reformation in the Low Countries and to engender hostile attitudes toward nonpedobaptists in England. The lack of continuity between English Baptists and Anabaptists in the Low Counties, and the fact that English Baptists repudiated this label, should caution against accepting it at face value.179 As with other polemical battles, there was pastoral motivation driving the publication of his work. He claimed that he “endeavour[ed] to free others from spirituall thraldome” “till God shall send deliverance.”180 While his opponents changed, his strategy and motivation remained the same; using Scripture, tradition, and historical narrative, he drew out congruencies between his rivals and previous heterodox movements to free others from the tyranny of his heretical adversaries. Featley’s claims did not go unchallenged. The Dippers Dipt ignited a firestorm of replies from his Baptist opponents, at least four in print. The diversity of Featley’s opponents is notable—​Kiffin and Richardson were “Particular” Baptists; Fisher was a Quaker when he published Christianismus Redivivus 176 Featley, Dippers Dipt, sig.D2v. 177 Daniel Featley, A Warning for England Especially For London in the Famous History of the Frantick Anabaptists Their wild Preachings and Practises in Germany (London, 1642); Featley, Dippers Dipt, sigs.Cc2r–​Ee4r. Also see Featley, Dippers Dipt, sig.G2r–​v. 178 Featley, Dippers Dipt, sig.M3v. For Baptist replies to Featley’s claim, see Fisher, Christianismus Redivivus, sig.Cccc2v. Also see Fisher, Christianismus Redivivus, sig.Dddd4v. 179 Wright, Early English Baptists, pp.5–​6; J. W. Martin, Religious Radicals in Tudor England (Hambledon, 1989), pp.19–​ 20; “Anabaptists,” ODCH, p.55. Also see Werner Packull, “An Introduction to Anabaptist Theology,” in David Bagchi and David Steinmetz, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology (Cambridge, 2004), pp.194–​219. 180 Featley, Dippers Dipt, sig.D4v.

Ecclesiology and Polity  203 (though he had previously been a General Baptist); and Denne was a General Baptist.181 Although Stephen Wright has contested the simplicity of these labels, the diversity indicates that Featley used “Anabaptist” as a catchall term to portray all Baptists as politically insubordinate.182 The most significant of these replies was Fisher’s Christianismus Redivivus, which rebuked Stephen Marshall, Richard Baxter, and Featley. Fisher engaged extensively with Featley’s work and particularly critiqued Featley’s use of patristic sources.183 Most importantly, though, in demonstrating that one’s theological perspective of what constitutes a true church must be grounded on Scripture rather than tradition, he used Featley’s own arguments from previous debates with Catholics against him. He recalled how in his debate against “[John] Fisher, and [John] Sweet, Dr. Featley chose rather to prove a continual succession of Protestants by the truth of their doctrine, then the truth of the Protestant Churches and doctrine by a perpetuity of succession.” Indeed, he quoted Featley’s words to prove that Featley was “well aware that Protestant Churches cannot prove themselves true by succession.” Featley argued, however, that just because Protestants “could not prove that the English Church was before Luther” did not mean that their “doctrine” was “untrue.” For “shall the doctrine of Rome be ever the truer because of Antiquitie only? No certainly, And why not? because the Church must be proved and allowed by the doctrine, and not the Doctrine authorized by the Church.”184 In other words, since Featley had argued previously that Protestants were a true church on the basis of doctrine rather than tradition, he should likewise concede that Anabaptists needed to prove only that their doctrines had a scriptural basis. The genius of Fisher’s restatement of Featley’s arguments was that he fought “against Featleys followers in the point of infant baptism with Featleys own Fauchin [sword].”185 Likewise, Henry Denne challenged Featley’s confidence in tradition. For although Featley publicly cited patristic sources to prove that 181 Fisher, Christianismus Redivivus. This work was reissued as Samuel Fisher, Baptism before, or after faith & repentance, largely discussed (London, 1669). The only copy of the latter work that I was able to find was in the British Library (class mark, 4325.f.6.). For the other three replies by Samuel Richardson, Henry Denne, and John Tombes, see Samuel Richardson, Some Brief Considerations on Doctor Featley His Book, Intituled, the Dipper Dipt (London, 1645); Denne, Antichrist unmasked; John Tombes, Anti-​paedobaptism . . . the second part (London, 1654), sigs.Dd2v–​Ee2r; John Tombes, Anti-​Paedobaptism . . . the third part (London, 1657), sigs.G2v–​G3v. 182 Wright, Early English Baptists, 11. 183 Fisher, Christianismus Redivivus, sigs.F3r–​v, H2r, I3r, P4v–​Q1r, Q2v, Y1v–​Y2r, Y4r–​Z1r, Z2v, Z4r–​v, Aa4v–​Bb1r, Dd2r, Ee4v, Gg1r–​v, Gg4r, Hh4r–​v, Ii4r–​v, Ll2r–​v, Ss1r, Ss3r, Tt3v, Vv2r–​v, Zx2v, Zz1r, Zz3v, Aaa1r–​v, Ccc3r–​v, Ddd3r, Fff1r, Fff3v, Fff4v, Ggg2v–​Ggg3v, Ggg4v, Iii3r, Mmm2r, Xxx2v, Cccc1r, Cccc4r–​v, Dddd3v, Eeee1v, Eeee2v, Eeee3v, Ffff2v, Gggg2v–​Gggg3r, Hhhh1v, and Lll2r. 184 Fisher, Christianismus Redivivus, sig.Ii2r. Also see Daniel Featley, Featlaei Palggenesia (London, 1660), sig.C3r–​v. 185 Fisher, Christianismus Redivivus, sig.Ii2r. On Fisher’s exceptional mental abilities, Nicholas McDowell, The English Radical Imagination: Culture, Religion, and Revolution, 1630–​1660 (Oxford, 2003), p.153.

204  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England “all Apostolicall traditions . . . ought to be had in reverent esteeme, and retained in the Church,” Denne claimed that Featley had privately “confessed unto me, that he knew that this was the Authors opinion.”186 In short, both Denne and Fisher understood that Featley’s emphasis on tradition was as much a polemical strategy designed to thwart Baptists’ arguments as it was one of Featley’s most dearly held convictions. Featley not only recycled some of the same polemical tactics but appears to have emphasized the role of tradition more in his later years. In his debates with Anabaptists and at the Westminster Assembly, Featley accentuated the importance of tradition when defending the established church against sectaries. Featley’s shift was the result of a genuinely greater appreciation of church tradition and an attempt to tailor his arguments to suit his opponents. Throughout the 1630s he attacked Laudians for their overvaluing tradition and puritans for their undervaluing the received ceremonies. Both Anabaptists and Presbyterians were more “word-​centered” than his tradition-​focused adversaries. Although we are accustomed to regarding debates over the legitimacy of tradition as occurring between Protestants and Catholics, these examples have shown that it was a contested issue between different Protestant camps. Featley probably issued his work in one final attempt to align himself with other Presbyterians, who were strongly attacking Anabaptists. Just as moderate puritans established their credentials with established-​church divines by attacking Catholics, so Featley as a Calvinist conformist demonstrated his commonality with Presbyterians by attacking Anabaptists. The 1640s was a time when anxiety about heresy was producing fragmentation within Protestantism and reflects the profound pressure placed on puritans. Featley attempted to align himself with the anticipated winning side, which is why he dedicated The Dippers Dipt to Parliament and wrote anti-​Catholic treatises for Parliament, even while being imprisoned by Parliament!187 In this environment, to demonstrate his allegiance it was important that Featley’s attacks on heretics be especially forceful. He argued that Anabaptists “ought to be more carefully looked unto, severely punished, if not utterly exterminated and banished out of the Church and Kingdome.”188 Featley was somewhat successful in his endeavor to ally himself with Presbyterians, for John Dury and all his adversaries yoked him alongside other puritan divines. Aligning himself with Presbyterians against Baptists, however, did not keep Featley from issuing covert attacks against Parliament. Featley’s Baptist opponent Samuel Richardson picked up on Featley’s tactic, claiming that “Featley, under



186 Featley, Dippers Dipt, sig.K1v; Denne, Antichrist unmasked, sig.H1r–​v. 187

See pp.100–​101, 236; Featley, Dippers Dipt, sig.B1r.

188 Featley, Dippers Dipt, sig.B1v.

Ecclesiology and Polity  205 the colour of aiming at Anabaptists, strikes the Parliament, and secretly wounds them with his malignant pen, in his Epistle to his friend [John Downham], hee complains of his corporall thraldome, and his pressures are unsufferable, his books and both his pulpits taken from him.”189 One of the ways Featley attacked Parliamentarians through his anti-​ Baptist polemics was by addressing the Anabaptists’ refusal to submit to the king. He said, In regard of the peculiar malignity this heresie hath to Magistracie; other heresies are stricken by Authority, this strikes at Authority it selfe, undermineth the powers that are ordained of God, and endeavoureth to wrest the sword out of the Magistrates hand, to whom God hath given it for the cutting off of all heresie, and impiety; and if this Sect prevaile, we shall have no Monarchie in the State, nor Hierarchie in the Church, but an Anarchie in both.190

In framing his arguments against Anabaptists, he was also able to assail Parliamentarians, who likewise had positioned themselves against the monarchy. It is unclear why Featley was so ambiguous in his position, but it is possible that in avoiding an outright attack on all Presbyterians he hoped that he would be able to preserve cordial relationships with those Presbyterians who were among his closest friends.

Conclusion On 14 April 1645, three days before his death, Daniel Featley drew up “a model of an intended will to be confirmed and executed, if ever peace returned upon Israel”—​a reference that reflected his perceptions of the state of England following the events of the early 1640s.191 Featley’s will indicated that his friends and especially his family were still dear to him, and Arnold Hunt believes Featley’s friends potentially hid his various assets.192 He also gave several personal items to family and close friends. To his niece Anne Darley, who “lived with [him] five yeares,” he gave “all my wifes apparrell and also the best parte of all my linen, together also with the richest of the cushions hangings and furniture escaped the plunderous hands.”193 He gave to John Featley and Gregory Braxton “all the copies begun or finished against Poperie, Arminianisme or Anabaptisticall 189 Samuel Richardson, Some Brief Considerations on Doctor Featley His Book, Intituled, the Dipper Dipt (London, 1645), sig.A2r. 190 Featley, Dippers Dipt, sig.B3r. 191 TNA, PROB 11/​193, fol.266v. Also see Featley, Succinct History, sigs.K11v–​K12r. For another MS detailing Featley’s life, see CUL, Add. MS 97, fol.281r. 192 Hunt, “Daniel Featley,” ODNB. 193 TNA, PROB 11/​193, fol.267r.

206  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England Heresies,” in which his “principall end and scope of writing of them was the glorifieinge of God and the cleareinge of his most holy truth.”194 Featley’s mention of these works confirms a central theme of this work—​namely, that Featley stored away previously written (but unreleased) polemical works and waited to publish them at opportune political or ecclesiastical moments. In his final months, Featley “fell into a Dropsie” and asked if he could be transferred to Chelsea College, “where the air was fresh and wholesom.”195 In March 1645, Parliament granted him a six-​week leave to Chelsea, but the better conditions did not revive him.196 The day before his death, his longtime friend and funeral orator William Loe visited him.197 John Featley claimed that before Loe, Featley gave a public confession of his allegiance to the Protestant faith and episcopacy and his opposition to the Solemn League and Covenant to prevent papists or Parliamentarians from claiming that he abandoned his convictions.198 Then, on the following day, 17 April 1645, Featley died surrounded by family members.199 He was buried on 21 April 1645 in the Lambeth church chancel in London.200 An engraving in William Loe’s funeral sermon contains several descriptions below Featley’s tomb that encapsulate his illustrious career: “Opponent of the Pope,” “Defender of the Reformation,” “Instigator of Continual Piety,” “Eminent Theologian,” “Vigorous debater,” “Excellent Preacher.”201 Featley’s significance in England was such that a broadside monument and epitaph was printed in his honor.202 It is fitting that Featley died at Chelsea College, for the college, like Featley, was representative of a brand of anti-​Catholicism that had once reigned supreme but was eventually deemed to be out of step with the trajectory of religious reform in England. This chapter has highlighted how Featley defended several theological positions, which were representative of Calvinist conformist ideas, including royal supremacy, episcopacy, antisectarianism, and pedobaptism. It has also demonstrated how he used his lifelong polemical strategy of employing patristic tradition in support of his theological arguments and that the value that ministers placed on tradition continued to be an issue in the 1640s. Featley’s portrayal of himself as a reluctant attendee who selflessly participated in the Westminster Assembly for the good of church unity—​while glossing over that it was actually his strategy to avoid persecution—​is a fascinating melding of 194 TNA, PROB 11/​193, fol.267r; Hunt, “Daniel Featley,” ODNB. 195 Featley, Succinct History, sig.K10r. 196 Featley, Succinct History, sigs.K10v–​K11v; Loe, Sermon, sig.F1r. 197 Loe, Sermon, sig.F1r–​v. 198 Featley, Succinct History, sigs.K12r–​L1r. 199 See Featley, Succinct History, sigs.L1v–​2v. 200 Falkner, Account, p.35. 201 Unknown artist, “line engraving of Daniel Featley,” 1645 (NPG, D26794). Printed in Loe, Sermon, frontispiece. 202 See William Marshall, “line engraving of Daniel Featley,” c.1645 (NPG, D5641).

Ecclesiology and Polity  207 two common uses of “moderation” in early modern historiography. First, Featley portrayed himself as virtuously occupying the middle ground for the greater good of reforming the established church, much like the “moderate puritans” in the Elizabethan period.203 Second, Featley glossed over the fact that—​like Ethan Shagan’s “moderate” figures—​his reluctant attendance at the assembly (and public renunciation of that decision) was an attempt to moderate and manipulate two polarized groups, decidedly convictional Parliamentarians and royalists, in order to reoccupy the middle ground, even while it was eroding away.204 And this instinct that appears to have been a career-​long survival strategy. Featley claimed that his imprisonment was ultimately due to his reluctance to submit to an ordinance that was contrary to his conscience. Featley’s League Illegal contains a letter to his “Noble and much Honored Friend, E.G.,” dated 12 February 1643, in which he responded to a request for advice on how to reconcile the dilemma between upholding one’s conscientious convictions and avoiding persecution. Featley’s friend inquired about how “we are to cut a way through a narrow passage between two dangerous Rocks, wherein if we steer not warily and evenly, it cannot be avoided but we shall make shipwrack on the one side, or on the other; on the one side of Loyalty, and a good Conscience; or on the other of Liberty, and our Estate.”205 In response, Featley warned of the dangers of following one’s conscience, saying, “If you make me your Casuist, your case will be soon like mine; and by gaining the truth you will be a loser. But I check my self in these thoughts with the words of our Saviour, What will it advantage a man to win the whole world, and lose his own soul?”206 This is surprising counsel from someone who, by all accounts, appears to have survived two decades of turbulent ecclesiastical circumstances by engaging in a series of tactical accommodations and forced compromises in order to pursue the re-​establishing of an English Reformed church. Moreover, the very puritans who, when faced with ecclesiastical subscription throughout the post-​Reformation English Church, appealed to liberty of conscience, were the same ones who imprisoned a fellow member of the Reformed consensus on account of his refusal to subscribe to the Solemn League and Covenant because of his conscience. Although we are accustomed to thinking of subscription as something imposed on puritans by established-​ church and political leaders, this example reveals that puritans imposed subscription on established-​church divines, even those who were closest to their convictions.

203 Lake, Moderate Puritans. 204 Also see Fincham and Lake, “Prelacy and Puritanism,” p.876; Cosens-​ Hardy, “Puritan Moderate,” p.318. 205 Featley, League Illegal, sig.B1r. 206 Featley, League Illegal, sig.B2v.

208  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England Hidden behind the obvious issue of whether Featley was a loyal member of the Westminster Assembly or a royalist spy is a more interesting story. This is the narrative of how one minister desperately sought to evade the polarizing rift formed at the beginning of the Civil War by engaging in a coordinated series of political maneuvers in a self-​protective attempt to survive these tumultuous circumstances. Although it is impossible to prove definitively that Featley pursued the path of least resistance, the evidence indicates that this was his career-​ long survival strategy. In this light it is possible to conceive of “moderation” not as merely manipulative and sinister, as Shagan argues, but rather as a characteristic ministers adopted that acted like a rudder allowing them to navigate the shifting ecclesiastical terrain. In this instance, however, Featley misjudged that acceptance of the assembly summons would require his ongoing allegiance and that his punishment would be no less severe if he later showed signs of resistance. Effectively, his personal security was contingent on his ongoing loyalty to Parliament and the further reformation of worship and polity. Perhaps Featley’s strategy broke down because the political requirements of the English war forced apart Featley’s rival allegiances. As the conflict escalated, the rift increasingly widened between the two parties that Featley had attempted to unite; these forces were stronger than Featley’s attempts to pull them together. Although Featley may have enjoyed the favor of both puritans and established-​church divines, neither of them ultimately came to his defense following his imprisonment in 1643. As Thomas Gataker said when reflecting on these conflicts, “Those that dwel in the middle, between two adverse parties, ar wont to be beaten on both sides.”207 In short, Featley’s fortune was a warning sign of the time—​it was no longer possible to “serve two masters.”208



207 Gataker, A Discours Apolgetical, sig.E1v. 208

On this same phrase and theme, see Ford, James Ussher, pp.257–​71.

7

The “Afterlife” of an English Calvinist Conformist In 1660, John Featley recounted that when his uncle Daniel Featley was on his deathbed, he prayed that God would reinstate the monarchy, “strike through the reins of them that rise against the Church, and King; and let them be as chaff before the wind, and stubble before the fire.”1 Immediately following this prayer, he “fell asleep” and “seemed to be departed.” Hearing this news, Featley’s nephew, Henry (John’s brother), began to grieve, which caused Featley to stir one final time, and, “seeing the tears of his mourning Kinsman, and hearing his passionate request to speak unto him; he said, Ah Cosin . . . the poor Church of God is torn in pieces,” and died.2 Featley’s dying words, as related by his nephew, encapsulate the message that post-​Restoration biographers sought to communicate to their readers about their subjects: even until Featley’s dying breath, he, like his nephew, was a staunch royalist and ardent defender of the established church. In recent decades historians have explored whether and to what degree subjects’ confessional identities were constructed by their later biographers to substantiate the biographer’s particular contemporary agenda. Historians have affirmed that post-​Restoration biographers engaged in active construction of their subjects for their own polemical ends while still acknowledging that these biographers had a genuine interest in history for its own sake.3 For instance, Patrick Collinson and Peter Lake have provided a series of perspectives on the question of whether historians could 1 Featley, Succinct History, sig.L1v. 2 Featley, Succinct History, sig.L2v. 3 Quantin, Church of England; Lake, Anglicans and Puritans, pp.228–​29; Milton, Laudian and Royalist Polemic, pp.197–​213; Neil Keeble, “‘To be a Pilgrim’: Constructing the Protestant Life in Early Modern England,” in Colin Morris and Peter Roberts, eds., Pilgrimage: The English Experience from Becket to Bunyan (Cambridge, 2002), pp.238–​56; John Spurr, “‘A Special Kindness for Dead Bishops’: The Church, History, and Testimony in Seventeenth-​Century Protestantism,” in Paulina Kewes, ed., The Uses of History in Early Modern England (San Marino, 2006), pp.313–​34; Blair Worden, Roundhead Reputations: The English Civil Wars and the Passions of Posterity (London, 2002); Backus, Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation; Irena Backus, Life Writing in Reformation Europe: Lives of Reformers by Friends, Disciples and Foes (Surrey, 2008); Jessica Martin, Walton’s Lives: Conformist Commemorations and the Rise of Biography (Oxford, 2011). Also see David Novarr, The Making of Walton’s Lives (Ithaca, 1958); John Spurr, The Restoration Church of England, 1646–​89 (Oxford, 1991); Ian Green, The Re-​establishment of the Church of England. 1660–​ 1663 (Oxford, 1977); Rose, Godly Kingship in Restoration England. Calvinist Conformity in Post-​Reformation England. Greg A. Salazar, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2022. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197536902.003.0008

210  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England accept the claims made by Samuel Clarke in his Lives at face value.4 Collinson admitted that Clarke’s Lives “served an obvious polemical purpose” in its post-​ Restoration setting and that ultimately “what we see, is what [these] writers permit us to see, and perhaps more than was originally there.”5 Yet Collinson has also contended that Clarke’s relations possess historical accuracy. Regarding Clarke’s subjects, he writes, “There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of these convictions [i.e., the convictions of Clarke’s subjects, as related by him] in their original Jacobean context.”6 Lake has argued that Clarke’s Lives and biographies in general should be approached “with caution and reading them together in context is a necessary corrective against taking many of their claims and tendencies, their recurrent structures and assumptions, at face value.”7 Encapsulated here is a tension over the degree to which historians can peer behind the veil of these accounts to see the “real figure” and whether a subject’s contemporaries’ portrayal of various confessional identities can also be coupled with a genuine interest in and commitment to writing authentic history. By analyzing the reception of Featley through the lens of his post-​1660 biographers, this chapter seeks to contribute to this debate and to inject further complexity into our understanding of Featley. It will examine how these authors, particularly John Featley, depicted him retrospectively in their biographical accounts. Previous studies of John Featley’s biography have essentially taken his claims at face value. Probing the various motivations entangled in John’s account of his uncle’s life reveals that John engaged in a kind of “necro-​ventriloquism”—​using the supposed “bare facts” of Featley’s life to speak to the political and ecclesiastical concerns of the 1660s.8 In this way, exploring the methodological dilemma of how to evaluate and utilize contrasting narratives sheds light on how competing parallel narratives served to bolster each opposing camp during the English Civil War. Most importantly, examining how one of these “afterlives” “died” by 1660 while the other lived on through Featley’s post-​Restoration biographers explains how later biographers were able to shape the ecclesiastical landscape of the post-​Restoration church by selectively utilizing these royalist narratives of interregnum events. In these ways, post-​Restoration biographical 4 On Samuel Clarke’s Lives, see Peter Lake, “Reading Clarke’s Lives in Political and Polemic Context,” in Kevin Sharpe and Steven Zwicker, eds., Writing Lives: Biography and Textuality, Identity and Representation in Early Modern England (Oxford, 2012), pp.293–​318; Jacqueline Eales, “Samuel Clarke and the ‘Lives’ of Godly Women in Seventeenth-​Century England,” in W. Sheils and D. Wood, eds., Women in the Church (Oxford, 1990), pp.365–​76; Collinson, “The English Conventicle,” p.165; Patrick Collinson, “‘A Magazine of Religious Patterns’: An Erasmian Topic Transposed in English Protestantism,” in Patrick Collinson, Godly People: Essays on English Protestantism and Puritanism (London, 1983), pp.499–​525. 5 Collinson, “A Magazine of Religious Patterns,” p.502. 6 Collinson, “The English Conventicle,” p.165. 7 Lake, “Reading Clarke’s Lives,” p.318. 8 The term “necro-​ventriloquism’ is used in Ford, “Making Dead Men Speak,” p.49.

THE “Afterlife” of an English Calvinist Conformist  211 accounts tell us as much—​if not more—​about the theological positions and concerns of the biographers and post-​Restoration religious politics as about their biographical subjects. This chapter will also analyze the various other “afterlives” that lived on through the publication of Featley’s posthumous works. The deliberate selectivity of these accounts has contributed to the distorted image of Featley that has lived on throughout the centuries. Moreover, while Stephen Hampton has shown the persistence of Calvinist conformity after 1660, knowledge of these divines went into steep decline in the eighteenth century. This chapter will conclude by using this analysis of Featley’s afterlives to hypothesize briefly why these important theologians (with the exception of Ussher) have been largely forgotten.

Posthumous Accounts of Featley’s Life Before turning to the construction of Featley’s confessional identity through biographical writing about him in the 1660s, it is important to explore earlier representations of him in the 1640s. This is most clearly seen by examining the competing Parliamentarian and royalist accounts of an attempt on Featley’s life in the wake of Civil War conflict. The competing portrayals of the events at Lambeth in the 1640s foreshadowed the battles over confessional identity which took place in the post-​Restoration period. Aside from Keith Lindley, historians who have referred to this incident have utilized John Featley’s post-​Restoration account, published seventeen years after the event.9 Although the following analysis is indebted to Lindley’s clear historical narrative of events, his account is problematic because he does not contrast the competing accounts or compare them with later printed versions to trace how these narratives changed as they were retold in subsequent years. According to eyewitness Lambeth parishioners, on 19 February 1643, a group of soldiers “came into the Church in an unreverent manner,” smoking “tobacco at the communion table” and “depraving the booke of Common prayer.”10 A conflict quickly ensued wherein the soldiers killed two laymen and aimed a large cannon at a crowd of parishioners. The signal to fire was never given, however, and eventually the conflict ended.11 Following the incident the parishioners submitted a petition to Parliament that was signed by Featley and twenty other members of Lambeth, in which they described how the forms of traditional

9 Lindley, Popular Politics and Religion, pp.261–​63. 10 HLRO, main papers, 1/​144, fols.188, 189r; Humble petition. 11 HLRO, main papers, 1/​144, fols.191r, 188r; LJ, V:614–​16; Humble petition. On those making the petition, see TNA, E 179/​187/​465.

212  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England worship were derided and vandalized by radical and malicious bullies who killed innocent established-​church members at a time of traditional worship.12 Parliamentarians told different renditions of the events. According to them, the soldiers had come to worship at Lambeth church and the parishioners instigated the conflict and willfully attacked the soldiers; eventually, a bloodthirsty mob even drove the soldiers back to Lambeth House prison.13 In self-​defense, the soldiers killed one parishioner and brought out the cannon.14 Their account portrays the soldiers as acting in self-​defense against a ruthless mob of parishioners who would stop at nothing to kill Parliamentarians. The Lambeth parishioners were anything but innocent victims and were a military force that subdued an armed group of soldiers. These competing versions of the event were passed down through Parliamentary and royalist newspapers. For example, two Parliamentary journals repeated the soldiers’ accounts, relating an almost identical story of a passive group of soldiers who were chased by an angry mob of parishioners, and commented that the soldiers were assaulted and feared for their lives.15 Then, unsurprisingly, the parishioners’ side of the story was related by the royalist newspaper Mercurius Rusticus.16 This newspaper released twenty-​one issues between 20 May 1643 and 16 March 1644 that vividly described how royalists had been murdered and plundered by Parliamentarians. It was edited by the royalist journalist and eventual dean of Windsor Bruno Ryves. Since Ryves was appointed as rector of Featley’s old church in Acton during the Restoration period, he had a particular interest in this incident.17 Given that publications such as The Perfect Diurnall were a barometer for “parliamentary consensus” and that the royalist depiction of Featley “as a royalist martyr” was typical of other accounts, we should not be surprised by this representation.18 Sifting through the two accounts at Lambeth, it seems that while the soldiers may have been armed and may have taken “innocent” lives, the parishioners were not passive but collectively were fierce opponents against the soldiers.

12 HLRO, main papers, 1/​144, fol.188r. On those making the petition, see TNA, E 179/​187/​465. 13 BL, Harleian MS 164, fol.358r; HLRO, main papers, 1/​147, fol.34v. 14 BL, Harleian MS 164, fol.358r–​v. Also see HLRO, main papers, 1/​144, fol.190r. 15 A Perfect Diurnall of the Passages in Parliament, 20–​27 February 1643 (London, 1643), sig.Oo1r–​ v; A Continuation Of certaine Speciall and Remarkable Passages from both Houses of Parliament . . . 16 February to 23 February 1643 (London, 1643), sig.A3r. 16 The English Revolution III: Newsbooks 1. Oxford Royalist, IV:120–​21; Ryves, Mercurius Rusticus, sigs.M3v–​M7r. Also see Bruno Ryves, Angliae ruina (London, 1647), sigs.M3v–​M7r. 17 Joad Raymond, “Bruno [Bruno] Ryves Reeve (c.1596–​1777),” ODNB. Also see Smith, Featley, pp.12, 18. On Ryves, see Joseph Pote, The History and Antiquities of Windsor Castle (Eton, 1769), p.365. 18 Joad Raymond, The Invention of the Newspaper: English Newsbooks, 1641–​1649 (Oxford, 2005), p.48 (also see pp.127–​28); Smith, Featley, p.12.

THE “Afterlife” of an English Calvinist Conformist  213 Likewise, in the weeks immediately following Featley’s imprisonment by Parliament, royalist and Parliamentarian newspapers engaged in a pamphlet war over the details of Featley’s imprisonment. The two main contenders were the royalist newspaper Mercurius Aulicus and the Parliamentarian newspaper Mercurius Britanicus.19 Aware of these newspaper portrayals, Featley highlighted the way Parliamentarians were constructing him. He attempted to expose Britanicus as a publisher of distorted accounts that attempted “to smother the cleare truth of all proceedings at Court, and set a varnish upon all the Machiavellian cheats, unchristian practices, and horrible out-​rages committed by the Plunderers and their complices in the Citie.”20 Though it is tempting to accept Featley’s relation, royalist accounts and Featley himself were every bit as partial and selective in retelling the events as were the Parliamentarians, giving accounts were designed to engender sympathy toward the royalist cause and disdain toward Parliamentarians. In short, Featley portrayed himself as a defenseless victim whose name was being tarnished by dishonest Parliamentarian press writers. Although the eyewitness Parliamentarian and royalist accounts were retold independently during the newspaper battles for orthodoxy in the 1640s, due to a shift in power in 1660, only the royalist account lived on through the biographical accounts of Featley’s life. In the 1640s both groups sought to engender support for their cause by retelling events from their own perspectives. How these stories were retold in subsequent generations also had a bearing on these figures’ “afterlives.” Following the death of the Parliamentary “afterlife”—​which detailed how Featley and his parishioners were actually active opponents in the Lambeth conflict—​ subsequent generations believed that these royalists were merely victims of Parliamentary rule. The print battles between Parliamentarians and royalists continued in the Restoration period, particularly in each side’s attempt to claim Featley for their respective camp. Restoration interest in Featley emerged early on, when the possibilities of a more comprehensive church were mooted. At this time there were high hopes among puritans that Presbyterianism would be included in the new established-​church settlement, and the possibility of gaining sufficient traction to do this was greatest in the early 1660s.21 John Featley’s biography was printed 19 Mercurius Aulicus, October 8–​14 (Oxford, 1643), sig.Kkkk2r–​v ; Mercurius Aulicus: A Diurnall Communicating the Intelligence and Affaires of the Court to the Rest of the Kingdom, ed. F. J. Varley (Oxford, 1948), p.56. Featley’s replying to these newspapers, see James Howell, A New Volume of Familiar Letters Partly Philosopicall [sic], Politicall, Historical. The Second Edition (London, 1650), sig. E2v. Also see Jason Percy, Print and Public Politics in the English Revolution, p.220. For further details see Mercurius Britanicus, 26 September–​3 October, 1643 (London, 1643); Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sections I, II, III, IX, and XI; Mercurius Britanicus, 12–​19 August 1644 (London, 1644), sig.Aaa1r–​v. 20 Featley, Sacra Nemesis, sigs.A1v, B1v–​B2r. 21 I am grateful to Jacqueline Rose for these insights and a fruitful discussion of these issues.

214  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England in 1660, the year that saw the reinstatement of the monarchy and episcopacy following Oliver Cromwell’s death. During this transitional period, a battle took place to establish the boundaries of orthodoxy within the Church of England. This war was fought by means of the printed relations of the major Church of England clergymen of the previous fifty years.22 For example, Peter Lake argued that it was through Izaak Walton’s biographies that Richard Hooker not only “acquired his reputation as the archetypal ‘Anglican’ divine” but was utilized in the “invention” of Anglicanism in late seventeenth-​century England.23 This construction of religious identity was also deployed by moderate Presbyterians.24 As mentioned previously, Lake argued that in Samuel Clarke’s Lives of the godly Clarke portrayed these figures “as both zealous and moderate, effective defenders of both orthodoxy and of order” in order to make “his essentially Presbyterian version of puritanism or dissent to appear moderate, inclusive, and tolerant.”25 As in the case of the newspaper accounts, the central strategy of each of these biographers was to highlight selectively those events or particular doctrinal stances of a figure that demonstrated the person’s allegiance to the biographer’s own particular brand of churchmanship while leaving out those theological positions and events that would be counterproductive to his post–​Civil War agenda. During the post-​Reformation in England, representatives of various strands of churchmanship held power at one point or another. Although the Laudian regime managed to suppress puritanism in the 1630s, the puritan triumph in the English Civil War reversed the establishment of Laudian ideals in the years immediately preceding the Restoration. In the early years of the Restoration, the battle to establish the doctrinal standards of the Church of England was fought by means of substantiating the churchmanship of well-​ known ministers. Since Restoration divines aspired to be a via media between Rome and the Continental Reformed churches, it became all the more necessary for these biographers to show that these ministers held to this position in the decades before the English Civil War. At times historians and theologians have had an obsessive preoccupation with differentiating between anti-​Calvinism, Arminianism, and “Anglicanism” and with seeking to determine the precise relationship between the three. Scholars recently have offered helpful insights regarding the use of the term “Anglican” before the eighteenth century.26 And scholars have perhaps underplayed the fact that we are studying the relationship between these categories through stylized and politically charged accounts that potentially distorted a figure’s doctrinal and ecclesiastical commitments. In

22

Ford, “Making Dead Men Speak,” p.52.

23 Lake, Anglicans and Puritans, pp.228–​29. Also see Martin, Walton’s Lives.

24

Ford, “Making Dead Men Speak,” p.52. Lake, “Reading Clarke’s Lives,” pp.298, 316. 26 Milton, ed., Oxford History of Anglicanism, vol. 1. 25

THE “Afterlife” of an English Calvinist Conformist  215 these ways, John Featley and other biographers’ relations of Daniel Featley’s life arguably tell us more about the concerns and views of Featley’s post-​Restoration biographers and the contemporary politics of religion in the post-​Restoration period than they tell us about Featley’s life.27 Featley’s main biographer was John Featley, the son of Daniel Featley’s older brother, also named John.28 John wrote a number of different works on a variety of topics—​sermons, devotional writings, and polemical works.29 He claimed that he wrote this relation of his uncle to bring “justice to the dead” and out of an admiration for “an Uncle so loving, a Friend so faithful, and an Instructer so Learned and Orthodox.”30 Undoubtedly, John had great respect and admiration for his uncle, such that he even named one of his sons after him.31 He also claimed that his account was truthful, promising “that neither propinquity of blood, nor an uncharitable (although in the language of the world deserved) revenge, nor any thing else shall bypass me to write a voluntary untruth.”32 This comment was a preemptive attempt to refute anyone who might doubt the authenticity of his account. As we will see, however, John’s account contains some elements of uncharitable revenge and exaggeration. In addition to relying heavily on Mercurius Aulicus and completely ignoring the Mercurius Britanicus accounts of Featley’s imprisonment, John derived his relation of the Acton and Lambeth episodes almost entirely from Bruno Ryves’s narrative. For example, he borrowed word for word the story that when soldiers barged into Featley’s Lambeth church, they threatened “to chop him as small as herbs to the pot, for suffering the Common-​Prayer” and to “squeeze the Pope out of the Doctors belly.”33 John’s use of Ryves’s more embellished account is revealing since John himself was one of the eyewitnesses who contributed to the petition that the parishioners submitted to Parliament.34 A chief aim of his account was to convey a narrative that would support his cause. He also added 27 For a version of this argument, see Peter Lake, “Anti-​Puritanism: The Structure of a Prejudice,” in Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, eds., Religious Politics in Post-​Reformation England: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Tyacke (Woodbridge, 2006), p.85. 28 BL, Lansdowne, MS 986, fol.69r. For other MSS related to John Featley, see TNA, C 2/​ChasI/​ F19/​19; TNA, C 2/​ChasI/​F46/​25. Also see Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, II:257–​58. 29 John Featley, A Sermon preached to . . . Sir Thomas Warner (London, 1629); John Featley, The honor of chastity (London, 1632); John Featley, Obedience and Submission (London, 1636); John Featley, A fountaine of teares emptying it selfe into three rivelets (London, 1646); John Featley, Tears in time of pestilence (London, 1655). 30 Featley, Doctor Daniel Featley, sig.G10r–​v. 31 For John Featley’s son, Daniel Featley, who was chaplain to Bishop William Lord, bishop of Lincoln, see Bodl., Tanner MS 314, fol.47r; TNA, PROB/​11/​363, fol.281r; LPL, MS VB 1/​3, fol.73r; LPL, MS F II/​12, fol.32r–​v ; LPL, MS F V/​1/​II fol.63r; LPL, MS VB 1/​3, fol.73r; LPL, MS F I/​D fol.28r; Bodl., Rawl. MS D.32, fol.21v. Another Daniel Featley, who died 14 November 1633, was also probably a relative of Featley’s. See TNA, PROB, 11/​165. 32 Featley, Succinct History, sig.G11v. 33 Featley, Succinct History, sigs.H11v–​12r; Ryves, Mercurius Rusticus, sig.M4r–​v. 34 HLRO, main papers, 1/​144, fol.190r.

216  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England details to Ryves’s relation of the events at Acton, describing how after destroying the ceremonial elements, the soldiers turned to the Book of Common Prayer, which “smelled so rank of piety and loyalty.” John Featley’s young son allegedly “hid it from their discovery, and so saved it from their violence,” however.35 By highlighting the soldiers’ destruction of Featley’s parish, John was communicating that his uncle was one of the typical clergymen threatened, ransacked, and plundered by radical Parliamentarians. To that end it was crucial that he depict the previous decade of Laudian rule as a time of “soft and wonton peace,” Parliamentary actions as “un-​christian (or howsoever un-​Protestant) rebellion and Insurrection against their lawful Prince,” and Presbyterians as insubordinate radicals who were bent on destroying the Church of England.36 He described these enemies as novel in their churchmanship: “new doctrine and disciplined men of War,” “new Reformers of the Church,” and “new-​inspired Zealots” who respected “neither the sanctity of the day, nor company of Christians assembled together for the Worship,” “nor the relative holiness of the Place, nor the sacred duty of Prayer.”37 He portrayed royalists and Parliamentarians as disagreeing over theological particulars rather than over issues of church government, ceremonialism, and monarchical rule. He claimed that one reason Daniel Featley was removed from the Westminster Assembly was that other members would not “bear with sound Doctrine.”38 In reality Featley’s commitment to episcopacy and his refusal to the sign the Solemn League and Covenant were the real irreconcilable differences between him and other Westminster Assembly divines. And the trumped-​up charges that Featley was a royalist spy were merely a convenient way for Parliamentarians to dismiss him from the assembly.39 Thus, by coupling the descriptions of these events with his long segments of commentary on the soldiers’ radicalism, John Featley encouraged the post-​Restoration reader to abandon any sense of the genuine complexity of his uncle’s churchmanship and instead to adopt his own retrospective and dualistic portrayal of these events. By ignoring his uncle’s finely tuned position on ceremonial issues and rather focusing on Parliamentary soldiers’ violence against both royalist divines and established-​church buildings, the biographer projected his own theological positions onto these genuinely complex episodes of Featley’s life. Further, John Featley’s portrayal of his uncle’s actions as decidedly anti-​Presbyterian encouraged the post-​1660s reader to view him as a champion of the post-​Restoration cause.40 35 Featley, Succinct History, sig.H10r–​v. 36 Featley, Succinct History, sigs.H8v–​H9r. 37 Featley, Succinct History, sigs.H11v–​I2v. 38 Featley, Succinct History, sig.I10r–​v. 39 Featley, Succinct History, sigs.I9r–​v, K2r–​v. 40 John Featley claimed that he and his uncle were Charles’s “most obliged servants.” Featley, Succinct History, sig.B3r.

THE “Afterlife” of an English Calvinist Conformist  217 To this end, John also selectively homed in on certain phases of Featley’s life while neglecting others. For example, although nineteen pages of the account are given to dealing with the first forty-​four years of Featley’s life (1582–​1626), John devotes an astonishing sixty-​seven pages to the last three years of his career. He also omits any account of Featley’s life between 1626 and 1642, which he justified by saying that although he could “adde many more passages of his former life . . . but that I study brevity, and indeed I want some helps, my memory being treacherous, and my remembrances dead. I shall therefore hasten to the evening of his life, wherein I shall be more copious and confident.”41 There are some obvious potential dangers in arguing from silence. Other accounts of Featley’s life, however, including that of his funeral orator, William Loe, specifically highlighted the events of his life in the Caroline period. Loe asserted that Featley did not cease “to oppose every thing that did but favour or scent never so little of Pelagianisme, or Semi-​Pelagianisme.”42 He also noted that Featley had written “against Arminius, and all his rabble, shewing demonstratively that their Tenets they had from patches and pieces of Pelagius.”43 The years that John Featley omits were the ones in which Featley was most vigorously contending against the English anti-​Calvinist movement. By omitting these years, John was able to disregard Featley’s three major attacks on anti-​Calvinists. These included the significant assault on Richard Montague and his attack on anti-​Calvinist appropriations of medieval history in his devotional work Ancilla Pietatis, which, according to Anthony Wood, “forced [him] to . . . fall upon his knees before” the anti-​Calvinist William Laud.44 John also neglected to mention that Featley’s collection of printed sermons, Clavis Mystica, was seized at the press in 1636 by the anti-​Calvinist William Bray, who amended seventeen sheets of his original copy regarding issues of predestination and anti-​Catholicism.45 Each of these events indicated that Featley’s doctrinal and ecclesiological commitments were different from those of his anti-​Calvinist opponents. Since John was not only a chaplain to Charles I but also a leading defender of the same anti-​Calvinist regime that Featley was attacking, it is no wonder that he neglected the years of Featley’s life between 1626 and 1642 in his work.46 For instance, in his treatise Obedience and Submission (1636)—​published the same year that Featley was censured by anti-​Calvinist authorities—​John argued that all lawful subjects should obey the anti-​Calvinist ecclesiastical magistrates. 41 Featley, Succinct History, sig.H8r. 42 Loe, Sermon, sig.F1r. 43 Loe, Sermon, sig.E4v. 44 Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, II:38–​ 39. Also see Aubrey, Remaines of Gentilisme and Judaisme, p.69. 45 Hunt, “Licensing,” pp.136–​44. 46 BL, Lansdowne MS 986, fol.69r; CSPD, 1660–​61, p.226; Lake, “The Laudian Style,” p.167; Smith, Featley, p.20.

218  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England According to John, these ecclesiastical leaders rightfully ruled over the ministers and laypeople “for the sweet harmonious government of the Church.” In response to anyone who would not submit, he hoped that “the hearts of those Traitors that conspire disloyalty” would learn “their fate” by “the burning tormentors of their divelish selves.”47 Similarly, he argued against moderate puritans who did not accept anti-​Calvinist “doctrine” or “discipline” but still tried to remain in the church by “stoop[ing] low enough to enter in at the gate.”48 The irony here is that his uncle Daniel was a prime example of this group of individuals who needed to lay aside their Reformed opinions and submit to the anti-​Calvinist views of the lawfully designated authority. John’s motivations become even clearer when one considers that it was during this time that he was a curate at Featley’s former church, St. Mary’s Lambeth, in London.49 The biographer John Walker hints that this might even have been a time of tension, noting that John was “forced for some time, to be a Curate to his Uncle at Acton.”50 Thus, by omitting these events, John was able to write a selective narrative of Featley’s life and deliberately omit his polemics against anti-​Calvinists. Including this information would have been counterproductive to establishing Featley as a prime example of a pre-​ Restoration defender of the via media. In short, this selective rendering was part of John Featley’s strategy retrospectively to home in on several polarizing events and recast them in terms of post-​Restoration categories. In a similar vein, the three other subsequent biographical accounts of Featley’s life—​Clement Barksdale’s A Remembrancer of Excellent Men (1670), Anthony Wood’s Athenae Oxonienses (1692), and John Walker’s An Attempt Towards Recovering an Account of the Numbers and Sufferings of the Clergy in the Church of England (1714)—​utilize John Featley’s account (at times verbatim) in their own relations of Featley’s life.51 It is perhaps because of John Featley’s familial connection to his uncle that his account has generally been accepted with little hesitation. Since each of these writers shared John Featley’s basic commitment to the post-​Restoration established church, they likewise used his account to further their agenda. In recent years historians have argued that Clement Barksdale “deliberately designed [his biographical accounts] to foster the development of a 47 Featley, Obedience and Submission, sigs.A3v–​A4r. Also see Stephen Wright, “John Featley (1604/​5–​1667),” ODNB. 48 Featley, Obedience and Submission, sig.C4v. Wright, “John Featley,” ODNB. 49 Wright, “John Featley,” ODNB; Lambeth Churchwardens’ Accounts, II:118; Smith, Featley, p.18. 50 John Walker, An Attempt Towards Recovering an Account of the Numbers and Sufferings of the Clergy in the Church of England (London, 1714), sig.N2r (my emphasis). 51 Clement Barksdale, A Remembrancer of Excellent Men (London, 1670), sig.7v.p.74;Walker, An Attempt Towards Recovering an Account, sigs.Uu2v–​Uu3v (Part II, pp.168–​70); Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, II:240–​41. Also see Matthew Neufeld, The Civil Wars after 1660: Public Remembering in Late Stuart England(Woodbridge, 2013), pp.169–​201; Isabel Rivers, “Biographical Dictionaries and Their Uses from Bayle to Chalmers,” in Isabel Rivers, ed., Books and Their Readers in Eighteenth-​ Century England: New Essays (New York, 2001), pp.135–​69.

THE “Afterlife” of an English Calvinist Conformist  219 moderate, latitudinarian Anglicanism” and intentionally devised his translations of Hugo Grotius’s works to propagate the position that the English Church held to a “moderate theology which was Arminian and rational.”52 Part of his strategy was to couple biographies of moderate puritan divines, like John Rainolds, William Whitaker, and Andrew Willet, with those of avant-​garde conformist divines, like Richard Hooker, John Gregory, Bishop Brian Duppa, and Bishop Jeremy Taylor. It is beyond the scope of this work either to compare and contrast Barksdale’s other biographies with other accounts of these figures or to explore the specific agendas underpinning each of Featley’s post-​Restoration biographers. Yet it is a testimony to Barksdale’s ingenuity that he was able to employ such a diverse collection of divines in his mission. These points have a bearing on how current historians should approach even the most reliable contemporary resources. For example, Graham Parry claims that the miniature biographies in Anthony Wood’s Athenae Oxonienses “are indispensable, and without them, half the seventeenth-​century entries in the Dictionary of National Biography could hardly have been written.”53 Nevertheless, although Anthony Wood appends to his account brief summaries of Featley’s works (including his three works against Arminianism and Laudianism), since Wood followed John Featley’s account rather uncritically, he adopted a skewed historical narrative that was consistent with his own post-​Restoration agenda.54 The construction of post-​Restoration English Church identity was a collaborative project, and multiple voices contributed to shaping these biographical accounts.55 These reappropriations of John Featley’s account only compounded the myth that Featley was a typical post-​Restoration minister living before the English Civil War. Similarly, a number of other episcopalian Reformed figures who shared Featley’s doctrinal and ecclesiastical commitments were used in parallel ways. Alan Ford’s study of James Ussher has demonstrated how Ussher’s post-​ Restoration biographer Nicholas Bernard utilized him in the construction of a post-​Restoration via media, using a similar array of tactics.56 Stephen Hampton has argued that John Gauden modified his portrayal of Brownrigg to accommodate the political shifts from 1660 to 1661. These portrayals supported his own vision of how the church should negotiate the challenges and changes 52 John Coffey, “Clement Barksdale,” ODNB; Marco Barducci, “Clement Barksdale, Translator of Grotius: Erastianism and Episcopacy in the English Church, 1651–​1658,” Seventeenth Century 25 (2010), p.278. 53 Graham Parry, “Anthony Wood [Anthony à Wood] (1632–​1695),” ODNB. 54 Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, II:240. 55 For the connections between these figures, see the correspondences between Anthony Wood and other ministers, particularly Clement Barksdale, see Bodl., Wood MS F.40, fols.1r–​7v. Also on Barksdale, see Bodl., Tanner MS 41, fol.182r. 56 Ford, “Making Dead Men Speak,” p.50.

220  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England it faced during the Restoration.57 Like John Featley, these authors neglected or downplayed various aspects of their subjects’ theological positions that did not accord with their own views while accentuating those doctrinal stances that supported their own post-​1660 vision of the church.58 One of the main reasons Reformed episcopalians were particularly susceptible to these kinds of distortions is that these figures were both committed to Reformed soteriology and defended prayer book ceremonialism—​a combination that was less common following the English Civil War.59 In essence, while this combination was not uncommon in the early Stuart period, the polarized circumstances of the 1640s made this a less common phenomenon in the post-​Restoration period.

Featley’s Posthumous Works and Other “Afterlives” Just as Featley straddled puritanism and conformity in his life, these two features of his theology are reflected in the editorial processes of his posthumous publication “afterlife.” In particular, this section will explore how compilers edited Featley’s contributions to collective works that were published following his death. Although, as we have seen, Featley’s strongest arguments against the Solemn League and Covenant were contained in The League Illegal, John Featley had a clear motive in publishing this work in 1660. The quotation from Hebrews 11:4 on the title page—​“by it He, being dead, yet speaketh”—​suggests that John’s motivation for publishing this work was to resurrect Featley’s opposition to Parliament so that this hostility would continue to speak in the Restoration period. In his preface to the reader he said, “I have therefore awaked this book, that it may tell the deluded world how unsafely we formerly credited the croaking of such Egyptian Frogs: and hope that a review of our former contentions, grounded upon the Covenant, will make us repent, and be Wise.”60 By waiting to publish the work until almost twenty years after his death, when Parliamentary rule had ceased, John was repeating one of Featley’s central strategies—​namely, waiting until the opportune moment when the work would have the most impact. Featley’s authorship of The League Illegal was contested. In his Analepsis anelephthe the Presbyterian Zachary Crofton claimed that The League Illegal was “falsly fathered on Daniel Featley: by the dignity of his name to deceive the world; but the feature of it is every way unlike a man so acute and Logical

57 Stephen Hampton, “Hagiography and Theology for a Comprehensive Reformed Church: John Gauden and the Portrayal of Ralph Brownrigg,” Calvin Theological Journal 50 (2015), pp.208–​9. 58 Ford, “Making Dead Men Speak,” pp.67–​68. 59 This same point was made in Ford, “Making Dead Men Speak,” p.50. 60 Featley, League Illegal, sig.b3r. On John’s motivations, see Michael Brydon, The Evolving Reputation of Richard Hooker: An Examination of Responses, 1600–​1714 (Oxford, 2006), p.84.

THE “Afterlife” of an English Calvinist Conformist  221 as was this Doctor.”61 He claimed that several of Featley’s supposed arguments were in direct contradiction to his statements in The Dipper’s Dipt.62 These contradictions revealed that the work was written by “Dr. Featly’s Ghost, raised by the circle of his Executors fancy, to clear his way to preferment.”63 Crofton’s highlighting the preferment John was to gain from publishing the work indicates the significance of the battle for orthodoxy in the post-​Restoration church. John was rewarded handsomely for his efforts. Between 1660 and 1661, John was appointed as Charles II’s extraordinary chaplain and dean of the Lincoln Cathedral and obtained a DD at Oxford as well as rectories at Beckingham, Lincolnshire, Edwinstowe, and Nottinghamshire.64 It is a testimony to Daniel Featley’s stature as an eminent theologian that a rather inflexible Presbyterian like Crofton would want to claim him for the nonepiscopal cause. Presbyterians too utilized pre–​Civil War divines to support their own vision of the English Church, even claiming the most “unpresbyterian” of Westminster divines as supporters of their brand of churchmanship. Crofton wrongly concluded that the inconsistencies between Featley’s Dippers Dipt and The League Illegal were due to the latter work being written by a different author. Featley’s ecclesiastical flexibility confused later readers who were attempting to determine his actual theological positions. Since Featley’s doctrinal positions shifted with his circumstances, his views appear contradictory until they are examined through the lens of his ecclesiastical context. Others attempted to claim Featley for the royalist cause. Some have suggested that Featley’s Ancilla Pietatis directly influenced Charles I’s devotional work Eikon Basilike.65 According to John Milton, Eikon Basilike was “modl’d into a Psalter” after “many other as good Manuals, and Handmaids of Devotions,” leading some to deduce that Eikon Basilike explicitly draws on Featley’s work for

61 Zachary Crofton, Analepsis anelephthe (London, 1660), sig.B2v (also see sig.P3r). Crofton’s work was responding to John Gauden, Analysis. The loosing of Saint Peter’s bands (London, 1660). Also see John Russell, The Solemn League and Covenant discharg’d (London, 1660). 62 Crofton, Analepsis anelephthe, sigs.B2v–​B3r. 63 Crofton, Analepsis anelephthe, sig.B3r. 64 Wright, “John Featley,” ODNB. 65 Charles I [John Gauden], Eikon basilike (London, 1648). For a reply to Eikon Basilike, see Milton, Eikon alethine. Also see William Cobbett, Cobbett’s parliamentary history of England (36 vols., London, 1806–​20), II:573. For a partial manuscript copy of Eikon Basilike, see HL, Eng. MS 625. For secondary literature on Eikon Basilike, see Andrew Lacy, The Cult of King Charles the Martyr (Woodbridge, 2003); Steven Zwicker, Lines of Authority: Politics and English Literary Culture, 1649–​1689 (Ithaca, 1996), pp.37–​59; Charles I [John Gauden], Eikon Basilike: The Portraiture of His Sacred Majesty in His Solitudes and Sufferings with selections from Eikonoklastes, John Milton, ed. Jim Daems and Holly Faith Nelson (Toronto, 2005); Longfellow, “My Now Solitary Prayers”; Kevin Sharpe, “Private Conscience and Public Duty in the Writings of Charles I,” HJ 40 (1997), pp.643–​55; Kevin Sharpe, “The King’s Writ: Royal Authors and Royal Authority in Early Modern England,” in Kevin Sharpe and Peter Lake, eds., Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England (Basingstoke, 1994), pp.117–​38.

222  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England its composition.66 Regardless of whether Charles did use Featley’s work, it seems some believed he did.67 Linking Featley’s work with Eikon Basilike essentially put Featley into a royalist category. And since Eikon Basilike was part of Charles’s effort to counter his puritan challengers to conformity, contemporaries believed Featley’s devotional material was enshrined in these pages as well.68 Featley’s works were incorporated into two published English works in which moderate puritan divines were also involved.69 One of these works, Threnoikos: The House of Mourning, was a collection of fifty funeral sermons by Featley and puritans like John Preston and Richard Sibbes.70 Originally published in 1640, before Featley’s death, the work was republished twice, in 1660 and 1672. Since this work was issued either while Featley was still in prison or in the months immediately following his death, it appears that the release of this work affirmed that, for all their differences, there were still bonds between Calvinist conformists like Featley and moderate puritans. Despite the escalating conflict and their differences over secondary issues of church government, ceremonies, and monarchical rule, these divines desired unity.71 Ralph Houlbrooke has called Threnoikos “something of a landmark,” noting a major increase in the publication of funeral sermons following its release.72 In their preface to the readers, the authors asserted that they released this volume so that “each sermon” could serve as a “legacie bequeathed by those . . .who themselves have made a reall experiment of mortality, and left these for our instruction that survive them.”73 Given that death was a major concern and theme of the 1640s, the release of this publication may have been intended to provide pastoral comfort to the many who were experiencing firsthand the pain of losing friends or family members or experiencing the profound fear that accompanied the prospect of dying. Featley’s contribution to the volume, “Hexalexium: Or, Six Cordials to Strengthen the Heart of Every Faith-​full Christian Against the Terrours of Death,” was intended to comfort those who were facing the prospect of death.74 66 Milton, Eikonoklastes (London, 1649), sig.D2v. Also see Longfellow, “Eikon Basilike and Religious Solitude,” pp.55, 63. 67 As noted previously, Milton’s phrase “Handmaids to Devotion’ is distinctive and makes it probable that Featley’s work is the source in mind. 68 Sharpe, “Private Conscience and Public Duty,” pp.651, 653, 656, and passim. 69 He also wrote a third work with Robert Harris and Oliver Bowles: Daniele Featley, Roberto Harris, and Oliveri Bowles, Pedum Pastorale seu conciones duae ad Johan. 21, v.15–​18 (Utrecht, 1657). 70 H.W., Daniel Featley, Martin Day, Richard Sibbes, and Thomas Taylor, Threnoikos: The House of Mourning (London, 1640). On the identity of “H.W.” as one of two Henry Wilkersons, see Elizabeth Hodgson, “The Domestic ‘Fruite of Eves Transgression’ in Stuart Funeral Sermons,” Prose Studies 28 (2006), p.16. Also see Peter McCullough, Hugh Adlington, and Emma Rhatigan, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Early Modern Sermon (Oxford, 2011), p.156. For Featley’s other published funeral sermons, see Daniel Featley, Philip’s Memento Mori (London, 1708). Also see Ralph Houlbrooke, Death, Religion, and the Family in England, 1480–​1750 (Oxford, 1998), pp.295–​330. 71 For a similar point, see Houlbrooke, Death, p.303; Hodgson, “Domestic,” p.15. 72 Houlbrooke, Death, p.298. 73 H.W. et al., Threnoikos, sig.A3r–​v. 74 H.W. et al., Threnoikos, sigs.Xxx4r–​Eeee4r.

THE “Afterlife” of an English Calvinist Conformist  223 In “The Deads Herald,” he said, “If the dead are blessed in comparison of the living: let us not so glew our thoughts, and affections to the world; and the comforts thereof, but that they may bee easily severed, for there is no comparison between the estate of the godly in this life, and the life to come.”75 The subjects of these sermons were not well-​known divines but ordinary people about whom we know very little.76 This focus on average men and women rather than ministers no doubt served to edify ordinary readers. Featley’s most notable sermon was on Dorothy Gataker, wife of his close friend Thomas Gataker.77 Because Gataker had preached Featley’s wife’s funeral sermon, Featley repaid the favor, speaking warmly of Dorothy, how “shee could not endure praise” though “she deserved praise,” and at her death how “shee reapeth what she sowed, and seeth what she beleeved and enjoyeth what she hoped for, and is now entered into those joyes, which never entered fully into the heart of any living thing on earth.”78 Although on the surface it appeared that the entire assembly was hostile toward Featley, his strong relational ties with Gataker, who participated in the Westminster Assembly, reveal that some members were probably disheartened by Featley’s imprisonment. It was these kinds of genuine relational ties that allowed later writers to create a rival vision of Featley. Featley’s second publication in collaboration with known puritan divines was the Annotations Upon all the Books of the Old and New Testament (1645), which he published with John Downham and others.79 Since the work was published either right after his death or while he was in prison, it seems he had little role in the work’s publication. Moreover, the focus of this chapter falls upon the fact that it was republished three times during the interregnum in 1651, 1655 and 1657–​58. Although it was “one of the most significant and comprehensive analyses of the biblical text in the seventeenth century,” it has received little scholarly attention.80 The Annotations were intended to be a companion to the Authorized 75 H.W. et al., Threnoikos, sig.Dddd2r. 76 Collinson, “A Magazine of Religious Patterns,” pp.521–​52; Hodgson, “Domestic,” pp.1–​2, 15; Martin, Walton’s Lives, pp.25–​26. 77 H.W. et al., Threnoikos, sigs.Dddd3r–​Eeee4r. 78 H.W. et al., Threnoikos, sigs.Eeee3v–​Eeee4r. 79 John Downham et al., Annotations Upon all the Books of the Old and New Testament (London, 1645). 80 Carl Trueman, “Preachers and Medieval and Renaissance Commentary,” in Peter McCullough, Hugh Adlington, and Emma Rhatigan, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Early Modern Sermon (Oxford, 2011), p.62. The best study of the Annotations is Dean George Lampros, “A New Set of Spectacles: The Assembly’s Annotations, 1645–​57,” Renaissance and Reformation 19 (1995), pp.33–​ 46. Also see Richard Muller and Rowland Ward, Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation and the Directory for Public Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ, 2007); Randall Pederson, Unity and Diversity: English Puritans and the Puritan Reformation, 1603–​1689 (Leiden, 2014), pp.120–​23; also see John Bernard, “London Publishing, 1640–​ 60: Crisis, Continuity, and Innovation,” in Ezra Greenspan and Jonathan Rose, eds., Book History, vol. 4 (University Park, 2001), pp.6–​7; Richard Muller, “Biblical Interpretation in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” in Donald McKim, ed., Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters (Downers Grove, 2012), p.42; George Watson, ed., The New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature, vol. 1, 1600–​1660 (Cambridge, 1974), p.1857.

224  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England Version and to replace the Geneva Bible annotations. Although the Geneva Bible was the preferred translation for the fifty years following its 1560 publication, with the new and arguably better translation of the Authorized Version, “People complained that they could not see into the sense of Scripture” since “their spectacles of annotations were not fitted to the understanding of the new text, nor any other supplyed in their stead.”81 Thus, many were used to having biblical notes and continued using the Geneva Bible. The Annotations were originally written to be incorporated into the margins of the Authorized Version but were so lengthy that they were published as an independent work.82 This project was, however, in stark contrast to the viewpoint of James I, who explicitly ruled out annotations because he disliked them in the Geneva Bible. Because many English Christians desired detailed expository notes alongside the biblical text, this work fulfilled a pastoral need.83 Given the previous decade of Laudian innovations, this commentary (alongside the confessions and catechisms) would provide laypeople with a correct interpretation of the Scriptures. The publication was also motivated by Laud’s impeachment and the collapse of religious censorship.84 Thus, the translators were fueled by a pastoral desire to provide the people with a more easily accessible and updated interpretation alongside the “new” translation to guard the church from drifting away again from Reformed orthodoxy. Featley’s involvement in a supplementary project for the Authorized Version seems fitting. He was the Authorized Version’s youngest translator, and he wrote the advertisement to the reader for the Authorized Version’s first concordance, compiled by Clement Cotton. He believed Cotton’s concordance would assist the Scriptures in being “made more cleare, easie, ready, and familiar to us.”85 His pastoral aim was to help the laity, relating that although “schollars have recourse to concordances in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin,” “the illiterate as little need this work, as they can make use of it.”86 Samuel Newton’s Concordance built on Cotton’s, being “much enlarged and 81 Downham et al., Annotations, sigs.B3v–​B4r; David Norton, The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today (Cambridge, 2011), p.135. Also see Gordon Campbell, Bible: The Story of the King James Version (Oxford, 2011), p.26; Jonathan Sheehan, The Enlightenment Bible: Translation, Scholarship, Culture (Princeton, 2005), p.22; Erica Longfellow, Women and Religious Writing in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2004), p.36. 82 Lampros, “A New Set of Spectacles,” pp.33, 35. 83 Lampros, “A New Set of Spectacles,” pp.33–​34, 39; Pederson, Unity and Diversity, p.123. For other commentaries produced in the wake of these Annotations, see Pederson, Unity and Diversity, p.123. For other annotated notes editions (especially the 1657 Dutch edition) see Robert Baillie, The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, 1637–​62, ed. David Laing (3 vols., Edinburgh, 1841), II:188–​ 89; Theodore Haak, The Dutch annotations upon the whole Bible (London, 1657); David Prince and Charles Ryrie, Let It Go among Our People: An Illustrated History of the English Bible from John Wyclif to the King James Version (Cambridge, 2004), p.91. 84 Lampros, “A New Set of Spectacles,” p.33. 85 Cotton, Concordance, sig.A3v. For the original manuscript of Featley’s preface, see Bodl., Rawl. MS D.47, fols.24r–​27v. Also see Green, Print and Protestantism, p.125. 86 Cotton, A Complete Concordance, sig.A4r–​v.

THE “Afterlife” of an English Calvinist Conformist  225 amended for the good both of schollers and others.”87 Published in 1643, this edition had complete citations and a fuller sense of a passage’s context and may have been intended to be another tool that Featley and the other contributors hoped would foster scriptural engagement. Since Featley’s advertisement was republished in Newman’s 1650 and 1658 editions, Featley’s “afterlife” as a promoter of the Authorized Version was preserved. In these ways, Featley not only helped to translate this monumental version but crafted and promoted the biblical aids that were used alongside the new translation. The timing of the Annotations was also no accident. When these notes were published, the Westminster divines were crafting a new confession of faith and two new catechisms. Nevertheless, although the Annotations was commissioned by Parliament and crafted, according to Randall Peterson, “in the spirit of the Assembly, and confirmed explanations and interpretations generally settled at Westminster,” Presbyterians like Cornelius Burgess and Edmund Calamy maintained that it was not an official assembly project, nor did it have “the Approbation of the Assembly.”88 Part of the reason why Presbyterians distanced the assembly from the project is that some of the compilers—​Featley, Downham, and James Ussher—​were non-​assembly members and committed royalists. Nevertheless, although we are accustomed to viewing the 1640s as a time of polarization between puritans and conformists, the involvement of conformist divines in the project reveals that, even during the English Civil War, cordial relationships were maintained and collaborative projects undertaken between divines in “opposing” camps. In his Abridgement of Mr Baxter’s History (1702), the Presbyterian minister Edmund Calamy outlined the contributors to the various biblical books, recording Featley as overseeing the Pauline Epistles.89 Featley’s annotations, however, were “broken and imperfect, on the Account of the Author’s dying before he had revis’d or finish’d them.”90 That Featley, as an episcopalian, wrote the notes 87 See Samuel Newman, A large and complete concordance to the Bible (1st edn., London, 1643; 2nd edn., London, 1650; 3rd edn., London, 1658). For an overview of concordances in sixteenth-​ and seventeenth-​century England, including Cotton’s and Newman’s works, see Green, Print and Protestantism, pp.124–​29. 88 Pederson, Unity and Diversity, p.122; Cornelius Burgess, No Sacrilege Nor Sinne to aliene or purchase the lands of bishops, or others, whose offices are abolished (London, 1702), sig.G3v. Also see Calamy, Abridgement, sig.G3v; Baillie, The Letters and Journals, II:188; Muller, PRRD, II:91. 89 Calamy lists the following individuals as writing the notes: John Ley (the Pentateuch and the four Gospels), William Gouge (1–​2 Kings, 1–​2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther), Méric Casaubon (Psalms), Francis Taylor (Proverbs), Edward Reynolds (Ecclesiasties and Song of Solomon), Thomas Gataker (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Lamentations; as well as the additional annotations on Genesis, 1655 edition), Pemberton (Ezekiel, Daniel, and the minor prophets, in the first edition), John Richardson (the primary author of the additional annotations of 1655; Ezekiel, Daniel, and the minor prophets, in the second edition, Daniel Featley (the Pauline Epistles), James Ussher (additional annotations on Genesis, 1655). Calamy, Abridgement, sig.G3v. Muller, PRRD, II:91 is the source for the 1655 contributors. 90 Calamy, Abridgement, sig.G3v.

226  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England for the Pauline Epistles is significant since these books contain the verses that were arguably most influential in shaping theological positions regarding church government. Since Featley died before the work was published, the Presbyterian contributors edited Featley’s “episcopalian” notes. They appended an advertisement to the reader “touching [on] The Annotation[s]‌” for Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1; 1 Timothy 5:17; and Hebrews 6:2, “wherein the author may be thought to assert Episcopacy with some prejudice to the Truth.”91 This advertisement sought to “clarify” Featley’s annotations, but in reality it completely revised Featley’s work by putting a Presbyterian slant on his notes. For example, the editors amended Featley’s annotations on Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:1, saying that some suppose “there is no Church” where “episcopal Government” is lacking—​since there would be “no Presbyters” and thereby “no Sacraments.” They argued, however, that since the “Apostles times the words Bishop and Presbyter are used in a promiscuous manner,” wherein the title “Presbyter” is “included in the word Bishop” since they are “Superintendents” or “Presbyters or Pastors over their Flocks.”92 They also revised his “errours” on Galatians 6:18 and Ephesians 3:18, where Featley argued in favor “of conformity” regarding “the English Liturgy.”93 Nevertheless, they hoped these changes would “not redound to the disparagement of the whole” since they regarded him as “a Fellow-​labourer in the same Vineyard.”94 The most interesting part of the editors’ revisions to Featley’s notes is their justification for their amendments. Although they never named Featley as the contributor to the Pauline Epistles notes, they claimed that they were merely exercising the same censorship practices that he had undertaken in his licensing in the 1620s. They explained that when this “author” licensed the section on “Christ’s Decent into Hell” in Nicholas Byfield’s posthumous work The Rule of Faith (1626),95 he did not alter the main text, even though he believed Byfield was merely setting forth “his private opinion.”96 Instead, as he had done with the other works he censored, Featley added a marginal note in which he said that “in this point, the Author being dead, I thought not fit to alter anything: he delivereth herein but his private opinion. What is the iudgement of the Church of England, touching the meaning of this article, thou maiest see in Nowels Catechisme set out by publike authoritie, to which I referre thee.”97 In the same way, editors of 91 Downham et al., Annotations, sig.¶r. 92 Downham et al., Annotations, sig.¶r (also see sigs.¶v–​¶2r). For Featley’s notes on Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1, and 1 Timothy 5:17, see Downham et al., Annotations, sigs.Ii3r, Ll1v, sig.Ll2v. 93 Downham et al., Annotations, sig.¶2r. 94 Downham et al., Annotations, sig.¶2r. For Featley’s notes on Galatians 6:18, Ephesians 3:18, and Hebrews 6:2, see Downham et al., Annotations, sigs.Hh3r, Hh4v, Mm3v. 95 Featley licensed Nicholas Byfield’s The Rule of Faith (Transcript, IV:148). 96 For Featley’s editing of Byfield’s work, see Nicholas Byfield, The Rule of Faith (London, 1626), sigs.Oo4v–​5r. 97 Byfield, The Rule of Faith, sig.Oo5r; Downham et al., Annotations, sig.¶r.

THE “Afterlife” of an English Calvinist Conformist  227 the Annotations did Featley “the like favour, in forbearing to set a deleatur on his Dictates in the places forecited, and the like right to the Reader . . . rectifying his judgement, Lest he should be misled (by his [Featley’s] Annotations) to conceive, that such an Episcopacy is founded on the Scriptures.”98 This is a fascinating example of how the puritans censored ecclesiological features of Featley’s work that did not fit with their own version of Reformed orthodoxy, just as Featley had done to them. Although we are accustomed to regarding the 1640s as a period when censorship had collapsed, this episode testifies that while the more “official” mechanisms of censorship may have collapsed, censorship itself (i.e., the editing and “massaging” of an author’s work to fit one’s own version of orthodoxy) appears to have remained alive and well. It also indicates that just as licensers amended works in the 1620s and 1630s, so puritans continued to mold others’ works to fit their agenda. Following Featley’s death, there was also a concerted effort to ingrain in people’s memories the image of Featley as an anti-​Catholic polemicist champion. For example, William Loe ended his funeral sermon with a vivid image testifying to Featley’s standing as one of the chief anti-​Catholic polemicists of his age.99 Additionally, Loe also told a story of an instance when his son was in Paris and spoke “more intimately” with two Jesuits from “the College of Sorbon.” During the course of their conversation they recounted that they had once attended one of the debates Featley had with Catholics in Paris. They “remembered Doctor Featley oft-​times in their conference with reverentiall respect for his accute and ready Disputation.”100 In short, Loe’s stories portrayed Featley as a man who was deeply respected by his Catholic adversaries, even though nearly every Catholic tract printed by Featley’s opponents depicted him as a man of falsehood and deceit. Nevertheless, using vivid testimonies of the praises of one’s adversaries could bolster a figure’s legacy in a way that declarations by his greatest admirers never could. After the Restoration, others also portrayed Featley as an anti-​Catholic polemicist champion. For example, he lived on as an anti-​ Catholic polemicist through the republication in 1660 of Humphrey Lynde’s work Stricturae in Lyndomastygem, retitled as The ancient doctrine of the Church of England maintained in its primitive purity. In 1660, the authorship of this work was even wrongly attributed to Featley, though he only served as the editor.101 Moreover, in 1661 George Vineing, one of Featley’s converts from Catholicism, republished Featley’s sermon “The Faithful Shepherd.” In the preface to the reader, Vineing mentioned Featley’s conversion of him as his motivation for republishing the

98

Downham et al., Annotations, sig.¶r. See p.1. 100 Loe, Sermon, sig.E4r. 101 The ancient doctrine of the Church of England, title page. 99

228  Calvinist Conformity in Post-Reformation England work, claiming it was out of “the Endlesse true love that I owe unto my Deceased spiritual Father, who begat me in 1624 out of blinde Popery from dumbed and dead Idols; and brought me into the clear light, to serve the true and living God.”102 Likewise, in 1660, John Featley published Featley’s account of how he resolved the doubts of his protégé Simon Birkbeck about the Protestant faith “against Popery.”103 These testimonies provide a window (albeit retrospectively) into the perspective of ordinary people who were influenced by Featley. They have helped to enshrine the image of Featley as a pastoral polemist who rescued the true sheep from ferocious Catholic wolves. Independently, the “afterlives” reflect different features of Daniel Featley’s theology, but none captures the entire picture. Since each presented its own perspective of Featley, one could easily reimagine Featley as either a “puritan,” a post-​Restoration English divine, or an anti-​Catholic polemicist. By looking at Featley from a single angle, the complete picture is obscured. When taken collectively, however, a clearer picture comes into view. Featley was a minister who was a committed royalist episcopalian and a close friend of puritans, whose chief polemical motivation was to rescue and preserve Protestants from the entrapments of “popery.”

Conclusion Although this work has been obliged to rely on several important biographical sources, it has shown that it is important to scrutinize their limitations and distortions. Historians have rightly emphasized that divines from various camps were engaged in the construction of the post-​Restoration church. Although this reality can make us wonder whether we can gain a clear picture of Featley’s theological positions and the events of his life, we can read between the lines of these accounts to uncover a true sense of what he believed and the details of his career. For example, an analysis of the political and ecclesiastical motivations that underpinned John Featley’s representation gives us confidence to look past John’s attempts to make his uncle speak with a different accent.104 Sometimes sources have obscured the perspective of later historians. Nevertheless, modern historians have utilized John Featley’s relation as a credible source.105 This is particularly surprising since John’s narrative is essentially 102 Daniel Featley, Dr. Daniel Featley revived (London, 1661), sig.A2r. 103 See “Certain doubts of S.B. Resolved by Dr. Dan. Featly, against Popery, asserting the Protestant Church to be the onely Catholick and trust church’ in Featley, Doctor Daniel Featley revived, sigs. C1r–​G9v. 104 Ford, “Making Dead Men Speak,” p.69. 105 Chad Van Dixhoorn, however, recognized John Featley’s political expediency (“Reforming the Reformation,” p.262).

THE “Afterlife” of an English Calvinist Conformist  229 analogous with the earlier historiographical view that puritans were radical revolutionaries who challenged the status quo and should be blamed for the English Civil War. Like earlier historiographical views, John depicted post-​ Restoration established-​church divines as a via media between Rome and the Continental Reformed churches, and puritan divines as a Genevan enclave in England. Although many historians utilized John’s narrative as a quick reference point for their more broadly sweeping studies, a more focused biographical study illustrates how early modern biographers can mislead modern historians. Yet it is ultimately possible that part of the reason John provided only a partial picture of Featley is that John may have known only one facet of Featley’s churchmanship. Featley played up his royalist and episcopal sympathies to his establishment colleagues and his Reformed sensibilities to his puritanically minded brethren. Perhaps the ambiguous portrayal of figures like Featley was not merely the result of the polemical aims of their later biographers. Instead, this muddled picture may also have been a direct result of the figures themselves deliberately choosing to remain ambiguous as a survival strategy. While Featley’s survival strategy was effective, helping him successfully navigate the shifting political and ecclesiastical terrain for nearly three decades, it has complicated the task of capturing the “real Featley.” This seems to get to the heart of the debate between historians about defining puritanism. For some historians, puritanism was a genuine, conscientious attempt to square circles, to integrate within the established church and reform it from within. Others have been less inclined to adapt this view and argue that puritans were attempting to recast the established church in their own image. Perhaps the essence of puritanism, like Featley, was never wholly one or the other. Rather, puritans in different ways embodied both of these views. They were self-​identified godly ministers who nonetheless could fall into error, much like the rest of their contemporaries. This work began by highlighting a paradox: that despite occupying the ecclesiastical center ground during the Elizabethan and Jacobean period, Calvinist conformity was a particular brand of churchmanship that was eclipsed from the eighteenth century onward, receiving little attention from historians. Reflecting on the analysis of this chapter, one can identify at least two possible factors that have contributed to explaining why these divines may have been neglected for the last two centuries. First, as we have seen, these figures were distorted in the second half of the seventeenth century, and thereby essentially rebranded as post-​Restoration Anglicans. And second, the style of churchmanship that these figures represented—​a commitment to both Reformed soteriology and established-​ church ceremonialism—​ was an increasingly rare breed in the Anglican Church from the eighteenth century onward. With few heirs to perpetuate their memory, Calvinist conformists were largely forgotten.

Conclusion There are several prints of “trimmers” in the British Museum. The OED defines a trimmer as “one who trims between opposing parties in politics” and “inclines to each of two opposite sides as interest dictates.”1 One of these is of a double figure (Janus) standing halfway in a tub (puritan) and halfway in a pulpit (clergyman).2 The figure, standing in the middle of the print, is represented as both an episcopalian and a Presbyterian with the Book of Common Prayer on one side and the Directory of Worship on the other. The figure’s duplicity is depicted by his rowing a boat with the caption “I roe as Trimmers doe,” meaning, “I look one way and row another.”3 The caption also describes the figure as a “hybrid” conformist/​puritan who tactfully gives “double devotion” to each side, saying this minister “can in the twinkling of an eye Transform himselfe,” acting as both “patriot and saint.” He has “two opinions,” “half Surplice, and half Cloak both Priest and Presbyter.” Most of all, he is self-​serving, “like the Hedg-​Hog’s House of refuge to fly too when a storme Aproaches,” being a “turn-​Coat in every Age for Interest.”4 Likewise, another print describes the figure as “the true semblance of an Hypocrite. Always Conformist to the strongest Party,” “Always deceitful, Ever more unhearty. The Moderate Man ne’er yet a Martyr dy’d, But tack’d about, & chose the strongest side. Always recanted at the time of trial; Is ever best extempore at denial.”5 In short, this figure could be either a puritan or conformist, depending on which suited him best. One of Featley’s most recent biographers has argued that “the Puritans considered him [Featley] to have been a Trimmer.”6 This suggests that Featley was accused of keeping close ties with puritans and conformists in order to select the side that would prevail. It is unlikely that Featley was ever specifically branded with the title “trimmer” since the term originated in the 1680s when a surge of Whig and Tory writers used it to refer to an alleged third party that attempted to 1 OED, “Trimmer, n.” 2 BM, Satires 1233. This print is probably of the historian and bishop of Salisbury Gilbert Burnet. Fredric George Stephens, ed., Catalogue of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum. Division I: Political and Personal Satires (No.1 to No.1235) (London, 1870), I:751. For other prints of trimmers, see BM, Satires 1231; BM, Satires 1232; BM, Satires 1408; BM, Satires 1505. 3 Stephens, ed., Catalogue, I:751. 4 BM, Satires 1233. 5 BM, Satires 1505. 6 Smith, Featley, p.18. Calvinist Conformity in Post-​Reformation England. Greg A. Salazar, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2022. DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780197536902.003.0009

Conclusion  231 plow a middle course. The word does, however, capture something of the adaptability that Featley displayed throughout his career.7 Featley’s enemies certainly viewed him as one who shifted his allegiances. For example, following his imprisonment, Parliament noted his change of allegiance, accusing him of being a “spie & intelligencer” who attended the assembly to communicate “great imputations upon the proceedings of the Assembly and divers members both of the Assembly & Parlaiment . . . to Oxford.” Additionally, Montague spoke of Featley’s ability to talk his way out of difficult situations, saying, “That hobby-​horse Featley will, as he hath formally don, crouch and fawne, and wind himself out.”8 Likewise, the Committee of Plundered Ministers picked up on how, in the 1630s, Featley shifted his position with regard to moving the Communion table—​presumably to avoid persecution during the Laudian metropolitan campaign that mandated all tables be moved to “the altarwise position.”9 Indeed, although Featley denied the claim, the Lambeth Churchwardens’ Accounts indicates that the Communion table was moved in 1635 and that he may have made compromises.10 In a similar vein, Chapters 4 and 5 demonstrated that while Featley opposed anti-​Calvinism and Laudian innovations in the late 1620s and 1630s, he also made concessions in an attempt to situate himself in a favorable ecclesiastical position following the potential decline of the Laudian regime. Chapters 2 and 5 also showed that, in his licensing role in the 1620s and consulting role with the Court of High Commission in the 1630s, Featley encouraged puritans to shift their positions slightly in an attempt to avoid persecution. Finally, in an attempt to fight Featley with his “own Fauchin [sword],” the Anabaptist Samuel Fisher highlighted Featley’s shifting, citing that while in Featley’s previous debates with John Fisher and John Sweet he had downplayed the value of tradition, in his later debates with Anabaptists, Featley emphasized the importance of tradition in order to discredit their positions. When utilized carefully, the perspective of Featley’s enemies provides an important vantage point for understanding Featley’s life and theology. However, the present study has also sought to understand Featley’s maneuvers in light of his own theological commitments and his contexts. And, in this way, this study of Featley’s life and theology has sought to contribute to several major themes and issues related to Reformed thought in post-​Reformation England. 7 The term was popularized by an antitrimmer crusade headed by the Tory Sir Roger L’Estrange and his journal The Observator. The most famous contribution was by the Marquis of Halifax, George Savile, and his The Character of a Trimmer (1682). See Mark Brown, “Trimmers and Moderates in the Reign of Charles II,” Huntington Library Quarterly 37 (1974), pp.311–​36; Thomas Faulkner, “Halifax’s ‘The Character of a Trimmer’ and L’Estrange’s Attack on Trimmers in The Observator,” Huntington Library Quarterly 37 (1973), pp.71–​81; George Savile, The Character of a Trimmer, Neither Whigg nor Tory (London, 1682); OED, “Trimmer, n.” 8 Cosin, Correspondence, I:100. 9 See p.243; Fincham and Tyacke, Altars Restored, pp.108–​9. See LPL, MS 943, pp.475–​78. 10 Lambeth Churchwardens’ Accounts, I:109.

232 Conclusion First, it has shown that Featley’s ecclesiastical positioning was a survival strategy that enabled him to accommodate himself to the shifting political and ecclesiastical terrain as he pursued his ideal of a Reformed English church. Chapters 2 and 5 explored how, in response to losing his influence at court in the late 1620s and 1630s, Featley attempted to counter anti-​Calvinists in his licensing role and in his devotional works and sermon collection—​all while seeking to avoid persecution. Chapter 6 analyzed how Featley’s actions reflected two common uses of “moderation” in this period. Like “moderate puritans,” Featley straddled persecution and conformity for the greater good of reforming the established church.11 And, like Ethan Shagan’s “moderate” figures, he attempted to control Parliamentarians and royalists in order to take back the middle ground, even while it was disappearing beneath his feet. In this light, this study has shown that “moderation” was not always manipulative and sinister but was characteristic of the adaptability that enabled ministers to navigate the shifting ecclesiastical terrain. Second, it has shown that Featley consistently held to a set of theological convictions that were representative of the ideals and career of conformist Calvinism, including anti-​Catholicism, Reformed soteriology, a sensitivity to crypto-​Catholicism, robust preaching, fervent prayer, the belief that ecclesiastical authorities are to settle matters adiaphora (especially, conscientious objections to the Book of Common Prayer), a repulsion of Protestant sectarianism, and an unwavering commitment to pedobaptism, royalism, and episcopal polity. While none of these convictions was held only by Calvinist conformists, and certainly there was diversity even among these divines, taken together they are representative of the theological views and confessional bounds of Calvinist conformity. Third, this work has sought to address the challenges of dividing ministers into mutually exclusive categories—​most importantly polemicists and pastors. Chapters 2 through 5 explored how, in his licensing role and in his opposition to Catholics, anti-​Calvinists, and Laudians, Featley’s pastoral and polemical sensibilities were complementary and conjoined. In short, Featley’s polemical sensibilities were pastorally motivated—​in each instance he wielded his polemical rod to protect the sheep under his care. While there is value in using early modern labels and categories within the study of puritanism and English Reformed theology, historians should avoid casually imposing taxonomies on their subjects. Fourth, this study has shown that theological convictions could remain consistent while being employed differently in shifting ecclesiastical contexts. A central argument of the book has been that Featley attempted to cope with political and ecclesiastical shifts throughout the post-​Reformation period through a series of tactical accommodations and forced compromises. Yet Featley was also

11 Lake, Moderate Puritans.

Conclusion  233 shaped by ecclesiastical shifts he sought to control. He was the protégé of the moderate puritan John Rainolds and the Reformed archbishop George Abbot, and his early career developed during the first half of the Jacobean period, when Calvinist conformists and moderate puritans appear to have dominated the religious landscape. The dominance of anti-​Calvinism and Laudianism in the late 1620s and 1630s, however, forced Featley to reposition himself ecclesiastically to avoid persecution by the Laudian regime. Then, in the years before and during the English Civil War, as further shifts took place, Featley was again forced to reposition himself in order to maintain his position and avoid persecution by puritans. The circumstances that Featley encountered in each of these decades shaped and molded him. In the polarized years of the 1640s, figures were forced to choose a side and remain therein, and the worst quality one could have was to be adaptable. By this point, however, adaptability was one of Featley’s core survival strategies. This is not to suggest that Featley was without firm convictions. Indeed, a central argument of this thesis has been that Featley held to a consistent set of theological positions that were representative of Calvinist conformity. Rather, it is to argue that Featley was forced to utilize those theological convictions in different ways according to the shifting ecclesiastical contexts. In this way, alongside the suggestion of recent scholarship that moderation is something figures do—​pursuing a “middle way” or being coercive—​it is also possible to conceive of moderation as something done to figures by their context. Put differently, our protagonists were shaped and moderated by their contexts even as they sought to manipulate and moderate their milieu. Finally, we have seen that our historical understanding of the past is limited by the figures we study and the sources we use. Chapter 2 explored how our understanding of licensing and censorship has been obscured by the political maneuvers of the figures we study. Chapter 7 explored how it is important to scrutinize the limitations and distortions of our sources, as their agendas can cloud the historian’s perspective. Although recent scholarship has highlighted how our own modern preconceptions of the past and teleological agendas have distorted our understanding, our subjects and sources themselves can defy our endeavors to reconstruct the past. Nevertheless, just as an archaeologist can sweep away the debris surrounding ancient ruins to find the “real” object, so historians can sift through the historical rubble to uncover genuine history. In short, this study has used the life and career of the English Calvinist conformist divine Daniel Featley as lens to understand the theological priorities, ideals, and career of Calvinist conformity in England. It has explored a number of Featley’s most significant doctrinal commitments—​many of which were contended for in his debates with anti-​Calvinists, Catholics, Baptists, and Presbyterians—​and has connected these doctrinal commitments and the theological debates to their historical, political, and ecclesiastical context. Moreover,

234 Conclusion it has examined how Featley navigated significant ecclesiastical and political changes that took place through his life and has contributed to our understand of the politics of religion in post-​Reformation England. By analyzing how Featley’s political flexibility was principled—​the result of forced compromises within strict parameters and tactical accommodations—​it has used Featley’s theology and career as a lens to understand how he pursued his ultimate ideal, a truly reformed Church of England.

APPENDIX

Daniel Featley’s Amendments to William Hart’s English Translation of Francis de Croy’s The Three Conformities (1620): Comparing the Printed Copy with Two Manuscript Copies (Beinecke, Osborn MS b280 and CUL, Add. MS 30) In “The First Conformity,” Chapter 10: “Of Vestures” Amendment 1 Osborn MS b280 Those habits therefore that were indifferent, afterwards became different, but simple and without curiositie.1 It is not unknowne to us what obiections you use concerning this matter, and how you keepe your selves close in the sunne-​shine of the authoritie of some Fathers, as of Gregorie Nazianzene, and others, who report that the Priests and Deacons were apparrelled in white, during the time of the celebration of the holy mysteries, and thereafter you forget not Saint Austin.2

Printed Text Those habits therefore that were indifferent, afterwards became different, but simple and without curiositie. It is not unknowne to us what obiections you use concerning this matter, and how you keepe your selves close in the sunne-​shine of the authoritie of some Fathers, as of Gregorie Nazianzene, and others, who report that the Priests and Deacons were apparrelled in white, during the time of the celebration of the holy mysteries (not that we thinke it unlawfull to use a comely white roabe in the celebration of Gods service: but on the contrary we hold the use thereof as fit and decent as it is auncient:) and thereafter you forget not Saint Austin.3

1 Featley deletes “Copes” after “Amices.” Beinecke, Osborn MS b280, p.24; sig.C3r. Beinecke MS copy says, “Of Vestures, Albes, Amices, Copes, Mitres, and Crosier staffes.” CUL MS copy says “Apparrell” in place of Vestures. Beinecke, Osborn MS b280, p.24; CUL, Add. MS 30, fol.12v. 2 Beinecke, Osborn MS b280, pp.24–​25; CUL, Add. MS 30, fol.13r. 3 De Croy, The Conformities, sig.C3v.

236 APPENDIX

Amendment 2 Osborn MS b280 That we may enter farther4 into this matter, we find the statutes of Numa, concerning the apparell of those whom he ordained to offer sacrifice, and of other Priests of Paganisme, which hee would have to be of a white colour, as the etymologie of this ornament called Alba, doth sufficiently witnesse, which is the ordinarie garment that your Massemongers have retained for themselues at this day, and which the Egyptian Priests used in their service, according to the tradition of Pythagoras, and had in abhomination that which was made of wooll.5

Printed Text That we may enter farther into this matter, we find the statutes of Numa, concerning the apparell of those whom he ordained to offer sacrifices, and of other Priests of Paganisme, which hee would have to be of a white colour (we except not against the colour or garment, if it be not made a part of Gods worship, and applied to a mysticall sense, as it is in the Church of Rome) as the etymologie of this ornament called Alba, doth sufficiently witnesse, which is the ordinarie garment that your Massemongers haue retained for themselues at this day, and which the Egyptian Priests used in their service, according to the tradition of Pythagoras, and had in abhomination that which was made of wooll.6

Amendment 3 Osborn MS b280 The feast of Ceres was honoured with white apparel. Isis and Cybele the mother of the Gods, were served after the same manner.7 Is not this the same that is observed in your Churches at the Masse of the virgin Marie?8

Printed Text The feast of Ceres was honoured with white apparell Isis and Cybele the mother of the Gods, were served after the same manner (which I speake not, as condemning either the colour or the ornament, but because you put a necessity of religion in these things, and apply them to a mysticall sence, as the Heathen doe.) Is not this the same that is observed in your Churches at the Masse of the virgin Marie?9

4 CUL copy omits “farther.” CUL, Add. MS 30, fol.13v. 5 Beinecke, Osborn MS b280, pp.25–​26; CUL, Add. MS 30, fol.13v. 6 De Croy, The Conformities, sig.C4r. 7 CUL copy reads: “Isis served after the same maner; and Cybele, the mother of the Gods.” CUL, Add. MS 30, fol.14v. 8 Beinecke, Osborn MS b280, p.27; CUL, Add. MS 30, fol.14v. 9 De Croy, The Conformities, sig.C5r.

APPENDIX  237

In “The First Conformity,” Chapter 12: “Of Benefices and Tithes” Amendment 4 Osborn MS b280 Concerning the last; the Popes dispensation is requisite thereto, if any will inioy a pluralitie,10 which was practised in old times among the Gentiles: for to enioy two Benefices, the dispensation of the soveraigne Romish Pontife was requisite, as it is recorded in the Historie of Fabius Maximus.11

Printed Text Concerning the last; the Popes dispensation is requisite thereto, if any will inioy a pluralitie, which was practised in old times among the Gentiles (and in some cases we denie not to be iust and lawfull among Christians:) for to enioy two Benefices, the dispensation of the soveraigne Romish Pontife was requisite, as it is recorded in the Historie of Fabius Maximus.12

In “The First Conformity,” Chapter 26: “Of Organs” Amendment 5 Osborn MS b280 The Church of Israel used Organes and other musicall Instruments, which neverthelesse those that are best versed in antiquities, thinke to haue beene13 different from our instruments that are used at this day. But you cannot free your selves from Gentilisme14, although to escape and goe away free, you doe attribute the first institution of the melody of your instruments unto Vitellius Bishop of Rome, and to some other of your Pontifes.15

Printed Text The Church of Israel used Organes and other musicall Instruments, which neverthelesse those that are best versed in antiquities, thinke to haue beene different from our instruments that are used at this day. But (as they are used among you) you cannot free your selves from Gentilisme, although (to escape and goe away free) you doe attribute the first institution of the melody of your instruments unto Vitellius Bishop of Rome, and to some other of your Pontifes.16



10 11 12 13 14 15 16

CUL copy has “a plurality” in place of “many.” CUL, Add. MS 30, fol.18r. Beinecke, Osborn MS b280, p.35; CUL, Add. MS 30, fol.18r. De Croy, The Conformities, sig.C8v. CUL copy has “bin.” CUL, Add. MS 30, fol.31v. CUL copy has “Paganisme” in place of “Gentilisme.” CUL, Add. MS 30, fol.31v. Beinecke, Osborn MS b280, p.58; CUL, Add. MS 30, fols.31v–​32r. De Croy, The Conformities, sig.E7r.

238 APPENDIX

In “The Second Conformity,” Chapter 9: “Of Priests Garments” Amendment 6 Osborn MS b280 All the world perceiveth that the modell of all the institutions, and mysteries that you Romish Catholicks have, is generally framed after the paterne of the auncient Israelites, which haue lent you the needle and thread, wherewith your Church hath sowed all those goodly Dalmatique vestures and ierkins of cloth of gold, of silver and of silke, very richly imbrodered, as likewise the hoods, rochets, chalons, furres, miters, and long robes.17

Printed Text All the world perceiveth that the modell of all the institutions, and mysteries that you Romish Catholicks have, is generally framed after the paterne of the auncient Israelites (though some of them, I grant, may be soberly and moderatly used, so it be without superstition) which haue lent you the needle and thread, wherewith your Church hath sowed all those goodly Dalmatique vestures and ierkins of cloth of gold, of silver and of silke, very richly imbrodered, as likewise the hoods, rochets, chalons, furres, miters, and long robes.18



17 18

Beinecke, Osborn MS b280, p.171; CUL, Add. MS 30, fol.72r. De Croy, The Conformities, sig.L4v.

Bibliography Manuscripts Cambridge, Cambridge University Library Additional MS 30 William Hart’s translation of Francois de Croy’s The Three Conformities Baker Mm 1/​43 Reasons for burning Edward Elton’s Gods Holy Minde Dd iii 83 (19) Pastoral letter of Thomas Gataker Dd xiv 28 (4) John Lightfoot’s journal of the Westminster Assembly Gg 1/​29 Reasons for burning Edward Elton’s Gods Holy Minde

Cambridge, MA, Houghton Library, Harvard University

Eng MS 625 Eng MS 868 MS 835 MS 1084

Commonplace book of devotional works Copy of Thomas Scott’s “Vox populi” Proceedings in the Star Chamber against William Prynne Camera stelleta

Chichester, West Sussex Record Office Mitford 1222

The Dippers Dipt (6th edn., London, 1651) with notes about Anabaptists on the flyleaves

London, British Library Additional 4274 Letters of Archbishops and Bishops (c.1551–​1721) Additional 27936 Manuscript of Gilbert Primrose, Panegyrique a tres et tres-​puissant prince, Charles Prince de Galles (London, 1624) Additional 28640 Copies of political pamphlets, pieces in verse, prophecies relating to events of James I’s reign, particularly the Spanish Match Additional 31116 Diary of Laurence Whitaker Harleian 164 Diary of Sir Simonds D’Ewes Harleian 389 A Collection of letters by Joseph Mede (1586–​1638) Harleian 390 Volume of seventeenth-​century letters Harleian 750 Theological writings of James Wedderburn Harleian 823 Letters from Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, to Archbishop George Abbot Harleian 3142 A volume of state tracts and speeches Harleian 6424 Diary of a bishop Lansdowne 986 Bishop Kennett’s collections: containing biographical memoranda (1661 to 1680)

240 Bibliography Sloane 402 Sloane 1465 Stowe 159 Stowe 171–​174

Letters related to John Dury’s negotiations Protestant unity (1633–​36) Copies of letters and papers by John Dury respecting the church A collection of miscellaneous political and other tracts, c.1572–​1635 Papers of Sir Thomas Edmoundes

London, Doctor Williams’s Library MS 38:34

John Quick’s Icones Sacrae Anglicane

London, House of Lords Record Office PU/​1/​1605/​3J1n1 An Act for a Public Thanksgiving to Almighty God every Year on the Fifth Day of November Main Papers, 1/​144 Journal office, main papers (18–​28 February 1643) Main Papers, 1/​147 Journal office, main papers (2–​13 April 1643)

London, Lambeth Archives and Minet Library MS P 4/​5/​3/​1

St. Mary’s Lambeth charities and leases

London, Lambeth Palace Library MS 98 MS 178 MS 935 MS 943 MS 1372

MS 1730 MS 1741 MS 1742 MS 2017 MS 3472 MS F I/​D MS F II/​12 MS F V/​1/​II MS VB 1/​3

A draft towards the translation of the letters of Paul, James, Peter, John, and Jude for the Authorized Version Miscellaneous papers, manuscript of Richard Mocket’s Doctrina et politia ecclesiae Anglicanae (1616) Miscellaneous papers Papers of William Laud A collection of historical and theological papers probably made by Thomas Brudenell, 1st Earl of Cardigan, seventeenth century Accounts of Archbishop George Abbot Letters to Edmund Gibson, bishop of London, 1699–​1737 Miscellaneous letters and papers Notebook of a seventeenth-​century clergyman Miscellaneous letters and papers, c.1600–​1660 Faculty Office muniment book Faculty Office fiats Papers relating to noblemen’s chaplains Vicars Act Books

London, London Metropolitan Archives COL/​CC/​01/​01/​041 Journal of the Common Council

London, the National Archives C 2/​ChasI/​F19/​19 Court of Chancery, Six Clerks Office, plaintiff pleadings C 2/​ChasI/​F46/​25 Court of Chancery, Six Clerks Office, plaintiff pleadings

Bibliography  241 E 179/​187/​465 LC 5/​134 LC 5/​135

PROB 11/​171 PROB 11/​183 PROB 11/​193 PROB 11/​363 SP 14/​67



SP 14/​70 SP 14/​90 SP 14/​120 SP 14/​154 SP 14/​165 SP 14/​166 SP 16/​65 SP 16/​78 SP 16/​141 SP 16/​261



SP 16/​293 SP 16/​339 SP 16/​406 SP 16/​477 SP 16/​498

SP 16/​529 SP 16/​534 SP 78/​56 SP 78/​58 SP 78/​59 SP 78/​60 SP 78/​61 SP 105/​95

Particulars of records relating to lay and clerical taxation Entry book of warrants to the Lord Chamberlain of the household (1634–​41) Entry book of warrants for swearing servants to the king (1641–​42) Wills of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury Wills of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury Records of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury Wills of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury Letters and papers of James I, domestic (November–​ December 1611) Letters and papers of James I, domestic (July–​September 1612) Letters and papers of James I, domestic (January–​March 1617) Letters and papers of James I, domestic (March–​April 1621) Letters and papers of James I, domestic (November 1623) Letters and papers of James I, domestic (19–​31 May 1624) Parliamentary notebook by Edward Nicholas (May 1624) Letters and papers of Charles I, domestic (28–​31 May 1627) Letters and papers Charles I, domestic (11–​20 September 1627) Letters and papers Charles I, domestic (17–​30 September 1629) Court of High Commission minute book (18 February 1634–​11 February 1636) Letters and papers of Charles I, domestic (1–​16 July 1635) Letters and papers of Charles I, domestic (1636) Letters and papers of Charles I, domestic (1638) Letters and papers of Charles I, domestic (February 1641) Letters and papers of Charles I, domestic (September–​ December 1643) Letters and papers of Charles I, domestic (August–​ December 1628) Letters and papers of Charles I, domestic (21 January 1633–​ October 1634) Secretaries of State: State Papers Foreign, France (1610) Secretaries of State: State Papers Foreign, France (June–​ December 1611) Secretaries of State: State Papers Foreign, France (January–​ July 1612) Secretaries of State: State Papers Foreign, France (August–​ December 1612) Secretaries of State: State Papers Foreign, France (June–​ December 1613) Letter book of correspondence of Sir Dudley Carleton, mainly with George Abbot (December 1616–​February 1619)

242 Bibliography New Haven, CT, Beinecke Library, Yale University Osborn b280 Osborn Fb13

William Hart’s translation of Francois de Croy’s The Three Conformities Commonplace book, c.1625

Norwich, Norfolk Record Office NNAS MS S2/​18 MF/​RO 27/​3

Letter from Thomas Thorowgood to Lord Townsend Papers sent to members of Bacon and Townshend families at Stiffkey

Oxford, Bodleian Library Rawl. MS C.167 Rawl. MS C.573 Rawl. MS C.753

Various Theological Tracts Four different tracts Daniel Featley’s notebook of various letters, theological tracts, and notes Rawl. MS D.32 Papers of Nicholas Lloyd or Floyd, of Wadham College Rawl. MS D.47 Daniel Featley’s notebook of letters and unpublished treatises Rawl. MS D.817 Various theological tracts Rawl. MS D.831 Miscellaneous theological treatises Rawl. MS D.853 Miscellaneous papers and tracts relating to Roman Catholics in England Rawl. MS Letters 89 Letters to, with drafts from, Archbishop James Ussher Tanner MS 41 Letters and papers preserved as specimens of different hands Tanner MS 71 Collection of letters and papers (1629–​33) Tanner MS 73 Collection of letters and papers (1621–​24) Tanner MS 142 Collection of letters and papers related to the Diocese of London Tanner MS 314 Collection of letters and papers (1587–​1700) Wood MS F.40 Letters to Anthony Wood

Oxford, Corpus Christi College MS 303 MS 307 MS B/​1/​3/​1 MS D/​2/​1

Notes and letters related to figures of Corpus Christi College Brief notices, biographical and historical, or memorials and remains of famous and learned men Admissions registers Library benefactions

Oxford, Queen’s College MS 249

Thomas James’s “An Anticoccius or A Preamble to a greater worke which shall yf god will shew the Generall Historie of the Protestant Churches more or lesse visible in all times and in all places”

Sheffield, Sheffield University Library Hartlib 4/​3

Letter from John Dury to Samuel Hartlib

Bibliography  243 Hartlib 6/​6 Hartlib 14/​2 Hartlib 17/​3 Hartlib 20/​11 Hartlib 29/​2 Hartlib 59/​10

Copy of Instrumenti Theologorum Brittannorum in Hartlib’s hand Printed pamphlet, The Effect Of Master Dury’s Negotiation For The Uniting Of Protestants (1657) Copy of Instrumenti Theologorum Brittannorum in Hartlib’s hand Copy memo On Theology In England Samuel Hartlib’s Ephemerides (1634), Part 5 A letter from Herborn Synod to English Theologians (10 January 1633); and a letter from the Hanoverian Clergy to Archbishop of Canterbury (1 November 1632)

Truro, Cornwall Records Office BRA 1260

Miscellaneous deeds

Washington, DC, Folger Shakespeare Library V.b. 198

The Southwell-​Sibthorpe Commonplace Book

Prints London, British Museum Department of Prints and Drawings

Satires 1231 Satires 1232 Satires 1233 Satires 1408 Satires 1505

W.H, “A trimmer with description,” c.1689 Unknown artist, “A trimmer. Description to follow,” c.1689 Unknown artist, “A Trimmer Practicall,” c.1689 Unknown artist, “The Presbyterian Conventicle,” c.1694–​1700 Unknown artist, “A British Janus, Anglicae a Timeserver,” c.1709

London, National Portrait Gallery D26794 D5641

Unknown artist, “line engraving of Daniel Featley,” c.1645 William Marshall, “line engraving of Daniel Featley,” c.1645

Printed Works of Daniel Featley Featley, Daniel, An Appendix to the Fishers Net (London, 1624). ­——​—​​ Ancilla Pietatis; or, The Handmaid to Private Devotion (1st edn., London, 1626; 2nd edn., London, 1626; 4th edn., London, 1630; 5th edn., London, 1633; 6th edn., London, 1639; 7th edn., London, 1647; 8th edn., London, 1656; 9th edn., London, 1675). ———​ Britanicus Uapulans: Or the Whipping of poore British Mercury (London, 1643). ———​ Clavis Mystica (London, 1636). ———​ A Conference by Writing, Between D. Featley, Doctor of Divinity, and M. Sweet (London, 1624). ———​ Cygnea Cantio (London, 1629). ———​ Davids herders-​ tassche gevult met werp-​ steenen van stichtelijcke gebeden (Enchuysen, 1680).

244 Bibliography ———​ The Dippers Dipt (1st edn., London, 1645; 6th edn., London, 1651; 7th edn., London, 1660). ———​ Dr. Daniel Featley revived. Or The faithfull shepheard (London, 1661). ———​ Featlaei Palggenesia: or Doctor Daniel Featley revived: Proving, That the Protestant church (and not the Romish) is the onely Catholick and true Church. In a Manuel preserved from the hands of the Plunderers (London, 1660). ———​ The Fisher Catched in His Owne Net (London, 1623). ———​ The Gentle Lash (London, 1644). ———​ The Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome, in taking away the sacred Cup from the Laiety at the Lord’s Table (London, 1630). ———​ La Malette De David (Genève, 1650). ———​ The League Illegal. Wherein the late Solemn League and Covenant is Seriously Examined (London, 1660). ———​ The Life of the Worthie Prelate and Faithfull Servant of God Iohn Iewel Sometimes Bishop of Sarisburie, in The Works of the Very Learned and Reverend Father in God Iohn Iewel (London, 1609). ———​ Orationes Syndicae: Or Severall Speeches (London, 1651 and 1660). ———​ A Parallel: of new-​old Pelagiarminian error (London, 1626). ———​ Parallelismus nov-​antiqui erroris Pelagiarminiani (London, 1626). ———​ Pelagius redivivus: Or Pelagius raked out of the ashes by Arminius and his schollers (London, 1626). ———​ Philip’s Memento Mori: Or, the Passing-​Bell (London, 1708). ———​ A Relation of What Passed in a Conference Betweene Dan. Featly, Doctor in Divinity, and Mr. Everard (London, 1623). ———​ The Romish Fisher Caught and Held in His Owne Net: Or, a True Relation of the Protestant Conference and Popish Difference (London, 1624). ———​ Sacra nemesis, the Levites scourge, or, Mercurius Britan (Oxford, 1644). ———​ The Sea-​ Gull, or the New Apparition in the Star-​ Chamber at Westminster (London, 1644). ———​ A Second Parallel (London, 1626). ———​ The Summe and Substance of a Disputation (London, 1630). ———​ The Summe of Saving Knowledge (London, 1626). ———​ Transubstantiation exploded: or an encounter with Richard the titularie Bishop of Chalcedon (London, 1638). ———​ A Warning for England Especially For London (London, 1642). Featley, Daniele, Roberto Harris, and Oliveri Bowles, Pedum Pastorale seu conciones duae ad Johan. 21, v.15–​18 (Utrecht, 1657). H.W., Daniel Featley, Martin Day, Richard Sibbes, and Thomas Taylor, Threnoikos: The House of Mourning (London, 1640).

Printed Sources Abbot, George, A Treatise of the Perpetuall Visibilitie and Succession of the Church in all Ages (London, 1624). The Abolishing of the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1641). Andrewes, Lancelot, A manual of the private devotions and meditations (London, 1648). The Anglican Canons 1529–​1947, ed. Gerald Bray (Woodbridge, 1998).

Bibliography  245 Anon., The Life and Approaching Death of William Kiffin (London, 1659 [i.e., 1660]). ———​ The Sussex Picture, or An Answer to the Sea-​Gull (London, 1644). Arminius, James, The Works of James Arminius, trans. James Nichols (3 vols., London, 1825–​28). Articles of the Commons assembled in Parliament, in maintenance of their accusation against William Laud (London, 1644). Aubrey, John, Remaines of Gentilisme and Judaisme, ed. James Britten (London, 1881). Augustine, St., Nicene and Post-​Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, Augustin: Anti-​Pelagian Writings, First Series, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA, 1994). Baillie, Robert, Anabaptism, the true fountaine of Independency (London, 1647). ———​ An Answere to Mr. Fishers Relation (London, 1624). ———​ The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie, 1637–​62, ed. David Laing (3 vols., Edinburgh, 1841). Barksdale, Clement, A Remembrancer of Excellent Men (London, 1670). Barlow, William, The summe and substance of the conference . . . at Hampton Court (London, 1604). Bastwick, John, The Utter Routing of the Whole Army of Independents and Sectaries (London, 1646). Baxter, Richard, Calendar of the correspondence of Richard Baxter, ed. N. H. Keeble and G. F. Nuttall (2 vols., Oxford, 1991). ———​ A Christian directory (London, 1672). ———​ The Quakers Chatechism (London, 1651). ———​ Reliquiae Baxterianae (London, 1696). Baynes, Paul, A Commentarie upon the First Chapter of the Epistle of Saint Paul written to the Ephesians (London, 1618). Bedell, William, Two Biographies of William Bedell Bishop of Kilmore with a Selection of His Letters and an Unpublished Treatise, ed. E. S. Shuckburgh and Alexander Clogie (Cambridge, 1902). Bedford, Thomas, Luthers Predecessors (London, 1624). Bernard, Richard, The Iles of Man (London, 1626). ———​ Looke Beyond Luther (London, 1623). ———​ Ruth’s Recompence or a Commentary upon the book of Ruth (London, 1628). ———​ The seaven golden candlesticks (London, 1621). Bertius, Peter, The life and death of James Arminius, and Simon Episcopius (London, 1673). Birckbeck, Simon, The Protestants Evidence (London, 1635). Bishop, E. and H. Littlehales, “Temporary Introduction,” in The Prymer or Prayerbook of the Lay People I the Middle Ages, ed. E. Bishop and H. Littlehales (London, 1892), pp.vii–​xx. Brightman, F. E., “Introduction,” in The Preces Privatae of Lancelot Andrewes Bishop of Winchester, ed. and trans. F. E. Brightman (London, 1903), pp.xiii–​lx. Brinsley, John, The true watch (London, 1607). The British Delegation at the Synod of Dort, 1618–​ 1619, ed. Anthony Milton (Woodbridge, 2005). Burgess, Cornelius, No Sacrilege Nor Sinne to aliene or purchase the lands of bishops, or others, whose offices are abolished (London, 1702). Burton, Henry, A plea to an appeale: trauersed dialogue wise (London, 1626). ———​ A Tryall of Private Devotions (London, 1628). Byfield, Nicholas, The Marrow of the Oracles of God (London, 1619).

246 Bibliography ———​ The Pattern of wholesome words (London, 1618). ———​ The promises (London, 1619). ———​ The Rule of Faith (London, 1626). Calamy, Edmund, An Abridgement of Mr Baxter’s History of His Life and Time. With an Account of Many Others of Those Worthy Ministers Who Were Ejected (London, 1702). Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1603–​1714, ed. M. A.E. Green, J. Bruce, et al. (27 vols., London, 1857–​97). Campion, Edmund, Campian Englished ([Roven?], 1632). ———​ A Jesuit Challenge: Edmund Campion’s Debates at the Tower of London in 1581, ed. James Holleran (New York, 1999). ———​ Rationes decem quibus fretus (Henley-​on-​Thames, 1581). Carier, Benjamin, A Treatise written by M. Doctour Carier (St. Omer, 1614). Carleton, George, An examination of those things wherein the author of the late Appeale holdeth the doctrines of the Pelagians and Arminians, to be the doctrines of the Church of England (London, 1626). ———​ A thankfull remembrance of Gods mercy (London, 1624). Cartwright, Francis, The life, confession, and heartie repentance of Francis Cartwright (London, 1621). Chamberlain, John, The letters of John Chamberlain, ed. Norman McLure (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1939). Charles I, A Forme of Common Prayer, Together with An Order of Fasting (London, 1625). ———​[John Gauden], Eikon basilike (London, 1648). ———​[John Gauden], Eikon Basilike: The Portraiture of His Sacred Majesty in His Solitudes and Sufferings with selections from Eikonoklastes, John Milton, ed. Jim Daems and Holly Faith Nelson (Toronto, 2005). Chibald, William, An Apology for the treatise, called a trial of faith (London, 1624). ———​ A Defence of the Treatise, called, a Tryall of Faith (London, 1623). ———​ A Tryall of Faith (London, 1623). Chidley, Samuel, Christian Plea for Christians Baptisme (London, 1643). Clerke, Richard, Sermons (London, 1637). Cobbett, William, Cobbett’s parliamentary history of England (36 vols., London, 1806–​20). Collectanea II: A Collection of Documents from Various Sources, ed. T. F. Palmer ([London], 1928). The confession of faith of those churches which are commonly (though falsely) called Anabaptists (London, 1644). A Continuation Of certaine Speciall and Remarkable Passages from both Houses of Parliament, and other Parts of the Kingdom, 16 February to 23 February 1643 (London, 1643). Cooke, William, A Learned and Full Answer to a Treatise Intituled (London, 1644). A Copy of the Proceedings of some worthy and learned Divines, appointed by the Lords to meet at the Bishop of Lincolns in Westminster (London, 1641). Cosin, John, A collection of private devotions (London, 1627). ———​ A Collection of Private Devotions, ed. P. G. Stanwood and Daniel O’Connor (Oxford, 1967). ———​ The Correspondence of John Cosin, ed. G. Ormsby (2 vols., Durham, 1869–​72). Cotton, Clement, A Complete Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation (London, 1631). The Court and Times of Charles I, ed. Thomas Birch (2 vols., London, 1848).

Bibliography  247 Coxe, B., H. Knollys, and W. Kiffin, A declaration concerning the publike dispute (London, 1645). Crakanthorpe, Richard, Vigilius Dormitans (London, 1631). Crofton, Zachary, Analepsis anelephthe (London, 1660). Crompton, William, Saint Austins Summes (London, 1625). Crosby, Thomas, The history of the English Baptists, from the Reformation to the beginning of the reign of King George I (4 vols., London, 1640). Culverwell, Ezekiel, Treatise of Faith (London, 1623). Debates in the House of Commons in 1625, ed. S. R. Gardiner (London, 1873). Darley, John, The Glory of Chelsey Colledge Revived (London, 1662). De Croy, Francis, The three conformities, trans. William Hart (London, 1620). De Dominis, Marc Antonio, A Declaration of the Reasons Which Moved Marcus Antonius De Dominis (Edinburgh, 1617). ———​ De republication ecclesiastica (3 vols., London, 1617–​20). ———​ M. Antonius de Dominis (St. Omer, 1623). Denison, Stephen, A Compendious Chatechisme (London, 1621). ———​ An exposition on the first chapter of the second Epistle of Peter (London, 1622). ———​ The monument or tombstone (London, 1620). ———​ The new Creature (London, 1619). Denne, Henry, Antichrist unmasked in two treatises (London, 1645). Dering, Edward, A Discourse of Proper Sacrifice (Cambridge, 1644). Dobson, Edward, Declaration, Vindication and Protestation of Edward Dobson (London, 1644). Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England, ed. E Cardwell (2 vols., London, 1844). Documents relating to Proceedings against William Prynne in 1634 and 1637, ed. S. R. Gardiner (London, 1877). Downham, John, et al., Annotations Upon all the Books of the Old and New Testament (London, 1645). Du Moulin, Pierre, A Defence of the Catholicke Faith, trans. John Sanford (London, 1610). ———​ The Novelty of Popery (London, 1662). Edwards, Thomas, Gangraena (London, 1644). Elton, Edward, Gods Holy Mind (London, 1625). England’s memorable accidents, 28 November–​5 December 1642 (London, 1642). The English Revolution III: Newsbooks 1. Oxford Royalist, ed. Peter Thomas (4 vols., London, 1971). Evelyn, John, The Diary of John Evelyn, ed. E. S. de Beer (6 vols., Oxford, 1955). An exhortation to the taking of the Solemn League and Covenant for Reformation (London, 1643). Featley, John, A fountaine of teares emptying it selfe into three rivelets (London, 1646). ———​ The honor of chastity (London, 1632). ———​ Obedience and Submission (London, 1636). ———​ A Sermon preached to . . . Sir Thomas Warner (London, 1629). ———​ A Succinct History of the Life and Death of . . . Daniel Featley (London, 1660). ———​ Tears in time of pestilence: or, a spiritual antidote against the plague (London, 1655). Finch, Henry, The Calling of the Jewes (London, 1621). Fisher, John, An Answer to a Pamphlet Intitled: The Fisher Catched in His Owne Net (St. Omer, 1623).

248 Bibliography ———​ The answere unto the nine points of controuersy, proposed by our late Soueraygne (St. Omer, 1625). ———​A reply made unto Mr. Anthony Wotton and Mr. Iohn White ministers (St. Omer, 1612). ———​ A Reply to D. White and D. Featley (St. Omer, 1625). ———​ The treatise of faith (St. Omer, 1605). ———​ True relations of sundry conferences had between certaine Protestant doctours and a Iesuite called M. Fisher (St. Omer, 1626). Fisher, Samuel, Baptism before, or after faith & repentance, largely discussed (London, 1669). ———​ Christianismus Redivivus (1st edn., London, 1655; 2nd edn., London, 1669). Floyd, John, A Letter of Sr. Humphrey Linde (St. Omer, 1634). ———​ A Paire of Spectacles for Sir Humphrey Linde to See His Way Withall (Roven, 1631). ———​ A plea for the reall-​presence (St. Omer, 1624). Fuller, Thomas, Abel Redivivus: Or, the dead yet Speaking (London, 1651). ———​ The Church History of Britain (London, 1655). ———​ Historie of the Worthies of England (London, 1662). Gataker, Thomas, A discours apologetical (London, 1654). ———​ Saint Stevens last will and testament (London, 1638). ———​ Vindication of the Words Published By Him (London, 1653). Gauden, John, Analysis. The loosing of Saint Peter’s bands (London, 1660). Gee, John, The Foot out of the snare (London, 1624). Goad, Thomas, The Dolefull Even-​Song (London, 1623). ———​ The Friers Chronicle (London, 1623). Gouge, William, A Learned and Very Useful Commentary on the Whole Epistle to the Hebrewes (London, 1655). ———​ Of domesticall duties eight treatises (London, 1622). ———​ The Whole Armour of God (London, 1619). Gregory of Nazianzus, Sancti Gregorii Nazianzeni in Iulianum Invectivae Duae, ed. Richard Montague (Eton, 1610). Haak, Theodore, The Dutch annotations upon the whole Bible (London, 1657). Hacket, John, Scrinia Reserata (London, 1693). Hakewill, George, An answere to a treatise by Dr. Carier (London, 1616). ———​ Apologie of the Power and Providence of God (3rd edn., Oxford, 1635). Hall, Joseph, Episcopacie by Divine Right Asserted (London, 1640). ———​ An Humble Remonstrance to the High Court of Parliament (London, 1640). Heigham, John, The gagge of the reformed gospell (St. Omer, 1623). ———​ Via Vera Tuta (St. Omer, 1631). Heylyn, Peter, Aerius redivivus (Oxford, 1670). ———​ Cyprianus Anglicus (London, 1668). ———​ Examen historicum (London, 1659). ———​ Historia quinquarticularis (London, 1660). ———​ The Historie of . . . St. George of Cappadocia (1st edn., London, 1631; 2nd edn., London, 1633). ———​ Keimelia ’ekklesiastika (London, 1681). ———​ Theologia veterum (London, 1654). Hildersham, Arthur, The Doctrine of Fasting and Praier (London, 1633). Holles, John, Letters of John Holles 1587–​1637, ed. P. R. Seddon (3 vols., Nottingham, 1975–​83). Howell, James, A New Volume of Familiar Letters Partly Philosopicall [sic], Politicall, Historical. The Second Edition (London, 1650).

Bibliography  249 The humble petition of the inhabitants of Lambeth (London, 1643). Humphrey, Laurence, Ioannis Iuelli Angli, Episcopi Sarisburiensis vita & mors (London, 1573). Hyde, Edward, The History of the Rebellion and civil wars in England begun in the year 1641, ed. William Dunn Macray (Oxford, 1888). Jackson, Thomas, Treatise of the Divine Essence and Attributes (London, 1629). Jacob, Henry, A Christian and Modest Offer of a Most Indifferent Conference (London, 1606). James I, An Apologie for the Oath of allegiance (London, 1609). ———​ His Maiesties declaration concerning . . . Conradus Vorstius (London, 1612). ———​ The Kings Maiesties Declaration to His Subiets, Concerning Lawfull Sports to be used (London, 1618). James, Thomas, A treatise of the corruption of Scripture, councels, and Fathers (London, 1611). Jewel, John, The Copie of a Sermon Pronouced by the Byshop of Salisburie at Paules Crosse (London, 1560). Lightfoot, John, The Journal of the Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines, From January 1, 1643 to December 31, 1644, ed. John Rogers Pitman (London, 1824). Kiffin, William, A briefe Remonstrance of the Reasons of those people called Anabaptists for their Separation (London, 1645). ———​ A sober discourse of right to church-​communion (London, 1681). ———​ To Mr. Thomas Edwards (London, 1644). Lambeth Churchwardens’ Accounts, 1504–​1645, and Vestry Book, 1610, ed. Charles Drew (2 vols., London, 1940). Laud, William, The History of the Troubles and Tryal of . . . William Laud (London, 1695). ———​ A relation of the conference betweene William Lawd, then, Lrd. Bishop of St. Davids; now, Lord Arch-​Bishop of Canterbury: and Mr. Fisher the Jesuite by the command of King James of ever blessed memorie (London, 1639). ———​ The Works of William Laud, ed. J. Bliss and W. Scott (7 vols., Oxford, 1847–​60). Lechmere, Edmund, The Conference Mentioned by Doctour Featly in the End of His Sacrilege (Doway, 1632). Lechmere, John, The Relection of a Conference Touching the Reall Presence (Doway, 1635). Loe, William, A Sermon Preached at Lambeth . . . at the Funerall of . . . Daniel Featley (London, 1645). Lynde, Humphrey, The ancient doctrine of the Church of England maintained in its primitive purity . . . Written long since by that eminent and learned divine Daniel Featly. D.D. (London, 1660). ———​ A Case for Spectacles (London, 1638). ———​ Stricturae in Lyndomastygem (London, 1638). ———​ Via devia (London, 1630). ———​ Via tuta (1st edn., London, 1628; 2nd edn., London, 1629; 3rd edn., London, 1629; 4th edn., London, 1630; 5th edn., London, 1632). Maie, Edward, A Sermon of the Communion of Saints ([first impression] London, 1621; [second impression] London, 1625). Maltby, Judith, ed., “Petitions for Episcopacy and the Book of Common Prayer on the Eve of the Civil War 1641–​1642,” in Stephen Taylor, ed., From Cranmer to Davidson: A Church of England Miscellany (Woodbridge, 1999), pp.105–​67. The manuscripts of the House of Lords, addenda 1514–​1714, vol. 9 (new series), ed. M. F. Bond (London, 1962).

250 Bibliography Marshall, Stephen, A Sacred Panegyrick (London, 1644). Mason, Henry, The New Arte of Lying (London, 1624). Mercurius Aulicus: A Diurnall Communicating the Intelligence and Affaires of the Court to the Rest of the Kingdom, ed. F. J. Varley (Oxford, 1948). Mercurius Aulicus, October 8–​14 (Oxford, 1643). Mercurius Britanicus, 26 September–​3 October 1643 (London, 1643). Mercurius Britanicus, 12–​19 August 1644 (London, 1644). Milton, Anthony and Alexandra Walsham, eds., “Richard Montagu: ‘Concerning Recusancie of Communion with the Church of England,’” in Stephen Taylor, ed., From Cranmer to Davidson: A Church of England Miscellany (Woodbridge, 1999), pp.71–​101. Milton, John, The Divorce Tracts of John Milton, ed. Sarah van den Berg and W. Scott Howard (Pittsburgh, 2010). ———​ Eikon alethine (London, 1649). ———​ Eikonoklastes in answer to . . . Eikon basilike (London, 1649). The Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 1643–​1652, ed. Chad Van Dixhoorn et al. (5 vols., Oxford, 2012). Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, ed. Alex Mitchell and John Struthers (Edinburgh, 1874). Montague, Richard, Appello Caesarem (London, 1625). ———​ A gagg for the new Gospell? (London, 1624). Musgrave, Christopher, Musgraves Motives (London, 1621). Neile, Richard, Marcus Antonius De Dominis (London, 1624). Newcourt, Richard, Repertorium ecclesiasticum parochiale Londinense (2 vols., London, 1710). Newman, Samuel, A large and complete concordance to the Bible (1st edn., London, 1643; 2nd edn., London, 1650; 3rd edn., London, 1658). Newsletters from the Archpresbyterate for George Birkhead, ed. Michael Questier (Cambridge, 1998). Newsletters from the Caroline Court, 1631–​1638: Catholicism and the Politics of the Personal Rule, ed. Michael Questier (Cambridge, 2005). Norris, Sylvester, An Appendix to the Antidote (St. Omer, 1621). Orme, William, Remarkable passages in the life of William Kiffin (London, 1823). Owen, Lewis, The Running Register (London, 1626). A Perfect Diurnall of the Passages in Parliament, 20–​27 February 1643 (London, 1643). Perkins, William, A Golden Chaine (London, 1591). ———​ A Reformed Catholike (Cambridge, 1597). ———​ A Warning against the Idolatrie of the Last Times (Cambridge, 1601). Porter, Robert, The Life of Mr John Hieron (London, 1691). Pote, Joseph, The History and Antiquities of Windsor Castle (Eton, 1769). Preston, John, Saints daily exercise (London, 1629). Prideaux, John, Certaine Sermons (Oxford, 1639). ———​ The Doctrine of the Sabbath (Oxford, 1634). ———​ Lectiones Novem (Oxford, 1625). Primrose, Gilbert, The Christian mans teares (London, 1625). ———​ Panegyrique a tres-​ grand et tres-​ puissant prince, Charles Prince de Galles (London, 1624). ———​ The righteous mans evils and the Lordes Deliverance (London, 1625). Proceedings, Principally in the County of Kent, ed. Lambert Larking (London, 1862).

Bibliography  251 Prynne, William, Anti-​Arminianisme (London, 1630). ———​ A Briefe Survey and Censure of Mr Cozens his Couzening Devotions (London, 1628). ———​ Canterburies doome (London, 1646). ———​ A fresh discovery of some prodigious new wandring-​blasing-​stars, & firebrands (London, 1645). ———​ Histrio-​mastix (London, 1633). ———​ The Perpetuitie of a Regenerate Mans Estate (London, 1626). Quatermayne, Roger, Quatermayns conquest over Canterburies court (London, 1642). Rainolds, John, De Romanae Ecclesiae idololatria [sic] (Oxford, 1596). Ratramnus, A booke of Bertram (London, 1623). The Records of the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn: The Black Books, ed. W. P. Blaidon and R. F. Roxburgh (3 vols., London, 1897–​69). Reports of Cases in the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission, ed. S. R. Gardiner (London, 1886). Richardson, Samuel, Some Brief Considerations on Doctor Featley His Book, Intituled, the Dipper Dipt (London, 1645). Ricraft, Joshua, A looking glasse for the Anabaptists and the rest of the separatists (London, 1645). Ritor, Andrew, The Second Part of the Vanity & Childishnes of Infants Baptisme (London, 1642). ———​ A Treatise of the Vanity of Childish-​baptisme (London, 1642). Robinson, Thomas, The Anatomie of the English Nunnery at Lisbon in Portugall (London, 1623). Rogers, Henry, An Answer to Mr. Fisher (London, 1623). Rushworth, John, Historical Collections. The Second Part (London, 1680). Russell, John, The Solemn League and Covenant discharg’d (London, 1660). Ryves, Bruno, Angliae ruina (London, 1647). ———​ Mercurius Rusticus (Oxford, 1646). Sacristan, T. T. and Catholike Romanist, The whetstone of reproofe. A reproving censure of the misintituled safe way (Catuapoli [i.e., Douai], 1632). Sheldon, Richard, Christ on His Throne (London, 1622). Smart, Peter, A sermon preached in the cathedrall church of Durham. Iuly 7. 1628 (London, 1628). Smectymnuus, An Answer to a Booke Entituled, a Humble Remonstrance (London, 1641). A Solemne League and Covenant (London, 1643). Stuart Dynastic Policy and Religion Politics, 1621–​ 1625, ed. Michael Questier (Cambridge, 2009). Stuart Royal Proclamations, vol. 1, Royal Proclamations of King James I, 1603–​1625, ed. Stuart Larkin and Paul Hughes (Oxford, 1973). Stuart Royal Proclamations, vol. 2, Royal Proclamations of King Charles I 1625–​1646, ed. James Larkin (Oxford, 1983). Sutcliffe, Matthew, A Briefe Censure upon an Appeale to Caesar (London, 1626). ———​ The unmasking of a masse-​monger (London, 1626). Sweet, John, A Defense of the Appendix (St. Omer, 1624). Tejeda, Fernando, Texeda retextus (London, 1623). Thorowgood, Thomas, “Transcript of the Letter and Diary,” in Basil Cosens-​Hardy, “A Puritan moderate. Dr. Thomas Thorowgood, S.T.B., 1595 to 1669,” Norfolk Archaeology 22 (Norwich, 1926), pp.319–​37.

252 Bibliography Throgmorton, George, A Treatise of Faith (London, 1624). Tombes, John, Anti-​paedobaptism . . . the second part (London, 1654). ———​ Anti-​Paedobaptism . . . the third part (London, 1657). A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers, 1554–​1640, ed. Edward Arber (5 vols., London, 1875–​94). Ussher, James, The Correspondence of James Ussher, 1600–​1656, ed. Elizabethanne Boran (3 vols., Dublin, 2015). ———​ The reduction of episcopacie (London, 1656). ———​ The soveraignes power, and the subject of duty (Oxford, 1644). ———​ The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, ed. C. R. Elrington (17 vols., Dublin, 1847–​64). Vicars, Thomas, The Grounds of that Doctrine which is according to Godlinesse (2nd edn., London, 1630; 3rd edn., London, 1631). Vines, Richard, The Authours, Nature, and Danger of Haeresie (London, 1647). Visitation Articles and Injunctions of the Period of the Reformation, 1559–​1575, ed. W. H. Frere (3 vols., London, 1910). Wadkins, Timothy, ed., “King James I Meets John Percy, S.J. (25 May, 1622): An Unpublished Manuscript from the Religious Controversies Surrounding the Countess of Buckingham’s Conversion,” RH 19 (1988), pp.146–​54. Waferer, Myrth, An Apologie for Daniel Featley (London, 1634). Walker, John, An Attempt Towards Recovering an Account of the Numbers and Sufferings of the Clergy in the Church of England (London, 1714). Wall, Thomas, A Comment on the Times or Character of the Enemies of the Church (London, 1657). Ward, Richard, The analysis, explication and application of the sacred and solemn league and covenant (London, 1643). Ward, Samuel, All in All (London, 1622). ———​ The happinesse of practice (London, 1621). ———​ Jethros Justice of peace (London, 1618). ———​ The Life of faith (London, 1621). ———​ The Life of Faith in Death (London, 1622). ———​ Woe to drunkards (London, 1622). Weston, Edward, The repaire of honour (Bruges [imprint false, printed at St. Omer], 1624). Whitaker, William, An answere to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian (London, 1606). ———​ Ad Rationes decem Edmundi Campiani Iesuitae (London, 1581). White, Francis, A Replie to Jesuit Fishers Answer (London, 1624). Williams, Griffith, The Best Religion (London, 1636). Wood, Anthony, Athenae Oxonienses (2 vols., Oxford, 1691–​92). Wotton, Anthony, A dangerous plot discovered (London, 1626). ———​ Runne from Rome (London, 1624). Yates, John, Ibis ad Caesarem (London, 1626). Young, Samuel, The duckers duck’d, and duck’d, and duck’d again, head, and ears, and all over (London, 1700).

Secondary Sources Abbott, William M., “James Ussher and “Ussherian’ Episcopacy, 1640–​1656: The Primate and His Reduction,” Albion 22 (1990), pp.237–​59.

Bibliography  253 Adlington, Hugh, “Chaplains to Embassies: Daniel Featley, Anti-​Catholic Controversialist Abroad,” in Hugh Adlington, Tom Lockwood, and Gillian Wright, eds., Chaplains in Early Modern England: Patronage, Literature and Religion (Manchester, 2013), pp.83–​102. Allison, A. F., “Richard Smith, Richelieu and the French Marriage. The Political Context of Smith’s Appointment as Bishop for England in 1624,” RH 7 (1964), pp.148–​21. ———​“Who Was John Brereley? The Identity of a Seventeenth-​Century Controversialist,” RH 16 (1982–​83), pp.17–​41. Anstruther, Godfrey, The Seminary Priests, vol. 2, Early Stuarts, 1603–​1659 (Essex, 1975). Armstrong, Brian, “The Changing Face of French Protestantism: The Influence of Pierre du Moulin,” in Robert Schnucker, ed., Calviniana (Kirksville, MO, 1988), pp.131–​49. ———​“Pierre du Moulin and James I: The Anglo-​French Programme,” in M. Magdelaine et al., eds., De l’humanisme aux lumières: Bayle et le protestantisme en l’honneur d’Elisabeth Labrousse (Paris, 1996), pp.17–​29. Atherton, Ian, “Cathedrals in the British Revolution,” in Michael Braddick and D. L. Smith, eds., The Experience of Revolution in Stuart Britain and Ireland: Essays for John Morrill (Cambridge, 2011), pp.96–​112. Atkins, Jonathan, “Calvinist Bishops, Church Unity, and the Rise of Arminianism,” Albion 18 (1986), pp.411–​27. Backus, Irena, Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation; 1378–​1615 (Leiden, 2003). ———​ Life Writing in Reformation Europe: Lives of Reformers by Friends, Disciples and Foes (Surrey, 2008). Backus, Irena and Aza Goudriaan, “‘Semipelagianism’: The Origins of the Term and Its Passage into the History of Heresy,” JEH 65 (2014), pp.25–​46. Barducci, Marco, “Clement Barksdale, Translator of Grotius: Erastianism and Episcopacy in the English Church (1651–​1658),” Seventeenth Century 25 (2010), pp.265–​80. Bernard, John, “London Publishing, 1640–​60: Crisis, Continuity, and Innovation,” in Ezra Greenspan and Jonathan Rose, eds., Book History, vol. 4 (University Park, 2001), pp.1–​16. Beyer, Jürgen and Leigh Penman, “The Petitions of ‘A Supposed Prophetesse’: The Lubeck Letters of Anna Walker and Their Significance for the Synod of Dort. A Linguistic and Contextual Analysis,” in Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg, eds., Revisiting the Synod of Dort (Leiden, 2011), pp.107–​33. Bingham, Matthew, Orthodox Radicals: Baptist Identity in the English Revolution (Oxford, 2019). Bozeman, Theodore, To Live Ancient Lives: The Primitivist Dimension in Puritanism (Chapel Hill, 1988). Briggs, W. D., “On Certain Incidents in Ben Jonson’s Life,” Modern Philology 11 (1913), pp.279–​88. Brinkworth, E. R., “The Study and Use of Archdeacons’ Court Records: Illustrated from the Oxford Records (1566–​1759),” TRHS 25 (1943), pp.93–​119. Brown, Peter, Augustine of Hippo (Los Angeles, 2000). Brydon, Michael, The Evolving Reputation of Richard Hooker: An Examination of Responses, 1600–​1714 (Oxford, 2006). Bullard, M. R. A., “Talking Heads: The Bodleian Frieze, Its Inspiration, Sources, Designer and Significance,” Bodleian Library Record 19 (1994), pp.461–​500. Burgess, Glenn, Absolute Monarchy and the Stuart Constitution (New Haven, 1996).

254 Bibliography Cambers, Andrew, Godly Reading: Print Manuscript and Puritanism in England, 1580–​ 1720 (Cambridge, 2011). Campbell, Gordon, Bible: The Story of the King James Version, 1611–​2011 (Oxford, 2011). Chapman, Alister, John Coffey, and Brad Gregory, eds., Seeing Things Their Way: Intellectual History and the Return of Religion (Manchester, 2009). Clegg, Cyndia Susan, Press Censorship in Caroline England (Cambridge, 2008). ———​ Press Censorship in Elizabethan England (Cambridge, 1997). ———​ Press Censorship in Jacobean England (Cambridge, 2001). Coffey, John, “‘The Last and Greatest Triumph of the European Radical Reformation’? Anabaptism, Spiritualism, and Anti-​Trinitarianism in the English Revolution,” in Bridget Heal and Anorthe Kremers, eds., Radicalism and Dissent in the World of Protestant Reform (Göttingen, 2017), pp.201–​24. ———​“A Ticklish Business: Defining Heresy and Orthodoxy in the Puritan Revolution,” in David Loewenstein and John Marshall, eds., Heresy, Literature and Politics in Early Modern English Culture (Cambridge, 2006), pp.108–​36. Cogswell, Thomas, The Blessed Revolution: English Politics and the Coming of War, 1621–​ 1624 (Cambridge, 1989). ———​“England and the Spanish Match,” in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes, eds., Conflict in Early Stuart England: Studies in Religion and Politics, 1603–​1642 (London, 1989), pp.107–​33. Collier, Jay, Debating Perseverance: The Augustinian Heritage in Post-​Reformation England (Oxford, 2018). Collinson, Patrick, Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Oxford, 1967). ———​“The English Conventicle,” in Patrick Collinson, From Cranmer to Sancroft (London, 2006), pp.145–​72. ———​“The Godly: Aspects of Popular Protestantism,” in Patrick Collinson, Godly People: Essays on English Protestantism and Puritanism (London, 1983), pp.1–​18. ———​“Introduction,” in Patrick Collinson, From Cranmer to Sancroft (London, 2006), pp.ix–​xv. ———​“The Jacobean Religious Settlement: The Hampton Court Conference,” in Howard Tomlinson, ed., Before the English Civil War (Basingstoke, 1983), pp.27–​51. ———​“‘A Magazine of Religious Patterns’: An Erasmian Topic Transposed in English Protestantism,” in Patrick Collinson, Godly People: Essays on English Protestantism and Puritanism (London, 1983), pp.499–​525. ———​ A Mirror of Elizabethan Puritanism: The Life and Letters of “Godly Master Dering” (London, 1964). ———​“The Monarchical Republic of Queen Elizabeth I,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 69 (1987), pp.394–​424. ———​“The Protestant Cathedral, 1541–​1600,” in Patrick Collinson, Nigel Ramsay and Margaret Sparks, eds., A History of Canterbury Cathedral (Oxford, 1995), pp.154–​203. ———​ The Puritan Character: Polemics and Polarities in Early Seventeenth-​Century English Culture (Los Angeles, 1989). ———​The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society, 1559–​1625 (Oxford, 1982). ———​ Richard Bancroft and Elizabethan Anti-​puritanism (Cambridge, 2013). ———​“Sects and the Evolution of Puritanism,” in Francis Bremer, ed., Puritanism: Transatlantic Perspectives on a Seventeenth-​Century Anglo-​American Faith (Boston, MA, 1993), pp.147–​66. Como, David, Blown by the Spirit: Puritanism and the Emergence of an Antinomian Underground in Pre-​Civil-​War England (Stanford, 2004).

Bibliography  255 ———​“Predestination and Political Conflict in Laud’s London,” HJ 46 (2003), pp.263–​94. ———​“Puritans, Predestination and the Construction of Orthodoxy in Early Seventeenth-​Century England,” in Peter Lake and Michael Questier, eds., Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c.1560–​1660 (Woodbridge, 2000), pp.64–​87. ———​ Radical Parliamentarians and the English Civil War (Oxford, 2018). Como, David and Peter Lake, “Puritans, Antinomians and Laudians in Caroline London: The Strange Case of Peter Shaw in its Contexts,” JEH 50 (1999), pp.684–​715. Connor, T. P., “Malignant Reading: John Squire’s Newgate Prison Library, 1643–​46,” The Library, 7th Series 7 (2006), pp.154–​74. Cooley, Ronald, “John Davenant, The Country Parson and Herbert’s Calvinist Conformity,” George Herbert Journal 23 (1999), pp.1–​13. Coolidge, John, The Pauline Renaissance in England: Puritanism and the Bible (Oxford, 1970). Cooper, J. H., “The Vicars and Parish of Cuckfield in the Seventeenth Century,” Sussex Archaeological Collections 45 (1902), pp.1–​33. Cosby, Brian, John Flavel: Puritan Life and Thought in Stuart England (Lanham, 2013). Cranfield, Nicholas, “Chaplains in Ordinary at the Early Stuart Court: The Purple Road,” in Claire Cross, ed., Patronage and Recruitment in Tudor and Early Stuart Church (York, 1996), pp.120–​47. Cressy, David, Birth, Marriage, and Death: Ritual, Religion and the Life-​Cycle in Tudor and Stuart England (Oxford, 1997). Cross, F. L. and E. A. Livingstone, eds., Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd edn., Oxford, 1997). Daniell, David, The Bible in English (New Haven, 2003). Davies, Catharine, A Religion of the Word: The Defence of the Reformation in the Reign of Edward VI (Manchester, 2002). Davies, Horton, Worship and Theology in England: From Cranmer to Baxter and Fox, 1534–​1690 (Grand Rapids, 1996). Day, Geoffrey, John Harmar, Translator (Winchester, 2015). Dent, C. M., Protestant Reformers in Elizabethan Oxford (Oxford, 1983). Dever, Mark, Richard Sibbes: Puritanism and Calvinism in Late Elizabethan and Early Stuart England (Macon, GA, 2000). Dillon, Anne, The Construction of Martyrdom in the English Catholic Community, 1535–​ 1603 (Surrey, 2002). Dixon, Leif, Practical Predestinarians, c.1590–​1640 (Farnham, 2014). ———​“William Perkins, ‘Atheism,’ and the Crises of England’s Long Reformation,” JBS 50 (2011), pp.790–​812. Dodaro, Robert and Michael Questier, “Strategies in Jacobean Polemic: The Use and Abuse of St Augustine in English Theological Controversy,” JEH 44 (1993), pp.432–​49. Donagan, Barbara, “The York House Conference Revisited,” Historical Research 64 (1991), pp.312–​30. Donaldson, Ian, Ben Jonson: A Life (Oxford, 2011). Duffy, Eamon, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, c.1400–​c.1580 (New Haven, 1992). Duley-​Haour, Pauline, “La circulation d’écrits clandestine au Désert,” in Laurent Jaffro and Antony McKenna, eds., Protestants, Protestantisme et pensée clandestine (Paris, 2005), pp.103–​18.

256 Bibliography Eales, Jacqueline, “A Road to Revolution: The Continuity of Puritanism, 1559–​1642,” in Christopher Durston and Jacqueline Eales, eds., The Culture of English Puritanism (Basingstoke, 1996), pp.184–​209. ———​“Samuel Clarke and the ‘Lives’ of Godly Women in Seventeenth-​Century England,” in W. Sheils and D. Wood, eds., Women in the Church (Oxford, 1990), pp.365–​76. Evenden, Elizabeth and Thomas Freeman, Religion and the Book in Early Modern England: The Making of John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (Cambridge, 2011). Falkner, T., An Historical and Descriptive Account of the Royal Hospital, and Royal Military Asylum, at Chelsea (London, 1805). Feingold, Mordechai, “Birth and Early Reception of a Masterpiece: Some Loose Ends and Common Misconceptions,” in Mordechai Feingold, ed., Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord: Scholarship and the Making of the King James Version of the Bible (Leiden, 2018), pp.1–​29. ———​“The Humanities,” in Nicholas Tyacke, ed., History of the University of Oxford, vol. 4, Seventeenth-​Century Oxford (Oxford, 1997), pp.211–​358. ———​“John Rainolds: Critic and Translator,” in Mordechai Feingold, ed., Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord: Scholarship and the Making of the King James Version of the Bible (Leiden, 2018), pp.105–​59. ———​“The Reluctant Martyr: John Hart’s English Mission,” Journal of Jesuit Studies 6 (2019), pp.627–​50. Fincham, Kenneth, “Prelacy and Politics: Archbishop Abbot’s Defense of Protestant Orthodoxy,” Historical Research 61 (1988), pp.36–​64. ———​ Prelate as Pastor: The Episcopate of James I (Oxford, 1990). ———​“The Roles and Influence of Household Chaplains, c.1600–​c.1660,” in Hugh Adlington, Tom Lockwood, and Gillian Wright, eds., Chaplains in Early Modern England: Patronage, Literature and Religion (Manchester, 2013), pp.11–​35. ———​“William Laud and the Exercise of Caroline Ecclesiastical Patronage,” JEH 51 (2000), pp.69–​93. Fincham, Kenneth and Peter Lake, “The Ecclesiastical Policies of James I and Charles I,” in Kenneth Fincham, ed., Early Stuart Church (Basingstoke, 1990), pp.23–​49. ———​“Prelacy and Puritanism in the 1630s: Joseph Hall Explains Himself,” EHR 111 (1996), pp.856–​81. Fincham, Kenneth and Nicholas Tyacke, Altars Restored: The Changing Face of English Religious Worship, 1547–​c.1700 (Oxford, 2007). Ford, Alan, James Ussher: Theology, History, and Politics in Early Modern Ireland and England (Oxford, 2007). ———​“Making Dead Men Speak,” in Mark Williams and Stephen Paul Forrest, eds., Constructing the Past: Writing Irish History, 1600–​1800 (Woodbridge, 2010), pp.49–​72. Foster, Andrew, “Archbishop Neile Revisited,” in Peter Lake and Michael Questier, eds., Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c.1560–​1660 (Woodbridge, 2000), pp.159–​78. ———​“The Function of a Bishop: The Career of Richard Neile, 1562–​1640,” in Rosemary O’Day and Felicity Heal, eds., Continuity and Change (Leicester, 1976), pp.33–​54. Freist, Dagmar, “Popery in Perfection? The Experience of Catholicism: Henrietta Maria between Private Practice and Public Discourse,” in Michael Braddick and David Smith, eds., The Experience of Revolution in Stuart Britain: Essays for John Morrill (Cambridge, 2011), pp.53–​77.

Bibliography  257 Gasquet, F. A., “The Bibliography of Some Devotional Books Printed by the Earliest English Printers,” Transactions of the Bibliographical Society 7 (1902), pp.163–​89. Gibson, William, A Social History of the Domestic Chaplain, 1530–​1840 (London, 1997). Gilbert, Waltar, The Accounts of the Corpus Christi Fraternity, and Papers Relating to the Antiquities of Maidstone, together with a list of Mayors, and Other Corporate Officers, from the Earliest Times (Maidstone, 1865). Goudriaan, Aza, “The Synod of Dort on Arminian Anthropology,” in Aza Goudriaan and Fred van Lieburg, eds., Revisiting the Synod of Dort (1618–​1619) (Leiden, 2011), pp.81–​106. Graf, Matthias, ed., Beyträge zur Kenntniß der Geschichte der Synode von Dordrecht: Aus Doktor Wolfgang Meyer’s und Antistes Johann Jakob Breitinger’s Papieren gezogen (Basel, 1825). Gray, Jonathan Michael, “Conscience and the Word of God: Religious Arguments against the Ex Officio Oath,” JEH 64 (2013), pp.494–​512. Greaves, Richard, Glimpses of Glory: John Bunyan and English Dissent (Stanford, 2002). Green, Ian, The Christian’s ABC: Catechisms and Catechizing in England c.1530–​1740 (Oxford, 1996). ———​“New for Old? Clerical and Lay Attitudes to Domestic Prayer in Early Modern England,” Reformation and Renaissance Review 10 (2008), pp.195–​222. ———​ Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England (Oxford, 2000). ———​“‘Puritan Prayer Books’ and ‘Geneva Bibles’: An Episode in Elizabethan Publishing,” TCBS 11 (1998), pp.313–​49. ———​ The Re-​establishment of the Church of England, 1660–​1663 (Oxford, 1977). ———​“Varieties of Domestic Devotion in Early Modern English Protestantism,” in Alec Ryrie and Jessica Martin, Private and Domestic Devotion in Early Modern Britain (Farnham, 2012), pp.9–​31. Greg, W. W., Licensers for the Press, &c. to 1640: A Bibliography Index Based Mainly on Arber’s Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers (Oxford, 1962). Grell, Ole Peter, Calvinist Exiles in Tudor and Stuart England (Aldershot, 1996). Gribben, Crawford, John Owen and English Puritanism: Experiences of Defeat (Oxford, 2107). Ha, Polly, English Presbyterianism, 1590–​1640 (Stanford, 2010). Haigh, Christopher, “The Church of England, the Catholics, and the People,” in Christopher Haigh, ed., The Reign of Elizabeth I (Basingstoke, 1984), pp.195–​217. ———​ Reformation and Resistance in Tudor Lancastershire (London, 1975). Haller, William, The Rise of Puritanism: The Way to the New Jerusalem as Set Forth in Pulpit and Press from Thomas Cartwright to John Lilburne and John Milton, 1570–​1643 (New York, 1957). Hampton, Stephen, Anti-​Arminians: The Anglican Reformed Tradition from Charles II to George I (Oxford, 2008). ———​“Hagiography and Theology for a Comprehensive Reformed Church: John Gauden and the Portrayal of Ralph Brownrigg,” Calvin Theological Journal 50 (2015), pp.181–​210. ———​“The Manuscript Sermons of Archbishop John Williams,” JEH 62 (2011), pp.707–​25. ———​“Richard Holdsworth and the Antinomian Controversy,” Journal of Theological Studies 62 (2011), pp.218–​50. ———​“A ‘Theological Junto’: The Lords’ Subcommittee on Religious Innovation,” Seventeenth Century 30 (2015), pp.433–​54.

258 Bibliography Harper Smith, T. and A., Dr. Featley of Acton, Chelsea & Lambeth (Privately printed, 1990). Haykin, Michael, Kiffin, Knollys, and Keach: Rediscovering our English Baptist Heritage (Leeds, 1996). Heal, Felicity, Reformation in Britain and Ireland (Oxford, 2003). Hibbard, Caroline, Charles I and the Popish Plot (Chapel Hill, 1983). Hill, Christopher, “Censorship and English Literature,” in Christopher Hill, The Collected Essays of Christopher Hill, vol. 1, Writing and Revolution in 17th Century England (Amherst, 1985), pp.32–​71. ———​ Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution (Oxford, 1965). ———​ Society and Puritanism in Pre-​revolutionary England (London, 1966). Hodgson, Elizabeth, “The Domestic ‘Fruite of Eves Transgression’ in Stuart Funeral Sermons,” Prose Studies 28 (2006), pp.1–​18. Houlbrooke, Ralph, Death, Religion, and the Family in England, 1480–​1750 (Oxford, 1998). Hoyle, David, “A Commons Investigation of Arminianism and Popery in Cambridge on the Eve of the Civil War,” HJ 29 (1986), pp.419–​25. ———​ Reformation and Religious Identity in Cambridge, 1590–​1644 (Woodbridge, 2007). Hughes, Ann, Gangraena and the Struggle for the English Revolution (Oxford, 2004). ———​“Thomas Edwards’s Gangraena and Heresiological Traditions,” in David Loewenstein and John Marshall, eds., Heresy, Literature, and Politics in Early Modern English Culture (Cambridge, 2006), pp.137–​59. Hunt, Arnold, The Art of Hearing: English Preachers and Their Audience (Cambridge, 2010). ———​“Licensing and Religious Censorship in Early Modern England,” in Andrew Hadfield, ed., Literature and Censorship in Renaissance England (Basingstoke, 2001), pp.127–​46. ———​“The Lord’s Supper in Early Modern England,” P&P 161 (1998), pp.39–​83. Hutton, R., The Rise and Fall of Merry England: The Ritual Year, 1400–​1700 (Oxford, 1994). Jones, Mark, “John Calvin’s Reception at the Westminster Assembly (1643–​1649),” Church History and Religious Culture 91 (2011), pp.215–​27. Kay, W. D., Ben Jonson: A Literary Life (Basingstoke, 1995). Keeble, Neil, Richard Baxter: Puritan Man of Letters (Oxford, 1982). ———​“‘To Be a Pilgrim’: Constructing the Protestant Life in Early Modern England,” in Colin Morris and Peter Roberts, eds., Pilgrimage: The English Experience from Becket to Bunyan (Cambridge, 2002), pp.238–​56. Kennedy, D. E., “King James I’s College of Controversial Divinity at Chelsea,” in D. E. Kennedy, ed., Grounds of Controversy: Three Studies of Late 16th and Early 17th Century English Polemics (Melbourne, 1989), pp.97–​126. Kishlansky, Mark, “Charles I: A Case of Mistaken Identity,” P&P 189 (2005), pp.41–​80. ———​“Martyrs’ Tales,” JBS 53 (2014), pp.334–​55. ———​“A Whipper Whipped: The Sedition of William Prynne,” HJ 56 (2013), pp.603–​27. Kranidas, Thomas, “Style and Rectitude in Seventeenth-​ Century Prose: Hall, Smectymnuus, and Milton,” Huntington Library Quarterly 46 (1983), pp.237–​69. Lacy, Andrew, The Cult of King Charles the Martyr (Woodbridge, 2003). Lake, Peter, Anglicans and Puritans? Presbyterianism and English Conformist Thought from Whitgift to Hooker (London, 1988). ———​“Anti-​popery and the Structure of Prejudice,” in Richard Cust and Ann Hughes, eds., Conflict in Early Stuart England: Studies in Religion and Politics, 1603–​1642 (New York, 1989), pp.72–​106.

Bibliography  259 ———​“Anti-​Puritanism: The Structure of a Prejudice,” in Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, eds., Religious Politics in Post-​Reformation England: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Tyacke (Woodbridge, 2006), pp.80–​97. ———​ The Boxmaker’s Revenge: “Orthodoxy”, “Heterodoxy”, and the Politics of the Parish in early Stuart London (Stanford, 2001). ———​“Calvinism and the English Church 1570–​1635,” P&P 114 (1987), pp.32–​76. ———​“‘A Charitable Christian Hatred’: The Godly and Their Enemies in the 1630s,” in Christopher Durston and Jacqueline Eales, eds., The Culture of English Puritanism (Basingstoke, 1996), pp.145–​83. ———​“Defining Puritanism—​Again?,” in Francis Bremer, ed., Puritanism: Trans-​atlantic Perspectives on a Seventeenth-​Century Anglo-​American Faith (Boston, MA, 1993), pp.3–​29. ———​“The Dilemma of the Establishment Puritan: The Cambridge Heads and the Case of Francis Johnson,” JEH 29 (1978), pp.23–​35. ———​“The Historiography of Puritanism,” in John Coffey and Paul Lim, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge, 2008), pp.346–​71. ———​“Joseph Hall, Robert Skinner and the Rhetoric of Moderation at the Early Stuart Court,” in Lori Anne Farrell and Peter McCullough, eds., The English Sermon Revised: Religion, Literature and Heresy, 1600–​1750 (Manchester, 2001), pp.167–​85. ———​“Lancelot Andrewes, John Buckeridge, and Avant-​Garde Conformity at the Court of James I,” in Linda Levy Peck, ed., The Mental World of the Jacobean Court (Cambridge, 1990), pp.113–​33. ———​“The Laudian Style: Order, Uniformity and the Pursuit of the Beauty of Holiness in the 1630s,” in Kenneth Fincham, ed., The Early Stuart Church, 1603–​1642 (Basingstoke, 1993), pp.161–​85. ———​“The Laudians and the Argument from Authority,” in Bonnelyn Young Kunze and Dwight Brautigam, eds., Court, Country and Culture: Essays on Early Modern British History in Honor of Perez Zagorin (Rochester, NY, 1992), pp.149–​77. ———​“The Moderate and Irenic Case for Religious War: Joseph Hall’s Via Media in Context,” in Susan Amussen and Mark Kishlansky, eds., Political Cultures and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England: Essays Presented to David Underdown (Manchester, 1995), pp.55–​83. ———​ Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge, 1982). ———​“Moving the Goal Posts? Modified Subscription and the Construction of Conformity in the Early Stuart Church,” in Peter Lake and Michael Questier, eds., Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c.1560–​1660 (Suffolk, 2006), pp.179–​205. ———​“Predestinarian Propositions,” JEH 46 (1995), pp.110–​23. ———​“Puritanism, Familism, and Heresy in Early Stuart England: The Case of John Etherington Revisited,” in David Loewenstein and John Marshall, eds., Heresy, Literature and Politics in Early Modern English Culture (Cambridge, 2006), pp.82–​107. ———​“Puritan Identities,” JEH 35 (1984), pp.112–​23. ———​“Reading Clarke’s Lives in Political and Polemic Context,” in Kevin Sharpe and Steven Zwicker, eds., Writing Lives: Biography and Textuality, Identity and Representation in Early Modern England (Oxford, 2012), pp.293–​318. ———​“Robert Some and the Ambiguities of Moderation,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 71 (1980), pp.254–​79. ———​“Serving God and the times: The Calvinist Conformity of Robert Sanderson,” JBS 27 (1988), pp.81–​116.

260 Bibliography ———​“The Significance of the Elizabethan Identification of the Pope as Antichrist,” JEH 31 (1980), pp.161–​78. Lake, Peter and David Como, “‘Orthodoxy’ and Its Discontents: Dispute Settlement and the Production of ‘Consensus’ in the London (Puritan) ‘Underground,’” JBS 39 (2000), pp.37–​70. Lake, Peter with Michael Questier, Anti-​Christ’s Lewd Hat: Protestants, Papists and Players in Post-​Reformation England (New Haven, 2002). Lambert, Sheila, “Richard Montagu, Arminianism and Censorship,” P&P 124 (1989), pp.36–​68. ———​“State Control of the Press in Theory and Practice: The Role of the Stationers’ Company before 1640,” in Robin Myers and Michael Harries, eds., Censorship and the Control of Print in England and France, 1600–​1910 (Winchester, 1992), pp.1–​32. Lamont, William, ‘Comment: The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” P&P 107 (1985), pp.227–​31. ———​ Marginal Prynne, 1600–​1669 (London, 1963). Lampros, Dean George, “A New Set of Spectacles: The Assembly’s Annotations, 1645–​57,” Renaissance and Reformation 19 (1995), pp.33–​46. Lander, Jesse, Inventing Polemic: Religion, Print, and Literary Culture in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2006). Lewkowicz, Stephen, “Elton’s An Exposition of the Ten Commandments of God (1623): A Burnt Book?,” in William Todd, ed., The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America (New York, 1977), pp.201–​8. Lim, Paul, In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty: Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in Its Seventeenth-​Century Context (Leiden, 2004). ———​ Mystery Unveiled: The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England (Oxford, 2012). Lindley, Keith, Popular Politics and Religion in Civil War London (Aldershot, 1997). Loewenstein David, Treacherous Faith: The Specter of Heresy in Early Modern English Literature and Culture (Oxford, 2013). Longfellow, Erica, “‘My Now Solitary Prayers’: Eikon Basilike and Changing Attitudes toward Religious Solitude,” in Alec Ryrie and Jessica Martin, eds., Private and Domestic Devotion in Early Modern Britain (Farnham, 2012), pp.53–​72. ———​ Women and Religious Writing in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2004). Lynch, Katherine, Protestant Autobiography in the Seventeenth-​ Century Anglophone World (Oxford, 2012). Maltby, Judith, “‘By This Book’ Parishioners, the Prayer Book and the Established Church,” in Kenneth Fincham, ed., The Early Stuart Church (London, 1993), pp.115–​37. ———​ Prayer Book and People in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England (Cambridge, 1998). Marotti, Arthur, Religious Ideology and Cultural Fantasy: Catholic and Anti-​Catholic Discourses in Early Modern England (South Bend, IN, 2005). Marsh, Christopher, The Family of Love in English Society, 1550–​1630 (Cambridge, 1994). Martin, J. W., Religious Radicals in Tudor England (Hambledon, 1989). McCabe, Richard, Joseph Hall: A Study in Satire and Meditation (Oxford, 1982). McClure, Alexander, Translators Revived (New York, 1853). McCullough, Peter, “Making Dead Men Speak: Laudianism, Print, and the Works of Lancelot Andrewes, 1626–​1642,” HJ 41 (1998), pp.401–​24. McCullough, Peter, Hugh Adlington, and Emma Rhatigan, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Early Modern Sermon (Oxford, 2011).

Bibliography  261 McDowell, Nicholas, The English Radical Imagination: Culture, Religion, and Revolution, 1630–​1660 (Oxford, 2003). Merritt, J. F., “Puritans, Laudians, and the Phenomenon of Church-​Building in Jacobean London,” HJ 41 (1998), pp.935–​60. Mitchell, A. F., The Westminster Assembly: Its History and Standards (Philadelphia, 1884). Milton, Anthony, Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought, 1600–​1640 (Cambridge, 1995). ———​“The Church of England, Rome, and the True Church: The Demise of a Jacobean Consensus,” in Kenneth Fincham, ed., The Early Stuart Church, 1603–​1642 (Basingstoke, 1993), pp.187–​210. ———​“The Creation of Laudianism: A New Approach,” in Thomas Cogswell, Richard Cust, and Peter Lake, eds., Politics, Religion and Popularity in Early Stuart Britain (Cambridge, 2002), pp.162–​84. ———​ Laudian and Royalist Polemic in Seventeenth-​Century England: The Career and Writings of Peter Heylyn (Manchester, 2008). ———​“Licensing, Censorship and Religious Orthodoxy in Early Stuart England,” HJ 41 (1998), pp.625–​51. ———​ ed., The Oxford History of Anglicanism, vol. 1, Reformation and Identity c.1520–​ 1662 (Oxford, 2017). ———​“Puritanism and the Continental Reformed Churches,” in John Coffey and Paul Lim, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism (Cambridge, 2008), pp.109–​26. ———​“A Qualified Intolerance: The Limits and Ambiguities of Early Stuart Anti-​ Catholicism,” in Arthur Marotti, ed., Catholicism and Anti-​Catholicism in Early Modern English Texts (New York, 1999), pp.85–​115. ———​“Sacrilege and Compromise: Court Divines and the King’s Conscience, 1642–​ 1649,” in Michael Braddick and David Smith, eds., The Experience of Revolution in Stuart Britain and Ireland: Essays for John Morrill (Cambridge, 2011), pp.135–​53. ———​“‘The Unchanged Peacemaker’? John Dury and the Politics of Irenicism in England, 1628–​1643,” in Mark Greengrass, Michael Leslie, and Timothy Raylor, eds., Samuel Hartlib and the Universal Reformation (Cambridge, 1994), pp.95–​117. Milward, Peter, Religious Controversies of the Jacobean Age: A Survey of Printed Sources (London, 1978). Moore, Jonathan, English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, 2007). Morgan, Irvonwy, Prince Charles’s Puritan Chaplain (London, 1957). ———​ Puritan Spirituality: Illustrated from the Life and Times of the Rev. Dr. John Preston (London, 1973). Morrissey, Mary, “Episcopal Chaplains and Control of the Media, 1586–​1642,” in Hugh Adlington, Tom Lockwood, and Gillian Wright, eds., Chaplains in Early Modern England: Patronage, Literature and Religion (Manchester, 2013), pp.64–​82. ———​ Politics and the Paul’s Cross Sermons (Oxford, 2011). Muller, Richard, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford, 2003). ———​“Biblical Interpretation in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” in Donald McKim, ed., Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters (Downers Grove, 2012), pp.22–​44. ———​ Calvin and the Reformed Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids, 2012).

262 Bibliography ———​ Grace and Freedom: William Perkins and the Early Modern Reformed Understanding of Free Choice and Divine Grace (Oxford, 2020). ———​ Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520–​ca.1725 (4 vols., Grand Rapids, 2003). ———​ The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford, 2000). Muller, Richard and Rowland Ward, Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation and the Directory for Public Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ, 2007). Myres, J. N. L., “Thomas James and the Painted Frieze,” Bodleian Library Record 4 (1952–​ 53), pp.30–​65. Narveson, Kate, Bible Readers and Lay Writers in Early Modern England (Farnham, 2012). ———​“Piety and the Genre of John Donne’s Devotions,” John Donne Journal 17 (1998), pp.107–​36. Netzloff, Mark, “The Ambassador’s Household: Sir Henry Wotton, Domesticity, and Diplomatic Writing,” in R. Adams and R. Cox, eds., Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture (Basingstoke, 2010), pp.155–​71. Neufeld, Matthew, The Civil Wars after 1660: Public Remembering in Late Stuart England (Woodbridge, 2013). Norton, David, The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today (Cambridge, 2011). Novarr, David, The Making of Walton’s Lives (Ithaca, 1958). Nutall, Geoffrey, The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience (Chicago, 1947). O’Day, Rosemary, Education and Society, 1500–​1800: The Social Foundations of Education in Early Modern Britain (London, 1982). Packull, Werner, “An Introduction to Anabaptist theology,” in David Bagchi and David Steinmetz, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology (Cambridge, 2004), pp.194–​219. Parker, Kenneth and Eric Carlson, eds., “Practical Divinity”: The Works and Life of Rev’d Richard Greenham (Aldershot, 1998). Patterson, Annabel, Censorship and Interpretation: The Conditions of Writing and Reading in Early Modern England (Madison, WI, 1984). Patterson, Mary Hampton, Domesticating the Reformation: Protestant Bestsellers, Private Devotion, and the Revolution of English Piety (Madison, WI, 2007). Patterson, W. B., King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge, 1997). ———​“Pierre du Moulin’s Quest for Protestant Unity, 1613–​1618,” in R. N. Swanson, ed., Unity and Diversity in the Church (Oxford, 1996), pp.235–​50. ———​ Thomas Fuller: Discovering England’s Religious Past (Oxford, 2018). ———​“William Bishop as Roman Catholic Theologian and Polemicist,” Recusant History 28 (2006), pp.209–​24. ———​ William Perkins and the Making of a Protestant England (Oxford, 2014). Peacey, Jason, Print and Public Politics in the English Revolution (Cambridge, 2013). Pearson, A. F. S., Thomas Cartwright and Elizabethan Puritanism (Cambridge, 1925). Pederson, Randall, Unity and Diversity: English Puritans and the Puritan Reformation, 1603–​1689 (Leiden, 2014). Pigot, Hugh, Hadleigh (London, 1860). Plumb, Derek, “A Gathered Church? Lollards and Their Society,” in Margaret Spufford, ed., The World of Rural Dissenters, 1520–​1725 (Cambridge, 1995), pp.132–​63.

Bibliography  263 Pocock, J. A., “The History of Political Thought: A Methodological Enquiry,” in Peter Laslett and W. G. Runciman, Philosophy, Politics and Society (Second series; Oxford, 1972), pp.183–​202. ———​ Political Thought and History: Essays on Theory and Method (Cambridge, 2009). Pollard, A. W. and G. R. Redgrave, eds., A Short-​Title Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and of English Works Books Printed Abroad, 1475–​1640 (London, 1976–​91). Poole, William, “Early Hebraism and the King James Translators (1586–​1617): The View from New College,” in Mordechai Feingold, ed. Mordechai Feingold, ed., Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord: Scholarship and the Making of the King James Version of the Bible (Leiden, 2018), pp.56–​137. Porter, H. C., Reformation and Reaction in Tudor Cambridge (Cambridge, 1958). Powell, William, John Pory, 1572–​1636: The Life and Letters of a Man of Many Parts (Chapel Hill, 1977). Primus, John, Richard Greenham: Portrait of an Elizabethan Pastor (Macon, GA, 1998). Prince, David and Charles Ryrie, Let It Go among Our People: An Illustrated History of the English Bible from John Wycliffe to the King James Version (Cambridge, 2004). Prior, Charles, Defining the Jacobean Church: The Politics of Religious Controversy, 1603–​ 1625 (Cambridge, 2005). Pritchard, Allan, English Biography in the Seventeenth Century: A Critical Survey (Toronto, 2009). Pursell, Brennan, “The End of the Spanish Match,” HJ 45 (2002), pp.699–​726. Quantin, Jean-​Louis, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century (Oxford, 2009). Questier, Michael, “Arminianism, Catholicism, and Puritanism in England during the 1630s,” HJ 49 (2006), pp.53–​78. ———​ Catholicism and Community in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2006). ———​“Clerical Recruitment, Conversion and Rome, c.1580–​1625,” in Claire Cross, ed., Patronage and Recruitment in the Tudor and Early Stuart Church (York, 1996), pp.76–​94. ———​ Conversion, Politics and Religion in England, 1580–​1625 (Cambridge, 1996). ———​“Crypto-​Catholicism, Anti-​Calvinism and Conversion at the Jacobean Court: The Enigma of Benjamin Carier,” JEH 47 (1996), pp.45–​64. ———​“John Gee, Archbishop Abbot, and the Use of Catholic Converts from Rome in Jacobean Anti-​Catholicism,” RH 21 (1993), pp.347–​60. Ramsbottom, B. A., Stranger Than Fiction: The Life of William Kiffin (Harpenden, 1989). Raymond, Joad, The Invention of the Newspaper: English Newsbooks, 1641–​ 1649 (Oxford, 2005). Reynolds, Matthew, Godly Reformers and Their Opponents in Early Modern England, 1560–​1643 (Woodbridge, 2005). Riggs, D., Ben Jonson: A Life (Cambridge, MA, 1989). Rivers, Isabel, “Biographical Dictionaries and Their Uses from Bayle to Chalmers,” in Isabel Rivers, ed., Books and Their Readers in Eighteenth-​Century England: New Essays (New York, 2001), pp.135–​69. Rodda, Joshua, Public Religious Disputation in England, 1558–​1626 (Surrey, 2014). Roebuck, Thomas, “Miles Smith (1552/​53–​1624) and the Uses of Oriental Learning,” in Mordechai Feingold, ed., Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord: Scholarship and the Making of the King James Version of the Bible (Leiden, 2018), pp.328–​71.

264 Bibliography Rose, Jacqueline, Godly Kingship in Restoration England: The Politics of the Royal Supremacy, 1660–​1688 (Cambridge, 2014). Rowe, Lesley, The Life and Times of Arthur Hildersham: Prince among Puritans (Grand Rapids, 2013). Russell, Conrad, Fall of the British Monarchies, 1637–​1642 (New York, 2003). ———​ Parliament and English Politics (Oxford, 1979). ———​ Unrevolutionary England: 1603–​1642 (London, 1990). Ryrie, Alec and Jessica Martin, “Introduction: Private and Domestic Devotion,” in Alec Ryrie and Jessica Martin, eds., Private and Domestic Devotion in Early Modern Britain (Farnham, 2012), pp.1–​7. Salazar, Greg, “Polemicist as Pastor: Daniel Featley’s Anti-​ Catholic Polemic and Countering Lay Doubt in England during the Early 1620s,” in Francis Andrews, Charlotte Methuen, and Andrew Spicer, eds., Doubting Christianity (Cambridge, 2016), pp.315–​30. ———​“The Synod of Dort in Theological Perspective,” in Joel R. Beeke and Martin I. Klauber, eds., The Synod of Dort: Historical, Theological, and Experiential Perspectives (Göttingen, 2020), pp.75–​88. Schwartz, Hillel, “Arminianism and the English Parliament, 1624–​1629,” JBS 12 (1973), pp.41–​68. Shagan, Ethan, “The Battle for Indifference in Elizabethan England,” in Luc Racaut and Alec Ryrie, eds., Moderate Voices in the Europeans Reformation (Aldershot, 2005), pp.122–​44. Sharpe, Kevin, “The King’s Writ: Royal Authors and Royal Authority in Early Modern England,” in Kevin Sharpe and Peter Lake, eds., Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England (Basingstoke, 1994), pp.117–​38. ———​“The Personal Rule of Charles I,” in Howard Tomlinson, ed., Before the English Civil War: Essays on Early Stuart Politics and Government (New York, 1984), pp.53–​78. ———​ The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven, 1992). ———​“Private Conscience and Public Duty in the Writings of Charles I,” HJ 40 (1997), pp.643–​55. Shaw, Mark, “William Perkins and the New Pelagians: Another Look at the Cambridge Predestination Controversy of the 1590s,” Westminster Theological Journal 58 (1996), pp.267–​301. Shaw, W. A., A History of the English Church during the Civil Wars and under the Commonwealth 1640–​1660 (2 vols., London, 1900). Sheehan, Jonathan, The Enlightenment Bible: Translation, Scholarship, Culture (Princeton, 2005). Shrewsbury, J. F. D., A History of Bubonic Plague in the British Iles (Cambridge, 1970). Shriver, Frederick, “Hampton Court Revisited; James I and the Puritans,” JEH 33 (1982), pp.48–​71. Shuger, Deborah, Censorship and Cultural Sensibility: The Regulation of Language in Tudor-​Stuart England (Philadelphia, 2008). Siebert, Frederick, Freedom of the Press in England, 1476–​1776 (Chicago, 1952). Skinner, Quentin, Foundations of Modern Political Thought, vol.2, The Age of Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978). Skinner, Quentin, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” History and Theory 8 (1969), pp.3–​53. ———​ Visions of Politics, vol. 1, Regarding Method (Cambridge, 2002).

Bibliography  265 Smith, David, Constitutional Royalism and the Search for Settlement, c.1640–​ 1649 (Cambridge, 2002). Snoddy, Richard, The Soteriology of James Ussher: The Act and Object of Saving Faith (Oxford, 2014). Sommerville, Johann, “Conscience, Law, and Things Indifferent: Arguments on Toleration from the Vestiarian Controversy to Hobbes and Locke,” in Harold Braun and Edward Vallance, eds., Contexts of Conscience in Early Modern Europe, 1500–​1700 (New York, 2004), pp.166–​79. Spurr, John, The Restoration Church of England, 1646–​89 (Oxford, 1991). ———​“‘A Special Kindness for Dead Bishops’: The Church, History, and Testimony in Seventeenth-​Century Protestantism,” in Paulina Kewes, ed., The Uses of History in Early Modern England (San Marino, 2006), pp.313–​34. Stachniewski, John, The Persecutory Imagination: English Puritanism and the Literature of Religious Despair (Oxford, 1991). Stanglin, Keith and Thomas McCall, Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace (Oxford, 2012). Stanwood, P. G. and A. I. Doyle, “Cosin’s Correspondence,” TCBS 5 (1969), pp.74–​78. Steere, Daniel, “A Calvinist Bishop at the Court of King Charles I,” in Mack Holt, ed., Adaptations of Calvinism in Reformation Europe: Essays in Honour of Brian G. Armstrong (Aldershot, 2007), pp.193–​218. ———​“ ‘For the Peace of Both, for the Humour of Neither’: Bishop Joseph Hall Defends the Via Media in an Age of Extremes, 1601–​1656,” Sixteenth Century Journal 27 (1996), pp.749–​65. Stephens, Fredric George, ed., Catalogue of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum. Division I: Political and Personal Satires (No.1 to No.1235) (London, 1870). Strange, Alan, “The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the Westminster Assembly,” in Michael Haykin and Mark Jones, eds., Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​ Century British Puritanism (Göttingen, 2011), pp.31–​51. Tawney, R. H., Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (London, 1926). Thomas, Keith, Religion and the Decline of Magic (London, 1971). Todd, Margo, “‘An Act of Discretion’: Evangelical Conformity and the Puritan Dons,” Albion 18 (1986), pp.581–​99. ———​“Puritan Self-​Fashioning: The Diary of Samuel Ward,” JBS 31 (1992), pp.236–​64. ———​“The Samuel Ward Papers at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge,” TCBS 8 (1985), pp.585–​92. Tolmie, Murray, The Triumph of the Saints: The Separate Churches of London, 1616–​1649 (Cambridge, 1977). Towers, S. Mutchow, Control of Religious Printing in Early Stuart England (Woodbridge, 2003). Trevor-​Roper, Hugh, Catholics, Anglicans, and Puritans (3rd edn., London, 1987). Trueman, Carl, “Preachers and Medieval and Renaissance Commentary,” in Peter McCullough, Hugh Adlington, and Emma Rhatigan, eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Early Modern Sermon (Oxford, 2011), pp.54–​71. Türler, Heinrich, et al., eds., Historisch-​biographisches Lexikon der Schweiz (7 vols., Neuchatel, 1929). Turnbull, G. H., Hartlib, Dury and Comenius: Gleanings from Hartlib’s Papers (Liverpool, 1947).

266 Bibliography Tyacke, Nicholas, “Anglican Attitudes: Some Recent Writings on English Religious History from the Reformation to the Civil War,” in Nicholas Tyacke, Aspects of English Protestantism, c.1530–​1700 (Manchester, 2001), pp.176–​221. ———​ Anti-​Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism, c.1590–​1640 (Oxford, 1987). ———​“Arminianism and English Culture,” in Nicholas Tyacke, Aspects of English Protestantism, c.1530–​1700 (Manchester, 2001), pp.222–​43. ———​“Debate: The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” P&P 115 (1987), pp.201–​16. ———​“The Fortunes of English Puritanism, 1603–​40,” in Nicholas Tyacke, Aspects of English Protestantism, c.1530–​1700 (Manchester, 2001), pp.111–​31. ———​“Introduction,” in Nicholas Tyacke, Aspects of English Protestantism, c.1530–​1700 (Manchester, 2001), pp.1–​36. ———​“Puritanism, Arminianism and Counter-​revolution,” in Conrad Russell, ed., The Origins of the English Civil War (London, 1973), pp.119–​41. ———​“Religious Controversy during the Seventeenth Century: The Case of Oxford,” in Nicholas Tyacke, Aspects of English Protestantism, c.1530–​1700 (Manchester, 1997), pp.262–​319. Vessey, Mark, “English Translations of the Latin Fathers, 1517–​1611,” in Irena Backus, ed., The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists (2 vols., Leiden, 1997), II:775–​835. Visser, Arnoud, Reading Augustine in the Reformation (Oxford, 2011). Wackernagel, Hans Georg, Die Matrikel der Universität Basel herausgegeben von Hans Georg Wackernagel (5 vols., Basle, 1956). Wadkins, Timothy, “The Percy-​‘Fisher’ Controversies and the Ecclesiastical Politics of Jacobean Anti-​Catholicism, 1622–​1625,” Church History 57 (1988), pp.153–​69. Wallace, Dewey, Shapers of English Calvinism, 1660–​1714: Variety, Persistence, and Transformation (Oxford, 2011). Walsham, Alexandra, Church Papists: Catholicism, Conformity, and Confessional Polemic in Early Modern England (Woodbridge, 1993). ———​“ ‘The Fatall Vesper’: Providentialism and Anti-​popery in Late Jacobean London,” P&P 144 (1994), pp.36–​87. ———​“Holy Families: The Spiritualization of the Early Modern Household Revisited,” in John Doran, Charlotte Methuen, and Alexandra Walsham, eds., Religion and the Household (Woodbridge, 2014), pp.222–​60. ———​“Preaching without Speaking: Script, Print and Religious Dissent,” in Julia Crick and Alexandra Walsham, eds., The Uses of Script and Print, 1300–​1700 (Cambridge, 2004), pp.211–​34. ———​ Providence in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1999). ———​ “Vox Piscis: Or the Book Fish: Protestantism and the Uses of the Reformation Past in Caroline Cambridge,” EHR 114 (1999), pp.574–​606. ———​“‘Yielding to the Extremity of the Time’: Conformity, Orthodoxy and the Post-​ Reformation Catholic Community,” in Peter Lake and Michael Questier, eds., Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c.1560–​1660 (Woodbridge, 2006), pp.211–​36. Walzer, Michael, The Revolution of the Saints: A Study in the Origins of Radical Politics (Cambridge, MA, 1966). Watson, George, ed., The New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature, vol. 1, 1600–​ 1660 (Cambridge, 1974). Webster, Tom, Godly Clergy in Early Stuart England: The Caroline Puritan Movement, c.1630–​1643 (Cambridge, 1997).

Bibliography  267 Weimer, Adrian Chastain, Martyrs’ Mirror: Persecution and Holiness in Early New England (Oxford, 2011). Welsby, Paul A., Lancelot Andrewes, 1555–​1626 (London, 1958). Westin, G., Negotiations for Church Unity, 1628–​1638 (Upsala, 1932). White, B. R., The English Baptists of the Seventeenth Century (Didcot, 1983). White, H. C., the Tudor Books of Private Devotion (Westport, CT, 1951). White, Peter, “Debate: The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered: A Rejoinder,” P&P 115 (1987), pp.217–​29. ———​ Predestination, Policy, and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War (Cambridge, 1992). ———​“The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” P&P 101 (1983), pp.34–​54. ———​ “The Via Media in the Early Stuart Church,” in Kenneth Fincham, ed., The Early Stuart Church, 1603–​1642 (London, 1993), pp.211–​30. Willen, Diane, “Thomas Gataker and the Use of Print in the English Godly Community,” Huntington Library Quarterly 70 (2007), pp.342–​64. Winship, Michael, “Weaker Christians, Backsliders, and Carnal Gospelers: Assurance of Salvation and the Pastoral Origins of Puritan Practical Divinity in the 1590s,” Church History 70 (2001), pp.462–​81. Worden, Blair, “Literature and Political Censorship in Early Modern England,” in A. C. Duke, and C. A. Tamse, eds., Too Mighty to Be Free: Censorship in Britain and the Netherlands (Zutphen, 1987), pp.45–​62. ———​ Roundhead Reputations: The English Civil Wars and the Passions of Posterity (London, 2002). Wright, Stephen, The Early English Baptists, 1603–​1649 (Woodbridge, 2006). Zell, Michael, Early Modern Kent, 1540–​1640 (Kent, 2000). Zwicker, Steven N., Lines of Authority: Politics and English Literary Culture, 1649–​1689 (Ithaca, 1996).

Unpublished Theses Borvan, Daniel, “Fighting for the Faith: Pierre du Moulin’s Polemical Quest” (Oxford University DPhil, 2019). Breward, Ian, “The Life and Theology of William Perkins, 1558–​1602,” Manchester University PhD, 1963. Foutes, Jeffrey, “The Life of Daniel Featley: A Study in Social and Religious Conservatism during Civil War England,” Pepperdine University MA, 1973. Gadd, Bryan, “Dr. Daniel Featley: The Faithful Shepherd,” University of Queensland MPhil, 2008. Lake, Peter, “Laurence Chaderton and the Cambridge Moderate Puritan Tradition, 1570–​ 1604,” Cambridge University PhD, 1978. Macauley, J. S., “Richard Montague, Caroline Bishop, 1575–​1641,” Cambridge University PhD, 1965. Rodda, Joshua, “‘Dayes of Gall and Wormwood’: Public Religious Disputation in England, 1558–​1626,” Nottingham University PhD, 2012. Rowe, Lesley, “The Worlds of Arthur Hildersham,” Warwick University PhD, 2009. Steere, Daniel, “‘Quo Vadis?’ Bishop Joseph Hall and the Demise of Calvinist Conformity in Early Seventeenth-​Century England,” George State University PhD, 2000.

268 Bibliography Tan, Amy Gant, “Richard Bernard and His Publics: A Puritan Minister as Author,” Vanderbilt University PhD, 2015. Van Dixhoorn, Chad, “Reforming the Reformation: Theological Debate at the Westminster Assembly, 1643–​52,” Cambridge University PhD, 2004. Vernon, Elliot, “The Sion College Conclave and London Presbyterianism during the English Revolution,” Cambridge University PhD, 1999. Wadkins, Timothy, “Theological and Religious Culture in Early Stuart England: The Percy/​Fisher Controversies, 1605–​41,” Graduate Theological Union PhD, 1988.

Index For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–​53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages. Abbot, George, 27–​28, 61, 68, 88–​89, 90, 125–​ 26, 182–​83 anti-​Calvinism, 20–​21, 61, 118–​19 and anti-​Catholicism, 49–​51 Charles I sequestering in 1627, 68 and Cyril Lukaris (patriarch of Alexandria), 51–​52 and De Dominis, 50–​52 and du Moulin, 42–​43 efforts to discredit, 54, 61 Featley and A Treatise of the Perpetuall Visibilitie, 40n.23, 76, 76n.33 Featley as a trusted advisor and a protégé, 40, 232–​33 Featley as chaplain to, 1–​3, 15, 17, 26–​27, 33–​ 34, 36, 40, 42–​44, 47, 68–​69, 97–​98, 115, 136, 163–​64 Featley corresponding with, 23–​24, 26–​28 Goad as chaplain to, 49–​50, 52 and James I, 61, 89–​90 letter from James Ussher, 129–​30 Richard Mocket as a chaplain for, 53, 54 Thomas James as a chaplain for, 87–​88 Abbot, Robert, 23–​24, 26–​28, 109, 111 Abolishing of the Book of Common Prayer, 181 Acton parish, Featley serving in, 2–​3, 176n.24, 212 and John Featley, 215–​16, 217–​18 Parliamentary soldiers in, 2–​3, 176–​77, 189n.93, 215–​16 Philip Nye given Featley’s Acton living, 190 Adams, Thomas, 198–​99 adiaphora, 6, 153, 154–​55, 164–​65, 195, 232 Adlington, Hugh, 21 Airay, Henry (Dr. Arry), 25, 25n.48 Aldersgate Street, Featley imprisoned at, 188, 199–​200 Alexander, William, 38–​39 All Hallows Broadstreet rectory, 40 All Souls College, Oxford, 36 Anabaptists, 198–​99, 203, 204 and Featley, 172, 180, 197–​203, 204, 205–​6

and infant baptism, 199 opposition to Parliament and the Westminster Assembly, 200 seen as heretics, 197, 201–​2 a term of abuse against Baptists, 201–​3 Ancilla Pietatis (Featley), 128–​29, 144–​45, 148–​49, 157 in 5th edition spoke of George of Alexandria, 158–​59 after 1st edition, having a dedication to Countess of Denbigh, 154n.165, 156–​57, 156n.179 anti-​Catholicism in, 156–​57 challenging interpretation as a thoroughly conformist work, 129, 157 containing quotations from church fathers, 152 and Cosin’s Collection of Private Devotions, 142–​43, 154–​55 dedicated to Katherine MacDonnell, 154, 156n.179 directly influencing Eikon Basilike (Charles I), 221–​22 endorsements of, 190–​91 Featley not abandoning polemical activities, 151 John Featley’s treatment of, 217 licensing of, 128 medieval roots of, 146, 149–​50, 217 as prayer and private piety, 2–​3, 15–​16, 128, 143, 144–​48 in second edition a reference added to “George the Arian” (St. George), 158–​59 translations of, 128–​29, 190–​91 woodcut at the beginning, 157 Anderton, James (alias John Brereley), 62 Andrewes, Ambrose Glover, 164 Andrewes, Lancelot, 110–​11, 125–​26, 142–​ 43, 149 Andrews, Ambrose, 166 Andrews, Captain, 164n.231

270 Index Anglican and Anglicanism, 213–​14, 218–​19 differentiating between anti-​Calvinism, “Anglicanism” and Arminianism, 214–​15 Hooker as the “founder,” 30, 213–​14 old Anglican/​puritan model, 5 post-​Restoration Anglicans, 229 use of Anglican as a label before the 18th century, 3–​4, 214–​15 Anglo-​Spanish war, 131–​32 Annotations Upon …the Old and New Testament, 223–​27 contributions made to, 225n.89 anti-​Arminian works of Featley, 124–​25 anti-​Calvinism, 2–​3, 4, 76, 125–​26, 142–​43, 231 antipredestinarian positions, 46, 92–​93, 104–​5, 117 and the Arminians, 109–​10 attacks of anti-​Calvinists against Daniel Featley while at Corpus Christi College, 18–​20 attempts to counter presence of in England, 102 battle between Reformed divines and anti-​Calvinists at the end of James I’s reign, 90–​91 challenge to control of the licensing system, 53–​70 differences between Reformed and anti-​ Calvinist factions, 112 differentiating between anti-​Calvinism, “Anglicanism” and Arminianism, 214–​15 on doctrine of justification, 120–​21 Durham House as headquarters for, 111 and Dutch Remonstrants, 112 Featley’s efforts against, 15, 192 gaining ascendency after 1618, 125–​ 26, 232–​33 Montague’s anti-​Calvinist beliefs, 53, 103–​ 17, 217 and Pelagianism, 107, 126–​27 and plot to undermine Featley and Reformed colleagues, 121 political opposition to, 118–​21 reactions to the burning of Elton’s book, 60–​61 seen as “Augustinianism,” 108–​9 anti-​Catholicism, 2–​3, 14–​15, 49–​50, 71–​ 102, 232 in Ancilla Pietatis (Featley), 156–​57 antipopery, 81–​82, 92–​93, 102, 117 Bray amending many of Featley’s attacks, 141 (see also Bray, William)

comparison of Featley’s approach with other anti-​Catholic polemicists, 81–​82 of Featley, 71–​102, 126–​27, 132, 134–​35, 140–​41, 227–​28 Featley licensing anti-​Catholic polemical works, 43–​44 Featley’s debates against Catholics, 22–​23, 53, 71, 77–​78, 126–​27, 227 (see also Fisher, John) James I’s proclamations in 1620 and 1622 censoring anti-​Catholic publications and preaching, 74, 75–​76 in Virumnus Romanus (Featley), 191–​92 Antichrist, 51, 81, 82–​83, 92–​93 pope as, 78–​79, 103, 114, 117 antinomianism, 7, 172–​73 antipopery. See anti-​Catholicism anti-​puritanism, 10, 56 antisectarianism, Featley committed to, 194, 195, 206 Apocrypha, Catholics adding to canonical scripture, 81–​82 Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance An (James I), 34 Appello Caesarem (Montague), 103, 106–​7, 118, 120–​21 Abbot’s wanting James I to condemn, 118–​19 efforts to get published, 57–​58, 67, 118–​ 19, 155 efforts to suppress, 66 and Francis White, 91–​92, 120–​21, 125 licensing of, 57–​58, 65, 91–​92 Appendix to the Fishers Net (Featley), 81–​82, 87 Aquinas. See Thomas Aquinas Arias Montanus (church father), 79 Arius, 195–​96 Arminianism, 2–​3, 4, 10, 104–​5, 111, 123 countering Arminianism, 103–​27 differentiating between anti-​Calvinism, “Anglicanism” and Arminianism, 214–​15 gaining ascendency under Charles I, 125–​26 James I speaking out against, 122–​23 Montague relationship with, 110–​11, 201–​2 origins of, 109–​10 and Pelagianism, 105–​6, 107–​8, 122, 126–​27 Synod of Dort called because of, 113 Arminius, Jacobus, 105–​6, 109–​10, 122, 123 believing in Pelagianism, 106–​8, 124, 217 Arnoux, Jean (Jesuit), 42–​43 Ascot, Ezekiel, 26 Athanasius, 79–​80, 158–​59 Augsburg Confession, 152 Augustine, 62–​63, 104–​6, 107–​8, 109

Index  271 as a church father, 63, 79–​80, 104–​5, 152, 173–​74 compared with Reformed divines, 109 and Pelagius, 104–​6, 108–​9 reception of in post-​Reformation England, 108–​9 “Augustinianism,” 108–​9 Augustinian theology, 63 Austin, Robert, 68 Austin, Saint, 59, 62–​63, 122 Authorized Version, 223–​25 Annotations Upon …the Old and New Testament as companion to, 223–​27, 225n.89 concordances compiled by Clement Cotton and Samuel Newton, 224–​25 Featley as youngest translator of, 1, 24, 27–​ 28, 224–​25 Bagshaw, Christopher, 22, 78, 84–​85, 117 Bagwell, Alexander, 164n.233 Baillie, Robert, 197–​98 Balcanquall, William, 111 Balliol College, Oxford, 51–​52, 138–​39 Bancroft, Richard, 24, 30, 31, 164 Baptists. See Anabaptists Barksdale, Clement, 218–​19 Barlow, William, 110–​11 Baro, Peter, 107 Barrell, Robert, 166 Barrett, William, 107 Bastwick, John, trial of, 131–​32 Baxter, Richard, 9–​10, 171–​72, 192, 203 Baynes, Paul, 46, 46nn.61–​62, 101–​2 Bedell, William, 90–​91, 129–​30 Bedford, Thomas, 43–​44, 80–​81 Bellarmine, Robert, 29–​30, 123 Benefield, Sebastian, 40 Bernard, Nicholas, 219–​20 Bernard, Richard, 9–​10, 45–​46, 80–​81 Bernard of Clairvaux, 152 Bertius, Peter, 105–​6, 109–​11, 122 Beza, Theodore, 120–​21 Biblical citations Old Testament: Genesis 17:7, 199n.157 Old Testament: Exodus 22:11, 162n.215 Old Testament: 1 Kings 8:31, 162n.215 Old Testament: 1 Kings 18, 84 Old Testament: Jeremiah 4:3, 162 Old Testament: Psalm 45:14, 28–​29 Old Testament: Ezra 10.7, 162n.215 New Testament: Matthew 13, 166 New Testament: Romans 1:14, 135

New Testament: Romans 13:1, 162n.215, 195 New Testament: Galatians 6:18, 225–​26 New Testament: Ephesians 3:18, 225–​26 New Testament: Philippians 1:1, 225–​26 New Testament: Philippians 2:10, 164–​65 New Testament: 1 Timothy 3:1, 225–​26 New Testament: 1 Timothy 5:17, 225–​26 New Testament: Hebrews 6:2, 225–​26 New Testament: Hebrews 11:4, 220 New Testament: Hebrews 13:17, 56 Bilson, Thomas, 18–​19, 27–​28 Birkbeck, Simon, 227–​28 Bishop, William, 80 Bodleian Library, 12–​13, 87–​88 Bohemian Confessions, 152 Bond, Mr., receiving Featley’s Savoy living, 190 Book of Common Prayer, 14–​15, 129, 144–​45, 155–​56, 230, 232 bringing uniformity of worship, 143–​44 forms of prayer set out in, 15–​16, 151, 169–​70 treatment of by soldiers, 215–​16 Book of Homilies, 54, 143, 143n.97 “Book of Sports” (James I), 44–​45, 60–​ 61, 138–​39 Braxton, Gregory, 205–​6 Bray, William, 140–​41 amendments to Clavis Mystica (Featley), 69, 101–​2, 129, 134–​37, 141, 217 seen as a restrained licenser, 141 Brent, Nathaniel, 168, 168n.255 Brentford, battle at, 2–​3 Brereley, John (alias of James Anderton), 62 Brinsley, John, 149 Browne, Walter, 18 Brownrigg, Ralph, 10, 180–​81, 219–​20 Bucer, Martin, 144–​45 Buckeridge, John, 110–​11, 142–​43 Buckingham, Countess of, 72–​73, 73n.10, 75–​76, 92 Buckingham, Duchess (Katherine MacDonnell), 124–​25, 154 Buckingham, Duke of, 62, 64–​65, 73–​74, 96–​ 97, 124–​25 buckler of the faith, The (du Moulin), 42–​43 Buckner, Thomas, 68 Buggs, Anthony, 72n.8 Buggs, Edward, 72–​73, 72n.8, 78, 91–​92, 93 Bunyan, John, 9–​10 Burgess, Cornelius, 180–​81, 182–​83, 193, 225 Burton, Henry, 112, 131–​32, 182–​83 writing against Montague, 107–​8, 118, 155–​56 Byfield, Nicholas, 45–​46, 226–​27

272 Index Calamy, Edmund, 198–​99, 225–​26 and Annotations Upon …the Old and New Testament, 225–​26, 225n.89 as part of the “Smectymnuus” group, 183–​84 and Williams Committee, 180–​81, 186n.76 Calvin, John, 109, 120–​21 Calvinism as de facto religion in the Church of England, 125–​26 ties between puritans and established church Calvinists, 4 Calvinist conformists, 9–​10, 14, 27–​28, 36, 103–​ 4, 137–​38, 165–​66, 183–​84, 210–​11, 229 the afterlife of Featley as a Calvinist conformist, 209–​29 diversity among Calvinist conformists, 183–​ 84, 186–​87, 232 ecclesiastical conformity, 128–​70 ecclesiology and polity of an English Calvinist conformist, 171–​208 Featley as, 1, 11–​12, 14–​15, 17–​35, 97–​98, 141–​42, 153–​54, 169–​70, 172, 186–​87, 196, 204, 233–​34 formation of a Calvinist conformist, 17–​35 and Laudians, 139–​40, 141, 163, 169 and puritans, 174, 182–​83, 186–​87, 220, 222, 230–​31, 232–​33 qualities and positions of, 14–​15, 16, 172, 206, 232 Ussher as, 11, 186–​87 “Calvinist consensus,” 4, 6–​7 Cambridge School of intellectual historians, 12 Cambridge University, 50–​51 King’s College, 52, 110–​11 St. John’s College Cambridge, 135 Campion, Edmund, 22–​23, 71 Canon 66 (on pastoral duty), 77 Carleton, George, 43–​44, 107, 111 Caron, Noel de, 110–​11 Carrier, Benjamin, 22 Cartwright, Francis, 53 Cartwright, Thomas, 9–​10, 45–​46 Casaubon, Méric, 225n.89 Cassian, John, 104–​6 catalog, importance of producing a list of Protestant names, 83–​84, 85–​88 catechisms, 62, 146–​47, 171, 224–​25, 226–​27 Catholics and Catholicism attempts to counter presence of in England, 102 Charles I sympathy to Catholicism, 99–​100 concerns about Catholic toleration, 95

Featley accepting that Catholicism agreed with Protestantism on fundamental doctrines, 117 Featley debating Catholics, 43, 71–​72, 77–​78, 94–​95, 227 Featley position that Catholic Church was idolatrous but contained true believers, 51 Featley seeing as a counterfeit version of Christianity, 78–​79, 81 Featley’s work with Catholic converts, 48–​ 53, 227–​28 growth of in the 1620s and 1630s, 71–​72 James I and the curbing of Catholic publishing, 49–​50 Montague minimizing difference between Rome and Protestantism, 116 salvation possible inside the Catholic Church according to Featley, 82–​83 true origins thought to be at the Council of Trent, 78–​79 See also anti-​Catholicism; conversions to Catholicism; popery; Spanish Match negotiations censorship, 40–​41, 233 early Stuart censorship, 37–​38 example of Featley’s censorship of Three Conformities (de Croy), 40–​43, 41n.29, 235–38 Featley as a “benign” censor, 57, 69 Featley censoring antiestablishment criticisms, 44–​45 Featley failing to censor Gods Holy Minde (Elton), 44–​45 Featley’s amendments made to The Three Conformities (de Croy), 235–38 Featley’s “ideal of censorship,” 66 Gods Holy Minde (Elton) being publicly burned, 60–​61 James I’s policies on publishing and printing censorship, 34, 88–​89 Laud and Laudian censorship, 136, 141–​42 Laudian censorship of Featley, 69, 129, 134–​37 motivations and mechanisms underpinning, 47–​48 puritans censoring ecclesiological features of Featley’s works, 226–​27 See also licensing, Featley’s role as; licensing system censure, 53–​54, 64, 122–​23, 153, 154, 159–​60 censuring of Featley, 98–​99, 217–​18 Featley’s attempts to avoid being censured, 68–​69, 151–​52, 157, 159–​60

Index  273 Featley’s censures of others, 65–​67, 99–​ 100, 125 Chaderton, Laurence, 9–​10, 23–​24, 107 Chamberlain, John, 60 chaplaincy of Daniel Featley, 36, 69–​70, 89 and authorization of printed works, 38–​40 chaplain to George Abbot, 1–​3, 15, 17, 26–​27, 33–​34, 36, 40, 42–​44, 47, 68–​69, 97–​98, 114–​15, 136, 163–​64 chaplain to Thomas Edmonds, 1, 21–​22, 23–​ 24, 26, 32, 71, 93–​94, 129–​30 having authority to license books, 38 as King’s chaplain, 2–​3, 49, 163, 187–​88 Charles I, 39, 68, 125–​26, 148 and Chelsea College, 99 concerned about Catholic toleration in England, 95 condemning the Solemn League and Covenant and the Westminster Assembly, 177 dedication of Clavis Mystica (Featley) to, 129–​30 Featley as a royal chaplain to, 2–​3, 49, 163, 187–​88 Featley offending by participating in Westminster Assembly, 187–​88 Featley seeking support from, 121 fleeing from London to Oxford, 176, 178 John Featley as a chaplain to, 217–​18 and marriage union with Henrietta Maria, 73–​74, 96–​97, 187–​88 and possible marriage union with Henrietta Maria, 60–​61 pretend message from that brought charges against Featley, 189 proclamations of, 66, 148, 155 and Richard Smith, 96 rise of anti-​Calvinism under, 4 scolding Prideaux, 138–​39 sequestering of George Abbot, 68 support of Montague, 108–​9 as supreme head of the Church and the Commonwealth, 194–​95 sympathy to Catholicism, 99–​100 and Westminster Assembly, 178, 187–​88 writing a devotional work, 144–​45 Charles II, 220–​21 Chelsea College, 2–​3, 71, 94, 98–​99 Featley’s appointment to, 23–​24, 93–​94, 98–​ 100, 99n.189, 102, 164 Featley’s death at, 71, 206 Chibald, William, 33, 48–​49 church fathers, 109

use of by Featley, 79–​81, 87–​88, 152, 173–​74 use of by other Protestants, 80–​81, 110 See also patristic sources, use of by Featley Church of England, 30–​31, 59–​60, 155–​56, 193, 213–​14, 216, 226–​27 Calvinism as de facto religion of, 125–​26 Charles I on, 121, 155 Crompton on, 63, 64 doctrine of, 113–​14, 120–​21, 214–​15 Featley on, 44–​45, 81–​82, 124–​25, 159–​60, 162, 233–​34 Montague on, 103, 111, 114, 115, 116, 117 Civil War. See English Civil War Clarke, Samuel, 209–​10, 213–​14 Clavis Mystica (Featley), 2–​3, 15–​16, 129–​37, 139, 143, 149–​50, 169 amendments to/​censoring of, 69, 101–​2, 129, 134–​37, 141, 217 containing critiques on Laudianism, 134–​35 dedicated to Charles I, 129–​30 licensing of, 69, 128, 135–​36, 143 Clegg, Cyndia Susan, 39–​40, 132 Clerke, Richard, 130–​31, 141 Coales from the altar (du Moulin), 42–​43 Coëffeteau, Nicolas, 34 Coffey, John, 201 Collection of Private Devotions (Cosin), 155–​57 and Ancilla Pietatis, 142–​43, 154–​55 College d’Arras, 77–​78, 94 Collier, Jay, 108–​9 Collinson, Patrick, 3–​4, 6, 8, 11–​12, 160–​ 61, 209–​10 commentary on Bible. See Annotations Upon …the Old and New Testament Committee of Plundered Ministers, 160–​68, 176–​77, 185–​86, 187–​88, 231 Communion, 165–​66 Featley moving the Communion table, 165–​ 66, 167, 185–​86, 231 soldiers’ treatment of the Communion table, 211–​12 and transubstantiation, 94–​95, 115 Como, David, 7, 8 “Concerning Recusancie of Communion with the Church of England” (Montague), 115 Confessions, Augsburg, Bohemian, and Helvetic, 152 Continental Reformed churches and divines, 3–​4, 111, 145–​46, 195–​96, 200, 214–​ 15, 228–​29 See also international Reformed Protestants

274 Index conversions to Catholicism, 93n.143, 126–​27 Countess of Buckingham considering converting, 72–​73, 92, 155–​57 fears in England of (see Spanish Match negotiations) Featley’s efforts to dissuade Protestants from, 49–​50, 71–​72, 75–​76, 78, 81, 92–​93, 155–​ 56, 227–​28 growth in numbers in 1620s, 76 Laud’s involvement in, 83 as a pastoral issue, 76–​77 conversions to Protestantism, 49–​50, 51–​52, 93n.143 Featley’s work with converts from Catholicism, 49–​53, 227–​28 Rainolds’s conversion from Catholicism, 29–​30 convocations attended by Featley, 2–​3, 96–​ 97, 118 Conway, Edward, 38–​39 Cook, Alexander, 62 Cornwall, Featley in, 15, 26–​27, 32, 36, 163–​64 Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 27–​28 Calvinist/​anti-​Calvinist divide at, 19–​20 Featley at, 1, 17, 18–​20, 27–​28, 109–​10 Featley’s father as cook at, 17 Corvinus, Johannes Arnoldus, 105–​6, 110–​11 Cosens-​Hardy, Basil, 179–​80 Cosin, John, 56–​57, 58, 110 anti-​Calvinist behavior of, 66–​67, 111 attempt to discourage Countess of Denbigh’s conversion, 157 and the burning of Elton’s books, 119–​20 comparing Collection of Private Devotions and Ancilla Pietatis, 142–​43, 154–​55 correspondence with Montague, 118, 119–​ 21, 138–​39, 155 and Francis White, 133, 155–​56, 157 opposition to Catholicism, 140–​41 orchestrating royal reprimand of Featley, 59 Cottington, Francis, 54 Cottington, George, 99 Cotton, Clement, 224–​25 Council of Carthage, 104–​5 Council of Diospolis, 105–​6 Council of Orange (second in 529), 104–​5 Council of Trent, 78–​79, 81–​82, 115–​16, 117 Counter-​Remonstrants, 105–​6, 109–​10 Court of High Commission, 158–​59, 231 Featley acting as a mediator for, 160–​63 Cox, Benjamin, 198–​99 Crakanthorpe, Richard, 158–​59 Cranmer, Thomas, 108–​9

Crashaw, William, 148, 148n.128 Crofton, Zachary, 220–​21 Crompton, William, 59, 62–​65, 64n.192, 125 Cromwell, Oliver, 213–​14 “crypto-​Catholicism,” 14–​15, 57–​58, 117, 232 Culverwell, Ezekiel, 46–​47, 48–​49 Cygnea Cantio (Featley), 59, 62, 65–​66 “Printer to the Reader” (appended to Cygnea Cantio), 66, 119–​20, 155–​56 Cyprian (church father), 34, 152 Cyril (church father), 79–​80 Darley, Anne (Featley’s niece), 205–​6 Davenant, John, 61, 111 Davenport, Christopher (Sancta Clara), 140–​41 Davenport, John, 182–​83 Davenport Anne, 191–​92 Davies, Julian, 5 debates of Daniel Featley, 233–​34 with Christopher Bagshaw, 22, 78, 84–​85, 117 debating Catholics, 43, 71–​72, 77–​78, 94–​ 95, 227 Featley on controlling debates, 86–​87 Featley on ways to control debates, 84–​85 first recorded debate against Catholics in 1612, 71 Francis White teaming with Featley in anti-​ Catholic debate against Fisher, 126–​27 with George Fisher (alias Musket) and John Percy (alias Fisher), 53 Goad and Featley arguing on transubstantiation, 94–​95 with Henry Denne, 199–​200 with John Fisher, 71–​76, 83–​88, 91–​92, 94–​ 95, 117, 231 with John Sweet, 117, 231 publications of the debates, 71–​72, 93–​102 with Richard Smith, 71–​72, 71n.3, 75, 78, 79, 84–​85, 93–​94, 117 with Thomas Everard, 101–​2, 101n.207 on transubstantiation, 79 use of debates to boost his reputation, 97–​98 with William Kiffin, 198–​200, 201–​3 Declaration against Vorstius (James I), 123 de Croy, Francis, 40–​43, 62 Amendments to William Hart’s English translation of Francis de Croy’s The Three Conformities, AI.P1–​AI.P12 De Dominis, Marc Antonio, 50–​52, 53, 114–​ 15, 190 Defence of the Catholique Faith (Du Moulin), 34 defence of Via tuta, the safe way, A (Featley), 100–​1

Index  275 “Demipelagianism.” See “Semi-​Pelagianism” Denbigh, Countess of (Susan Villiers), 32, 119–​ 20, 154n.165, 155–​56 Ancilla Pietatis (Featley) containing dedication to, 156–​57, 156n.179 efforts to discourage her conversion to Catholicism, 157 Denison, Stephen, 45–​46, 53, 60 Denne, Henry, 199–​200, 202–​4 Dering, Edward, 9–​10, 136, 141 devotions comparing Ancilla Pietatis (Featley) and Collection of Private Devotions (Cosin), 154–​55 countering anti-​Calvinists, 232 Featley on, 146, 151, 152, 170 and the liturgical calendar, 150–​51, 158 private devotion, 150–​51, 158 public vs. private, 157–​58 See also prayer(s) Devotions (Cosin). See Collection of Private Devotions (Cosin) Dictionary of National Biography, 219 Digby family, 72–​73 Digges, Mr., 55 Dippers Dipt, The (Featley), 173–​74, 197–​204 dedicated to Parliament, 204 frontispiece illustrating Anabaptist sects, 201 inconsistencies with The League Illegal, 220–​21 Directory of Worship, 230 diversity among Calvinist conformists, 183–​84, 186–​ 87, 232 among Reformed divines, 6–​7, 9–​10, 21, 46, 109, 121, 168, 183–​84, 232 theological diversity on the Williams Committee, 182 within Calvinist/​anti-​Calvinism paradigm, 6 Dixon, Leif, 112–​13, 149–​50 Downham, John, 144–​45, 204–​5, 223–​24, 225 du Moulin, Pierre, 34–​35, 42–​43, 53, 190–​91 dispute with Daniel Tilenus, 32–​33 Featley facilitating printing and licensing of works, 42–​44 Featley’s friendship with, 32, 33, 34, 42–​ 43, 123 seen as an opponent by Laudian regime, 158–​59 writing a defense of James I, 34 writing to John King on Featley’s behalf, 77–​78

Duppa, Brian, 218–​19 Durham House group, 4, 20–​21, 58, 111, 112 Dury, John, 138–​39, 182–​83, 200, 204 Dutch Remonstrant divines. See Remonstrants Eales, Jacqueline, 8–​9 ecclesiastical licenser, Featley as. See licensing, Featley’s role as ecclesiastical positioning of Featley, 232 ecclesiology and polity of an English Calvinist conformist, 171–​208 Edmonds, Thomas, 33, 123 Featley as chaplain to, 1, 21–​22, 23–​24, 26, 32, 71, 93–​94, 129–​30 and James I, 32–​33, 34 Edwards, Thomas, 197–​99, 197n.140, 201 Eikon Basilike (Charles I), 144–​45, 144–​ 45n.105, 221–​22 Elizabeth (queen), 29–​30 Elizabethan classis movement in the 1590s, 8–​9 Elizabethan period, 38, 42, 81, 103–​4, 125–​26, 141–​42, 161, 164, 206–​7, 229 Elizabethan Prayer Book of 1560, 155–​56 Elton, Edward, 44–​45, 59–​61, 62, 63–​64, 101–​ 2, 125 burning of Elton’s books, 66–​68, 119–​20 English Baptists. See Anabaptists English Civil War, 177, 180–​81, 186–​87, 208, 210–​11, 225, 232–​33 aftermath of, 232–​33 causes of, 3–​4, 7, 175 and the puritans, 214–​15, 228–​29 English Reformed theology. See Reformed theology Ephemerides of Hartlib, 144–​45 epidemics/​plagues, 68–​69, 99–​100, 131–​32, 147–​49, 150–​51 episcopacy, 2–​3, 14–​15, 16, 171–​72, 181 Featley leaving room for abolishing, 196 Featley’s defense of, 178, 185, 188, 195–​ 96, 216 future of on eve of English Civil War, 180–​81 jure divino, 183–​84, 185 marginalization of from 1641 to 1643, 175–​76 Ussher on, 179, 183–​84 Everard, Thomas, 101–​2 Fairclough, John (father), 1, 17 “Faithful Shepherd, The” (Featley), 133, 227–​28 “Fatall Vesper” incident, 53 Faulkand, Lady, 119–​20 Faustus (bishop of Riez), 105–​6

276 Index Featley, Daniel, 14, 141–​42 amendments made to The Three Conformities (de Croy), AI.P1–​AI.P12 and anti-​Catholicism, 71–​102 (see also anti-​Catholicism) attacks on his life, 2–​3, 211 attendance at the Williams Committee of 1641, 175–​76, 180–​87 changing nature of allegiances of, 231 as a conformist, 11–​12, 14–​15, 17–​35, 153–​ 54, 171–​208 countering Pelagianism, Arminianism and popery, 103–​27 death of, 2–​3, 71, 118, 205, 209–​10, 227 desire for preferment a chief motivating factor, 27–​31, 34–​35, 124–​25 ecclesiology and polity of, 171–​208 efforts to analyze Featley’s thinking, 12–​ 13, 14, 15 efforts to discredit, 61, 199–​200, 203 experiencing war during the English Civil War, 176–​77 first 35 years of, 1, 17–​35 imprisonment of by the Westminster Assembly, 71, 206, 207 and Montague, 20–​21, 56–​59, 60–​61, 62–​63, 101–​2, 113–​16, 118, 119–​20, 125, 126–​ 27, 191–​92 Montague’s debates with in 1626, 20–​21 name changes made, 1 pastoral and practical theology of, 128–​70 posthumous works and other “afterlives” and posthumous biographies, 209–​29 reception of his work through lens of post-​ 1600 biographers, 16, 210–​20 and reformed soteriology, 103–​27 and regulating the reformed consensus, 36–​70 royal reprimands and efforts to avoid, 2–​3, 15–​16, 59–​60, 68–​69, 129, 151–​52, 154, 159–​60, 168–​69 signing the Instrumentum Theologorum manuscript, 182–​83 themes of prayer and preaching in his devotional works, 15–​16, 128–​29, 132–​34, 140, 153, 168 and the Westminster Assembly, 16, 124–​25, 164–​65, 172–​80 writings from prison, 178, 187–​96, 197–​203 Featley, Henry (nephew), 209 Featley, John (nephew), 1, 16, 17, 27, 66n.203, 214–​17 appointed chaplain to Charles I, 217–​18

appointed Charles II’s extraordinary chaplain, 220–​21 appointed dean of the Lincoln Cathedral, 220–​21 attempts to have post-​1660s reader 216, 217–​18, see Daniel as a champion of post-​Restoration cause, biography of Daniel Featley, 31, 210–​11, 213–​ 14, 217–​18 on Daniel Featley’s imprisonment, 187–​88, 199–​200 on Featley at time of death, 205–​6, 209–​10 on Featley concluding chaplaincy with Abbot, 68–​69 on Featley’s appearance before the Committee of Plundered Ministers, 164 on Featley’s stand against the Solemn League and Covenant, 178 on Featley’s state of health, 190–​91 on Featley’s writing of Ancilla Pietatis, 151 fleeing to the Island of St. Kitts, 187 as a Laudian, 132, 217–​18 not noting Featley’s work on Authorized Version, 24 on the origin of Roma ruens (Featley), 85 publishing account of Featley resolving doubts of Birkbeck about Protestant faith, 227–​28 publishing works by Daniel Featley, 194–​ 95, 220–​21 on reasons for Daniel Featley to write Ancilla Pietatis, 147–​48 report on soldiers’ behavior in Lambeth Parish, 211 reprinting speeches Featley made at Westminster Assembly, 173–​74 as a stalwart royal supremacist, 194–​95 use of his accounts by other biographers, 218–​19, 228–​29 Featley, Joyce (wife), 139–​40 Feingold, Mordechai, 24–​25, 30 Ferus (church father), 79 Finch, Henry, 61 Fincham, Kenneth, 4–​5, 6–​7, 10–​11, 40, 54, 125–​26, 133 Fisher, George (alias Musket), 53, 94–​95 Fisher, John, 43–​44, 59–​60, 75–​76, 94–​95, 203, 231 chaplaincy’s of, 72–​73, 72n.8 debates with Francis White, William Laud, and James I, 72–​73, 91

Index  277 Featley’s debate with in 1623, 71–​76, 78–​79, 83–​88, 91–​92, 94–​95, 117 John Percy using John Fisher as alias, 53, 94–​95 success in converting Protestants to Catholicism, 72–​73 White teaming with Featley in the debate in 1623, 126–​27 Fisher, Samuel, 198–​99, 202–​4, 231 Fisher Catched in His Owne Net, The (Featley), 59–​60, 72, 75–​76, 88–​89, 156–​57 Flavel, John, 9–​10 Flemming, Oliver, 144–​45 Floyd, John, 75n.30, 100–​1 Ford, Alan, 11, 179, 183–​84, 195, 219–​20 Forme of Common Prayer, A (Charles I), 148 Foxcroft, John, imprisonment of, 187–​88 French Match negotiations, 93–​94, 95 French Reformed Protestantism, 17, 37–​38 and Daniel Featley, 32–​35, 37–​38, 42–​ 43, 69–​70 James I sending letter to, 32–​33 Fuller, Thomas, 12–​13, 31, 54, 175 Abel Redivivus (Fuller), 28–​29, 30–​31 on the Williams Committee, 180–​81, 186–​87, 186n.76 Gagg for the New Gospell? A (Montague), 103 also called A New Gagg, 106–​7, 118–​19, 155 Garbraim, Jo, 162 Gataker, Thomas, 43–​44, 45–​46, 61, 149–​50, 182–​83, 208, 225n.89 preached funeral sermon for Featley’s wife, 61, 139–​40, 222–​23 Gauden, John, 144–​45n.105 as possible author of Eikon Basilike, 219–​20 Gee, John, 49–​50, 51, 53 Geneva Bible, 223–​24 Gentle Lash, The (Featley), 189–​90 George (Saint), 158–​60, 161–​62 George of Alexandria, 158–​59 “George the Arian” (allusion to St. George), 158–​60 Gloucester College, Oxford, 18–​19 Goad, Thomas, 40, 49–​50, 52–​53, 68 as a licenser, 39–​40 opposing Montague, 53, 58–​59, 118 royal censure of, 53 at the Synod of Dort, 52n.102, 111 on transubstantiation, 94–​95 Gods Holy Minde (Elton), 44–​45, 59–​61 copies burned, 60–​61, 66, 67–​68 Gataker imprisoned for writing a preface for, 61

Goodwin, Thomas, 182–​83 Gouge, William, 45–​46, 182–​83, 225n.89 grace, 46–​47, 63, 104–​6, 108–​9, 113, 149–​ 50, 199 preaching and the public means of grace, 129–​44, 147–​48, 168 Grand Sacrilege of the Church of Rome, The (Featley), 79–​80, 94–​95, 96–​97, 98, 184 Gratian (church father), 79–​80 Gray, Jonathan Michael, 161 Greek Orthodox Church, 51–​52 Green, Ian, 36–​37, 146–​47, 168–​69 Greenham, Richard, 9–​10 Gregory the Great, 34, 173–​74 Grevinckhoven, Nicolaas, 105–​6 Grotius, Hugo, 110–​11, 218–​19 Gunpowder Plot, 23, 43–​44, 72–​73, 156–​57 Ha, Polly, 8–​9 Hacket, John, 163, 176, 180–​81, 182, 186n.76 Hall, Joseph, 10–​11, 52, 74, 163, 165–​66, 180–​81 arguing for jure divino episcopacy, 183–​ 84, 186–​87 imprisonment of, 74 opposing Montague’s work, 58, 118 Hampton, Stephen, 10, 180, 186n.76, 210–​ 11, 219–​20 Hampton Court Conference, 1, 30 Harding, Thomas, 80 Harsnett (Harsnet), Samuel, 39–​40, 61 Hart, John, 29–​30 Hart, William, AI.P1–​AI.P12 Hartlib, Samuel, 138–​39, 144–​45, 200 Heigham, John, 100–​1, 103 Helvetic Confessions, 152 Henrietta Maria (French queen), 60–​61, 96–​ 97, 155–​56 Henry IV (king), 162 Herbert, William, 128–​29, 144–​45, 190–​91 Herborn Synod in Germany, 182–​83 heresy, 7, 51, 107–​8, 131, 195–​96 and Anabaptists, 197–​98, 201–​2, 204, 205–​6 and Montague, 106–​7, 114 Pelagian and Arminian heresies, 98–​99, 103–​ 4, 106, 107, 113, 126–​27 producing fragmentation within Protestantism in 1640s, 204 Heylyn, Peter, 54, 123, 125–​26, 132 attempting to prove St. George as a historical figure, 158–​60 and Featley, 168–​69, 175, 186n.76 and Prideaux, 137–​39 Hieronymus, 87

278 Index Hilary (church father), 105–​6 Hildersham, Arthur, 9–​10, 148 Hill, Thomas, 180–​81 Historie of Saint George (Heylyn), 158–​59 Holdsworth, Richard, 10, 176, 180–​81, 182–​83 Holt, John, 20–​21 Homalin, John Henry, 190–​91 Homily of Obedience, 3–​4 Hooker, Richard, 29, 30, 213–​14, 218–​19 “hot Protestants,” 14–​15 Houlbrooke, Ralph, 222 House of Commons, 58, 92, 118–​19, 122–​23, 140–​41, 179 accusing Featley of being a spy, 189–​90 Hovenden, Robert, 36 Hughes, Ann, 11–​12 Huguenots, 32, 53 Hunt, Arnold, 46n.62, 88–​89, 134, 136 on Bray’s amendments to Featley’s Clavis Mystica, 69, 136–​37 on disbursements of Featley’s assets at his death, 205–​6 on doctrine of predestination, 113 on Featley’s efforts to “Protestantise” works, 55 on Featley showing respect for authorial intent, 42, 42n.39 on licensing and censoring, 37–​38, 40–​42, 46–​47, 46n.62, 141 on printed sermons, 130–​31, 143–​44 Hyde, Edward, 175, 188 infant baptism. See pedobaptism Instrumentum Theologorum manuscript, 182–​83 international Reformed Protestants, 15, 34–​35, 37–​38, 43, 69–​70, 152, 190–​91, 196, 200 See also Continental Reformed churches and divines Ioynt Attestation, 111 Irenaeus, 79–​80 Jackson, Thomas, 18, 20–​21, 21n.24, 111 Jacobean period, 4–​5, 44–​45, 47–​48, 81, 102, 103–​4, 141–​42, 229, 232–​33 Jacobean Reformed Church, 122–​26, 132 James, Thomas, 87–​88 James I, 2–​3, 30, 34, 59–​60, 72–​73, 89–​90, 122, 123 allowing licensing of Appello Caesarem, 65 anti-​Calvinist efforts to secure king’s favor, 69–​70

burning all copies of Gods Holy Minde (Elton), 44–​45, 59n.147, 60 death of, 64–​66, 122 and du Moulin, 42–​43 efforts to procure a marriage of Charles I with Spanish Infanta, 73–​74 (see also Spanish Match negotiations) Featley maintaining that James I condemned Montague, 103–​4 Featley’s treatment by, 65, 68–​69, 92, 151–​52 giving support to De Republica Ecclesiastica (De Dominis), 50–​51 on Henry Finch’s imprisonment, 61 on the licensing of Saint Austin's Summes (Crompton), 62, 64–​65 and Montague, 65–​66, 103–​4, 118–​19, 122, 125 policies on publishing and printing censorship, 34, 49–​50, 88–​89, 90 proclamation in 1620, 74, 90 reaction to Featley’s editing of Saint Austen’s Summes (Crompton), 62 royal reprimands, 59–​60, 68–​69, 151–​52 selecting delegates for Synod of Dort, 110–​11 support for Chelsea College, 98 support of publishing Romish Fisher (Featley), 90–​91 and support of the Reformed cause, 122–​26 and the Tilenus/​du Moulin dispute, 32–​33 Jeffrey, John, 68 Jerome (church father), 79–​80, 152, 173–​74 Jewel, John, 28–​29, 30–​31, 80, 109 John Chrysostom, 173–​74 Jonson, Ben, 71n.3, 94 Jure Divino, 62, 183–​84, 185, 186–​87 “Justification by faith alone,” 138–​39 Justin Martyr, 173–​74 Kendall, R. T., 112–​13 Kiffin, William, 198–​200, 201–​3 King, John, 22, 23–​24, 27–​28, 32, 48–​49, 77–​78 King’s College, Cambridge, 52, 110–​11 Kishlansky, Mark, 5 Knevet, M., 75, 78, 78n.46, 94 Knollys, Hanserd, 198–​99 Kritopoulos, Metrophanes, 51–​52 Kynaston, Francis, 99 Lake, Peter, 6, 10–​11, 13, 30, 49, 164–​65, 213–​14 on anti-​Catholicism and antipopery, 81, 92–​93, 121

Index  279 on Calvinist conformity, 10 on Clarke’s Lives, 209–​10, 213–​14 on Laudianism, 36–​37, 132–​33, 153 on puritans and puritanism, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11–​ 12, 48 Lambert, Sheila, 36–​37 Lambeth Churchwardens’ Accounts, 139–​40, 165–​66, 231 Lambeth House, use of as a prison, 2–​3, 119–​ 20, 212 Lambeth Palace, 40, 168 Lambeth Parish, 58–​59, 135–​36, 139–​40, 163–​ 64, 164n.230, 176–​77, 198–​99, 211 donation to from Featley’s wife, Joyce, 139–​40 Featley as rector in, 2–​3, 129–​30, 132, 139–​ 40, 176–​77 John Featley as Curate to his Uncle, 132 Lambeth living given to John White at Featley’s death, 179 North Lambeth Parish, 139–​40, 140n.72 plundering of soldiers in, 2–​3, 189n.93, 211–​ 12, 213, 215–​16 See also St. Mary’s Church in Lambeth Lambeth Rectory, 27 Laud, William, 65, 74, 108–​9, 123, 132, 136, 138–​39, 158–​59, 161–​62, 191–​92 as an anti-​Calvinist, 4, 111, 217 censuring done by, 61, 64, 100–​1, 140–​41 Charles I sympathies for, 99–​100 debates of, 72–​73, 91, 92 involved in conversions of Catholics, 83 opposition of Williams Committee, 180–​81 opposition to Catholicism, 140–​41 on Separatists, 160–​61 showing some sympathy to Catholicism, 20, 83, 96, 101–​2, 140–​41 trial of, 20–​21, 135–​36, 141, 167–​68 Laud-​Buckeridge edition of XCVI sermons (Andrewes), 142–​43 Laudianism, 2–​3, 142–​43, 153, 204, 214–​15 “beauty of holiness” movement, 132, 134–​35, 137–​38, 139–​40, 153, 154 Calvinist conformists and Laudians, 9–​10, 139–​40, 141, 163, 169 covert attacks of, 131 defense of Laudian regime, 5 dominance of in later 1620s and 1630s, 232–​33 Featley as opponent to, 15–​16, 128, 160, 163–​64 Featley’s views on preaching in contrast to Laudian views, 132–​34 Laudian adversaries promoting a rival vision of orthodoxy, 169

Laudian censorship practices, 141–​42 Laudian innovations, 180, 181, 185–​86, 223–​24, 231 Laudian piety, 137–​38 Laudian-​puritan relations in the 1640s, 163 portrayal of anti-​Catholicism, 6–​7 on preaching and prayer, 132–​33, 142–​43 and Prideaux, 137–​39, 141–​42 targeting Laudian regime’s perceived opponents, 158–​60 Laurence, Thomas, 138–​39 League Illegal, The (Featley), 194–​95, 207, 220–​21 Featley’s authorship of contested, 220–​21 Lechmere, John, 78n.46 Leiden University, 123, 190–​91 L’Estrange, Roger, 231n.7 Ley, John, 225n.89 licenser, Featley’s role as, 34, 37–​38, 57 aims and limitations, 40–​45 as a “benign” censor, 57 countering anti-​Calvinists, 55–​57, 232 decline in activities after Featley censured, 68 efforts to hinder publication of Appello Caesarem (Montague), 58–​59 examples of licensing of anti-​Catholic works, 42–​44, 59, 62–​64 (see also Crompton, William; Elton, Edward) his amendments to de Croy’s Three Conformities, AI.P1–​AI.P12 his role diminishing in 1620s, 90–​91, 92, 125, 128 and international works, 69–​70 licensing of puritan publications, 45–​48, 46nn.61–​62, 162–​63 licensing Panegyrique (Primrose), 38–​39 licensing works by Continental Reformed divines, 111 number of manuscripts licensed, 39–​40 strategy used in licensing posthumous works, 46n.61, 101–​2 underlying motivations for Featley, 57–​58 See also censorship licensing system, 36–​70, 141–​42, 233 anti-​Calvinist challenge to control, 15, 53–​ 69, 128 on Laudian licensers changes to Clerke’s works, 141 Laud licensing book by a Catholic priest, 140–​41 limitations to, 39–​40 motivations and mechanisms underpinning, 47–​48

280 Index licensing system (cont.) originating in Elizabethan period, 38 as a two-​way street between licenser and author, 47 See also censorship Lim, Paul, 197–​98 Lindley, Keith, 211 Lindsell, Augustine, 111 liturgical calendar, 150–​51, 157, 158 Lives (Clarke), 209–​10, 213–​14 Loe, William, 1 and the conversion of Fernando Tejeda from Catholicism, 49–​50 on Featley, 36, 68–​69, 140–​41, 217 giving Featley’s funeral oration, 24–​25, 206, 217, 227 working with Featley on 3 convocations, 118 Lollards, 85–​86, 162 London Baptist Confession of Faith (1644), 201 Londons Lamentation (Crashaw), 148 Longfellow Erika, 144–​45 Lower House of Convocation, 96–​97 Lukaris, Cyril (patriarch of Alexandria), 51–​52 Luther, Protestantism before, 23, 72–​73, 79, 82–​83, 85–​88, 203 Luther, the Protestantism before, 43–​44, 94–​95 Lynch, Kathleen, 65 Lynde, Humphrey, 72–​73, 93, 100–​1, 100n.199, 227–​28 Featley delivering funeral sermon for, 100–​1 Featley facilitating publication of Lynde’s works, 100–​2 Lynde’s house as site of Fisher/​Featley debate, 74–​75 MacDonnell, Katherine (Duchess of Buckingham), 154 sister-​in-​law to Countess of Denbigh, 154n.165 Magdalene College, Featley’s father as a servant at, 17 Maidstone Parish, 166 Maie, Edward, 55–​58, 66–​67, 137 Maltby, Judith, 5 manual of the private devotions and meditations, A (Andrewes), 149 Marian persecutions and martyrs, 67–​68, 115, 162 Marshall, Stephen, 180–​81, 182–​84, 199–​ 200, 203 Martin, Jessica, 28 Mary I (queen), 162 Mason, Henry, 33, 42–​43, 48–​49

Mayer, John, 80–​81 Mayer, Wolfgang, 80–​81, 144–​45, 190–​91 McCabe, Richard, 10–​11 McCullough, Peter, 142–​43 Mede, Joseph, 60, 89 Mercurius Aulicus, 193, 213, 215–​16 Mercurius Britanicus, 213, 215–​16 Mercurius Rusticus, 212–​13 Milbourne, Robert, 66–​67, 119–​20, 155–​56 Milton, Anthony, 6–​7, 47, 69n.224, 81–​82, 85–​ 86, 117, 132, 163 on “benign censorship,” 69, 69n.224 on difference between Reformed divines and anti-​Calvinists, 83, 141 on Featley’s licensing and censorship activities, 37–​38, 41–​42, 45–​46, 55, 56 on Heylyn’s targeting of Calvinist conformists, 137–​38 on lack of freedom of the press, 66–​67 on the Laudian regime, 136, 141, 159–​60 on licensers giving works a Laudian “accent,” 68–​69, 159–​60 Milton, John, 144–​45, 144–​45n.105, 221–​22, 222n.67 Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, The (MWPA), 171–​73 Mocket, Richard, 26–​27, 36, 53–​54, 61 moderation, 7–​8, 11–​12, 117, 172, 175, 186–​87, 206–​7, 208, 232–​33 self-​moderated church, 8 Montague, James, 18–​19 Montague, Richard, 2–​3, 53, 67, 91–​92, 110–​11, 119–​20, 123 as an anti-​Calvinist, 53, 103–​17, 217 and Arminianism, 108–​9, 110–​11, 112, 201–​2 assisting with production of Collection of Private Devotions (Cosin), 155 association with Durham House group, 111 on the Church of England, 103, 111, 114, 115, 116, 117 correspondence with Cosin, 118, 119–​21, 138–​39, 155 correspondence with Neile, 121 and Dutch Remonstrant doctrines, 109–​10 and Featley, 20–​21, 56–​59, 60–​61, 62–​63, 101–​2, 113–​16, 118, 119–​20, 125, 126–​ 27, 191–​92 and Goad, 53, 58–​59, 118 and heresy, 106–​7, 114 and James I, 65–​66, 103–​4, 118–​19, 122–​ 23, 125 minimizing difference between Rome and Protestantism, 116

Index  281 and Pelagianism, 103–​4, 106–​8, 113–​14, 118 petition against, 137–​38 and Prideaux, 58, 118, 119–​21, 138–​39 and Prynne, 107, 110 and royal reprimand to Featley, 59, 60–​61 and Sutcliffe, 98–​99 theological position seen as politically threatening, 118 and transubstantiation, 114–​15 Montaigne, George, 72–​73, 155–​56 Morton, Thomas, 118–​19, 140–​41, 165–​66 commissioning Featley’s book on John Jewel, 28–​29 Featley asking for assistance in his advancement, 18–​19, 23–​24, 26–​28, 36, 98 as a member of the Williams Committee, 180–​81 Muller, Richard, 83 Murton, John, 198n.148 Museum Minervae, 99 Narveson, Kate, 11–​12 Neile, Richard, 59, 63–​64, 65, 155 as an anti-​Calvinist, 20–​21, 61, 63–​64, 111, 118, 121 and burning of Elton’s books, 119–​20 and the Durham House group, 111 and Featley, 89–​91, 155 and the Synod of Dort (1618), 110–​11 Newberry, Nathaniel, 46n.61 Newcomen, Matthew, 183–​84 New Gagg, A. See Gagg for the New Gospell? A (Montague) New Prison in London, 72–​73, 94–​95 Newton, Samuel, 224–​25 Northill (Cornwall), Featley as pastor in 1613-​ 1617, 17, 26–​27, 32, 36, 163–​64 Featley possibly owning property there until 1639, 26n.55 North Lambeth Parish. See Lambeth Parish Nowels Catechisme, 226–​27 Nye, Philip, 182–​83, 190 oath ex officio, 161, 162 Oldenbarnevelt, Johan van, 110–​11 original sin, Pelagian and Arminian views on, 104–​6 Orme, William, 198–​99, 198n.146 Overall, John, 110–​11 Owen, John, 9–​10, 144–​45 Oxford University, 15, 50–​51, 52 Featley attending (1607-​1611), 17, 71 Featley returning in 1613, 26

Featley sermons at, 129–​30 See also All Souls College, Oxford; Balliol College; Corpus Christi, Oxford; Gloucester College, Oxford Pagitt, Ephraim, 197–​98 Panzani, Gregorio, 115–​16 Papyrius Massonius (church father), 79 Parallel, A (Featley), 103, 105–​7, 124–​25 believed published without a license, 104n.5 published anonymously, 124 Pareus, David, 61 Paris, Featley in, 1, 26, 28, 32 debating Catholics, 43, 78, 94–​95, 227 Featley as ambassador’s chaplain in (1611-​ 1613), 3049, 1, 21–​22, 23–​24, 26, 28, 32, 71 Featley’s polemical and pastoral activities, 21 publication of Featley’s Paris debates in the 1630s, 93–​102 regret at leaving, 32 Parliament, 118, 121, 176, 183, 192, 231 agreement in 1643 between Parliament and the Scots, 192–​93 (see also Solemn League and Covenant) calling for “establishment of an assemblie,” 171 (see also Westminster Assembly) commissioning Annotations Upon …the Old and New Testament, 225 and episcopacy, 181, 188, 196 Featley charged as a royalist spy and imprisoned by Parliament, 2–​3, 85, 166–​ 67, 189–​90, 191–​93, 206, 213, 231 Featley dedicating The Dippers Dipt to, 204 Featley’s attacks on Anabaptists containing attacks on Parliament, 205 Featley seen as enemy of Parliament, 193, 200, 204–​5, 220 Featley writing Roma ruens for, 199–​200 Lambeth Parish petition to about soldiers’ vandalism, 189n.93, 211–​12, 215–​16 Parliamentary biographical accounts on Daniel Featley, 211–​14 and religious heterodoxy, 121 See also House of Commons Parliamentarians and royalists, 16, 142, 181, 186–​87, 204–​5, 212, 213–​14, 216, 232 Parry, Graham, 219 Parry, Henry, 18–​19, 27–​28 pastoral duties, 19–​20, 92–​93, 112–​13, 222, 224–​25 anti-​Catholic activities and pastoral sensitivity, 71–​72 Canon 66 on, 77

282 Index pastoral duties (cont.) conferences with recusants as a pastoral duty, 77, 83 pastoral and polemical concerns, 21, 23–​24, 34–​35, 81, 102, 103–​4, 109–​10, 227–​ 28, 232 pastoral and practical theology, 128–​70 pastoral letters, 98–​99, 148–​49, 149n.136 pastoral motivations, 14, 15–​16, 78, 83, 113, 116, 117, 126–​27, 202, 232 pastoral polemicism and anti-​ Catholicism, 71–​102 pastoral sensitivities influencing Featley’s censorship and licensing, 15, 37–​38, 46–​ 47, 48–​49, 69 preaching, piety, and ecclesiastical conformity, 128–​70 protecting the English Church as a pastoral duty, 44–​45 See also piety; preaching pastors vs. polemicists, 232 patristic sources, use of by Featley, 79–​81, 84, 87–​88, 104–​6, 107–​8, 109, 173–​74, 202, 203–​4, 206 See also church fathers Patterson, Brown, 33 Paule, George, 31 Pauline Epistles, Featley’s work on as part of Annotations Upon …the Old and New Testament, 225–​27 pedobaptism, 14–​15, 16, 172, 198–​99, 201–​2, 203–​4, 206, 232 Pedum Pastorale (Featley, Harris and Bowles), 222n.69 Pelagianism, 48, 122, 217 and anti-​Calvinism, 107, 126–​27 and Arminianism, 105–​6, 107–​8, 122, 126–​27 countering Pelagianism, 103–​27, 217 Featley’s belief that Pelagianism and “Semi-​ Pelagianism” were the same, 106 and Montague, 103–​4, 106–​8, 113–​14, 118 Pelagian heresies, 103–​5, 107, 113, 123, 126–​27 as a term of abuse used by the Reformed, 104–​5 Pelagius, 104–​5, 113 forced to pronounce sentence against self, 106 Pelagius Redivivus (Featley and Goad), 53, 66–​ 67, 119–​20 Pemberton, 225n.89 Percy, John (alias Fisher), 53, 94–​95 See also Fisher, John

Perfect Diurnall, The, 212 Perkins, William, 9–​10, 80, 83, 107, 109–​10, 120–​21, 144–​45 “Perone, Cardinall,” 77–​78 Peterson, Randall, 225 piety, 51–​52, 139, 144–​45, 147–​48, 152, 158, 163–​64, 168, 182–​83, 215–​16 Laudian piety, 137–​38 private (personal) piety, 129, 148, 149, 150–​ 51, 157, 158 puritan approaches to, 3–​4, 6–​7 voluntary piety, 4–​5, 14–​15, 158 plague. See epidemics/​plagues Pliny (church father), 152 Pocklington, John, 132 Pocock, John, 12 polemicism Featley as a polemicist, 17–​23, 36, 103–​4, 145–​46, 204, 227–​28 Featley’s use of history and tradition in his polemical methodology, 107–​8, 201–​2, 206 Featley’s use of polemical rhetoric in his devotional work, 168–​69 pastoral and polemical concerns, 21, 23–​24, 34–​35, 81, 102, 103–​4, 109–​10, 227–​ 28, 232 pastoral and practical theology, 128–​70 pastoral polemicism and anti-​Catholicism, 22–​23, 71–​102, 227–​28 polemicists vs. pastors, 232 polemic motivations for preaching and prayer, 129 political and ecclesiastical context, 102, 118, 123, 131–​32, 168–​69 and Daniel Featley, 11–​12, 16, 32, 122, 210–​ 11, 229, 232–​34 and John Featley, 16, 228 polity, 41–​42 ecclesiology and polity of an English Calvinist conformist, 171–​208 popery, 43–​45, 92, 98–​99, 138–​39, 141–​42, 164 crypto-​popery, 57–​58, 155–​56 Featley on, 67–​68, 76, 114, 117, 124–​25, 228 pope as the Antichrist, 113–​14, 117 See also Catholics and Catholicism Pory, John, 71n.3, 78, 94 post-​Civil War sectarian communities, 7 post-​Reformation Church, 1, 3, 9–​10, 11–​12, 14, 16, 81–​82, 102, 207, 214–​15 post-​Restoration, 30, 175, 214–​15 and English Reformed Church, 10, 210–​11, 219, 220–​21, 228–​29

Index  283 post-​Restoration biographical accounts of Featley, 13, 16, 31, 209–​20, 228 post-​revisionism, 6–​7, 9–​11 prayer(s), 144–​60 countering anti-​Calvinists, 232 Featley defending use of set prayers in conjunction with the calendar, 153 fervent prayer, 14–​16, 168, 169–​70, 232 importance of to Featley, 128–​29, 168, 169–​70 Laudian thoughts on preaching and prayer, 132–​33, 142–​43 pastoral motivations for preaching and prayer, 168 as representative of conformist Calvinism, 232 See also devotions preaching, 232 Featley at Bayworth, 148–​49 Featley preaching before the King in 1639 and 1641, 163 Featley preaching to fellow prisoners, 199–​200 Featley’s belief in preaching and ceremonial elements of service, 140 Featley’s views in contrast to Laudian views, 132–​34 importance of to Featley, 128–​29, 132–​ 33, 168 need for Featley to shift his ministry to print, 130–​31, 141–​42 pastoral motivations for preaching and prayer, 168 and the public means of grace, 129–​44 publishing archetypes of Laudian preaching and prayer, 142–​43 robust preaching, 14–​16, 132, 133–​34, 168, 169–​70, 232 See also sermons predestination, 4–​5, 6–​7, 46, 112–​13, 120–​21 Pelagian views on, 104–​6, 107 preferment, Featley’s pursuit of, 23–​27 Presbyterianism, 8–​9, 45–​46, 164–​65, 181, 183–​84, 216 and the attacks on Anabaptists, 204–​5 Featley’s writings against, 172 hope that it would become the established church during the Restoration, 213–​14 Presbyterians distancing selves from Westminster Assembly, 225 Preston, John, 9–​10, 118–​19, 143n.97, 222 Prideaux, John, 27–​28, 111, 137–​39

appointed vice chancellor at Oxford and then bishop of Worcester, 163 arrest of by Parliament, 163n.227 disputing Arminianism, 118n.85 Featley’s debate advice to, 84–​85 as Featley’s Oxford tutor, 20–​21, 36, 119–​ 20, 137–​38 and Laudianism, 137–​39, 141–​42 and Montague, 58, 118, 119–​21, 138–​39 on preaching, 140 as victim of censorship and Laudian oppression, 141–​42 Prigger, Thomas, 160 Primrose, Gilbert, 38–​39, 42–​43 Primrose, John, 39 Prince, William, 193 “Printer to the Reader” (appended to Cygnea Cantio), 66, 119–​20, 155–​56 Prior, Charles, 5 Prosper of Aquitaine (church father), 105–​6 Protestantism, 22, 34–​35, 76, 77, 86–​87, 117, 137, 157, 204 Catholics converted to, 22, 49–​50, 78, 102 French Reformed Protestantism, 17, 32–​35, 37–​38, 42–​43, 69–​70 international Reformed Protestants, 15, 34–​ 35, 37–​38, 43, 69–​70, 152, 190–​91, 196, 200 intra-​Protestant disputes, 34 lack of lineage and history, 76, 95 before Martin Luther, 23, 72–​73, 79, 82–​83, 85–​88, 94–​95, 203 Montague minimizing difference between Rome and Protestantism, 116, 117 as a true church on the basis of doctrine rather than tradition, 203 Prynne, William, 112, 121 on Abbot, 118–​19 on Bray’s censorship of Featley, 141 charges and trial of, 131–​32, 155–​56 before the Court of High Commission, 158–​59 on Laud’s trial, 135–​36, 168 and Montague, 107, 110, 155 puritanism, 3–​4, 8 censoring ecclesiological features of Featley’s works, 226–​27 commitment to theological principles and volunteer piety, 14–​15 and Featley, 162–​63, 220, 222–​24, 230–​31 intrapuritan disputes moderated by Featley, 48–​50 Laudian-​puritan relations in the 1640s, 163 old Anglican/​puritan model, 5

284 Index puritanism (cont.) puritan divines, 204, 218–​19, 222, 223–​ 24, 228–​29 puritans considering Featley to have been a “trimmer,” 230–​31 radical tendencies of moderate puritanism, 7 and Reformed theology, 5, 232 subversive potential within, 8 ties between puritans and established church Calvinists, 4 undervaluing tradition, 204 use of Scripture to defend issues of conscience, 195 puritan underground, 7, 8 Pym, John, 118 Quantin, Jean-​Louis, 63, 173–​74 Quatermayne, Roger, 160–​63 Questier, Michael, 49–​50, 94 Quick, John, 64–​65, 64n.192 Racovian Catechism, 62 radicalism, 7, 175, 216 Rainolds, John, 1, 18, 25, 45–​46 and anti-​Catholicism, 29–​30, 71 assigning Daniel Featley to be a tutor at Corpus Christi College, 18 death of (Featley preaching funeral service), 25–​26, 27–​28, 29, 31 Featley extolling, 29–​30 Featley writing biography of, 29–​31 and Laudianism, 158–​59 mentor/​protégé relationship with Featley, 1, 18, 24–​25, 27–​28, 29–​30, 71–​72, 80, 218–​ 19, 232–​33 as a moderate puritan divine, 30, 218–​19 perceived as an opponent by Laudian regime, 158–​59 theological influence of, 109 work on translation of Old Testament prophetical books, 24–​26 Raleigh, Sir Walter, 19–​20 Raleigh, Walter (son of Sir Walter Raleigh), 19–​20 Reformed divines, 5, 40, 46, 109–​10, 153, 190–​ 91, 195 and anti-​Calvinists, 20–​21, 36–​38, 66–​67, 83, 90–​91, 109, 112–​13, 119–​20, 125–​26, 155 anti-​Catholic views of, 6–​7, 78–​79, 83, 99–​100 and Arminianism, 109–​10, 111, 112 avant-​garde conformist divines, 125–​ 26, 218–​19

diversity of opinions within, 7, 9–​10, 21, 46, 109, 121, 168 efforts to create unity among, 48–​49, 57 influence of at court, 61, 92, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126–​27 and Laudianism, 139–​40, 141–​42, 159–​60 theological priorities of, 14–​15, 139–​40 use of licensing and censorship, 36–​38, 47–​ 48, 68, 69, 128, 141–​42 See also international Reformed Protestants Reformed episcopalians, 174–​76, 180–​ 81, 219–​20 Reformed soteriology, 14–​15, 103–​27, 175, 219–​20, 229, 232 applied soteriology, 11 and Augustine’s theology, 108–​9 Reformed theology, 3–​4, 10, 103–​4 attendance at Westminster Assembly a litmus test of political allegiance, 179–​80 and Calvinist conformity, 3, 10 claiming James I’s support of the Reformed cause, 122–​26 differences between Reformed and anti-​ Calvinist factions, 112 marginalizing of Reformed licensers in the 1620s, 15 and puritanism, 5, 232 reformed soteriology, 103–​27 and St. Augustine, 109 See also Calvinist conformists; Reformed divines Remonstrants, 105–​6, 109–​10, 112, 123, 126–​27 See also Counter-​Remonstrants Replie to D. White and D. Featley, A (Fisher), 75–​76 Replie to Jesuit Fishers Answere (White), 43–​44, 91, 213–​14 Restoration period, 213–​14, 220 revisionism, 4, 6–​7 Reynolds, Edward, 225n.89 Richardson, John, 225n.89 Richardson, Samuel, 201, 202–​3, 204–​5 Ricraft, Joshua, 198–​99 Ritor, Andrew, 199–​200 Rogers, Henry, 75–​76, 80–​81 Rogers, John, 182–​83 Roma ruens (Featley), 85, 199–​200 Romish Fisher (Featley), 72, 75–​76, 79–​80, 90–​ 91, 156–​57 Root and Branch Bill, 186–​87 Rothwell, John, 140–​41 Rous, Francis, 107, 122

Index  285 royalism, 2–​3, 14–​15, 16, 172, 175–​76, 178, 192–​93, 194–​95, 209–​10, 232 royalists Daniel Featley’s imprisonment, newspaper depictions of by Parliamentarians and royalists, 213 depiction of Featley as a martyr, 212 linking Featley to Eikon Basilike (Charles I), 221–​22 and Parliamentarians, 16, 181, 186–​87, 204–​ 5, 212, 213–​14, 216, 232 royalist biographical accounts on Daniel Featley, 211–​14 treatment of by Parliamentarians, 212 Russell, Conrad, 4 Rutherford, Samuel, 197–​98 Ryrie, Alec, 11–​12 Ryves, Windsor Bruno, 212, 215–​16 sacraments, 4–​5, 60, 94–​95, 115–​16, 132–​33, 140, 153, 157–​58, 165–​66, 168, 184, 201–​2 See also Communion; pedobaptism Sacra Nemesis (Featley), 32–​33, 65, 77–​ 78, 124–​25 containing speeches and letters, 51–​52, 143, 144–​45, 173–​74, 190–​91 on story of supposed message from Ussher, 187–​88, 189n.93 written as vindication, 124–​25, 189–​90 St. John’s College Cambridge, 135 St. Mary’s Church in Lambeth, 146–​47, 163–​64, 164n.230, 218–​19 St. Paul’s Cross, 129–​30 Sancta Clara (alias Christopher Davenport), 140–​41 Sanderson, Robert, 10, 180–​81 Savile, George, 231n.7 Schavaren (Schevaren), John, 143, 190–​91 Scotson, George, 139–​40 Scotus, John Duns, 1 Scriptures, 22–​23, 81–​82, 128–​29, 151, 223–​24 Featley licensing works related to, 41–​42, 46–​47, 56, 69 Featley on anti-​Calvinist use of, 109–​10, 114–​15, 126–​27 Featley’s use of, 15, 75, 81, 86–​87, 102, 109, 144–​45, 146, 147–​49, 153–​54, 170, 173–​74, 194–​95, 201–​2 Featley’s use of in sermons, 168, 169 Laudians on, 133–​34 Laudian use of, 132–​34, 224–​25 and puritans, 8, 195, 226–​27 and Rainolds, 25–​26, 29–​30

things contrary to, 161, 164 use of in anti-​Catholic debates, 71–​72, 76, 78–​79, 80–​81, 83–​85, 102, 187–​88, 203 Ussher on, 183–​84 Whitgift on, 153 Sea-​Gull, The (Featley), 194–​95 Second Parallel, A (Featley), 65, 103, 106–​7 published anonymously, 124 sectarianism, Featley’s repulsion of Protestant sectarianism, 14–​15, 16, 172, 194–​95, 232 Select texts of holy scriptures (Featley), 69, 128 Semi-​Pelagianism, 104–​6, 107, 118, 217 separatists, 11–​13, 16, 135–​36, 197–​98 Serjeants Inne in Fleetstreet, 129–​30 sermons, 130–​31, 141–​43, 144–​45 Ancilla Pietatis (Featley) meant to be read as a sermon, 128–​29 consecration sermons of Featley, 40, 133 contrasting Featley’s consecration sermons with Cosin’s, 133 countering anti-​Calvinists, 232 “ Faithful Shepherd, The” (Featley), 227–​28 Featley’s on Dec.4, 1642 against Parliament’s reforms, 167 funeral sermons, 1, 24–​26, 27–​28, 31, 61, 109–​10, 118, 139–​40, 206, 217, 222–​ 23, 227 how sermons communicate to listeners, 134 importance of sermons to Featley, 128–​29 printed sermons bringing uniformity of doctrine, 143–​44 in sermons, Featley defending English Church ceremonies, 139 visitation sermons, 89, 132, 141–​42 See also preaching Shagan, Ethan, 7–​8, 168–​69 on moderation and “moderate figures,” 7–​8, 11–​12, 206–​7, 208, 232 Sharpe, Kevin, 5, 36–​37 Sheldon, Richard, 55, 56–​57 Sherfield, Mr., 55 Shuger, Deborah, 56–​57, 64n.192, 66 Sibbes, Richard, 9–​10, 129–​30, 143n.97, 182–​ 83, 222 Skinner, Quentin, 12 Skinner, Robert, 138–​39 Slade, Felix, 39 Smectymnuans’ tracts, 183–​84, 184n.67 Smith, Miles, 25, 98 Smith, Richard, 22, 57–​58, 84–​85, 95–​ 97, 99–​100 Featley’s debate with, 71–​72, 71n.3, 78, 79–​ 80, 93–​95, 117

286 Index Snoddy, Richard, 11 Solemn League and Covenant, 173–​74, 177, 179–​80, 185, 207 agreement in 1643 to amend an agreement between Parliament and the Scots, 192–​93 Featley’s opposition to, 178, 190, 192–​93, 194, 206, 216 Featley’s strongest arguments against in The League Illegal, 220 soteriology. See Reformed soteriology Southwell, Anne, Featley’s friendship with, 176n.24 Spanish Match negotiations, 20, 49–​50, 74, 77–​ 78, 89, 92–​93, 95 affecting Abbot’s influence on James I, 54 anti-​Catholic works being banned, 59–​60 collapse of between 1623 and 1624, 90 impact on conversions to Catholicism, 76, 92 increased toleration of Catholics during, 72–​74 Protestant’s fears of it succeeding, 92 publication trends surrounding, 43–​44 Spencer, John, 18–​19, 23–​25, 27–​28, 98 Spilsbury, John, 201 Spinks, Richard, 135 Spurstowe, William, 183–​84 Squire, John, 144–​45 Stables, John, 190–​91 Star Chamber authorizing the overseeing the licensing of books in 1586, 38 Stationers’ Company, 38 Stationers’ Register, 38–​40, 42, 59–​60, 63, 124–​25 Steere, Daniel, 10–​11 Stella (church father), 79 Stevens, D., 22, 78 subcommittee on religion. See Williams Committee of 1641 Summe of Saving Knowledge, The (Featley), 146–​47 Sutcliffe, Matthew, 63, 67, 67n.212, 98–​99 Sweet, John, 74–​76, 85–​86, 91, 203 Featley’s debate with, 117, 231 Synod of Bishops of Palestine, 106 Synod of Dort (1618), 46, 52, 107–​8, 110–​11, 113, 122, 123, 144–​45 Taylor, Francis, 143, 225n.89 Taylor, Jeremy, 218–​19 Taylor, Thomas, 43–​44 Tejeda, Fernando, 49–​50, 51 Tertullian, 79–​80 Theodoret (church father), 79–​80

Thirty-​nine Articles, 54, 113–​15, 171, 172–​73 Thomas Aquinas, 1 Thomson, Richard “Dutch,” 110–​11 Thorowgood, Thomas, 171–​72, 176–​77, 178n.32, 179–​80 Three Conformities, The (de Croy), 40–​43 Amendments to William Hart’s English Translation of Francis de Croy’s The Three Conformities, AI.P1–​AI.P12 Threnoikos: The House of Mourning, 222, 222n.70 Featley’s contribution to, 222–​23 Thrift, Marian (Featley’s mother), 1 Throgmorton, George, 46–​47, 48–​49 Tilenus, Daniel, 32–​33 Tookey, Elias, 198–​99 Towers, Suellen, 36–​37, 67 Townsend, Roger, 52 traditions Anabaptists undervaluing, 204 Featley debates concerning, 231 Featley’s emphasis on, 203–​4, 206 Laudians overvaluing, 204 Westminster Assembly undervaluing, 204 transubstantiation, 78, 79–​80, 94–​95, 114–​16, 117, 201–​2 Transubstantiation Exploded (Featley), 79–​ 80, 94–​95 Treatise of Faith, The (Fisher), 72–​73 Treatise of the Perpetuall Visibilitie, A (Abbot), Featley writing preface for, 76, 76n.33 “trimmers,” 230–​31, 231n.7 Trinity College Dublin, 129–​30 Twisse, William, 180–​81 Twyne, Bryan, 18 Tyacke, Nicholas, 4–​5, 6–​7, 19–​20, 36–​37, 46n.61, 125–​26 Ussher, James, 11, 129–​30, 179, 183–​84 contributing to and Annotations Upon …the Old and New Testament, 225, 225n.89 Ford’s study of, 195, 219–​20 as a member of the Williams Committee, 180–​81, 183–​84 “reduced episcopacy,” 183–​84, 186–​87 “soveraignes power and the subjects duty, The” (sermon), 195 use of Ussher and a fake message to entrap Featley, 187–​90 Van Dixhoorn, Chad, 171–​72, 173–​74, 179–​ 80, 187–​88 Vermigli, Peter Martyr, 108–​9

Index  287 Vicars, Thomas, 40, 146–​47 Villiers, Susan. See Denbigh, Countess of Vineing, George, 227–​28 Virtumnus Romanus (Featley) as answer to A Safeguard from Shipwreck, 191 visitation sermons, 89, 132, 141–​42 Visser, Arnoud, 108–​9 Vorstius, Conrad, 122, 123 Wadkins, Timothy, 91–​92 Walker, George, 182–​83 Walker, John, 217–​19 Wallace, Dewey, 10 Walsham., Alexandra, 130–​31 Walton, Izaak, 31, 213–​14 Ward, Nathaniel, 58, 58n.137, 118 Ward, Samuel, 45–​46, 90–​91, 111, 180–​ 81, 182–​83 Wardner, Armiger and plot to convict Featley, 187–​89 Warwick, Earl of, 74–​75, 91–​92 Webster, Tom, 4–​5, 183–​84 Wentworth, Thomas, 121, 148–​49 Westfield, Thomas, 171–​72 signing the Instrumentum Theologorum, 182–​83 Westminster Assembly, 171–​208, 222–​23 developing a new confession of faith and new catechisms, 225 enforcing subscription to the Solemn League and Covenant, 178 make up of, 171–​72 ordinance of 1643 summoning “an assemblie of learned and Godlie divines,” 171, 176–​77 seen as an assembly of Charles I’s enemies, 178 undervaluing traditions, 204 Westminster Assembly (Featley’s attendance at), 171–​206 anti-​creedalism present at, 173–​74 dismissal from, 124–​25, 164–​65, 216 Featley and Anabaptists agreeing on opposition to, 200 imprisonment of by the Westminster Assembly, 172, 187–​96 John Featley’s reason Daniel was removed, 216 participation in, 2–​3, 16, 164–​65, 167, 172–​74 portraying self as a reluctant attendee, 206–​7 question of whether a loyal member or a royalist spy, 3, 85, 166, 188, 190, 208, 216

reasons for accepting the invitation to, 174–​80 trying to show he was a legitimate member of, 191 Weston, Edward, 75–​76 Whitacre, Laurence, 167, 176–​77 Whitaker, William, 22–​23, 29–​30, 71, 80, 107, 109, 218–​19 White, Charles, 130–​31, 141 White, Francis, 20, 43–​44, 65, 72–​73 as an anti-​Calvinist, 72–​73, 91–​92, 111 and Cosin, 133, 155–​56, 157 informing James I and Neile against Featley, 91–​92 and Montague, 58, 91–​92, 119–​21, 125 as partner with Featley in a debate, 91, 126–​27 rewarded by James I, 92 White, John, 180–​81, 190 White, Mr. (chair of Committee of Plundered Ministers), 164 White, Peter, 5, 125–​26 Whitgift, John, 30–​31, 38, 45–​46, 107, 153 “Whitgiftian anti-​Puritanism,” 10 Wilkersons, Henry, 222n.70 Willet, Andrew, 144–​45, 218–​19 Williams, John, 10, 73n.10, 163, 175–​76, 180–​ 81, 182 and the Williams Committee, 75–​76, 80–​ 81, 183–​84 Williams Committee of 1641 (aka subcommittee on religion), 10, 140–​ 41, 180–​87 attempts to remove Laudian innovations, 180, 185–​86 broke up as a result of the Root and Branch Bill, 186–​87 disagreement regarding church polity, 183–​84 dissolved by Parliament, 175–​76 goal to unite the wider English Church, 186–​87 mediatory role of, 182 members of imprisoned, 176, 186–​87 reasons for formation, 175–​76 Winchester, Lord, 119–​20 Wood, Anthony, 87–​88, 158–​59, 217, 218–​19 Woodward, M. (churchwarden at Lambeth), 165–​66 Worcester College, Oxford, 18–​19 Worden, Blair, 36–​37 Worrall, Thomas, 39–​40 Wotton, Anthony, 43–​44, 80–​81, 118, 121

288 Index Wright, Stephen, 198–​99, 201, 202–​3 Yates, John, 52, 118, 120–​21, 122 York House Conference, 118–​19

Young, Dean, 165–​66 Young, Thomas, 180–​81, 183–​84 Zanchi, Girolamo, 164