Debating Perseverance The Augustinian Heritage in Post Reformation England Oxford Studies in Historical Theology 1St Edition Collier Full Chapter

Debating Perseverance: The
Augustinian Heritage in
Post-Reformation England (Oxford
Studies in Historical Theology) 1st
Edition Collier
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/debating-perseverance-the-augustinian-heritage-in-p
ost-reformation-england-oxford-studies-in-historical-theology-1st-edition-collier/
Title Pages
Debating Perseverance: The Augustinian

Heritage in Post-Reformation England
Jay T. Collier
Print publication date: 2018

Print ISBN-13: 9780190858520
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: April 2018
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190858520.001.0001
Title Pages
(p.i) Debating Perseverance
Oxford Studies in Historical Theology
(p.iii) Debating Perseverance
(p.vii) Debating Perseverance (p.viii)
Series Editor
Richard A. Muller, Calvin Theological Seminary
Editorial Board
Irena Backus, Université de Genève
Robert C. Gregg, Stanford University
George M. Marsden, University of Notre Dame
Wayne A. Meeks, Yale University
Gerhard Sauter, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
Susan E. Schreiner, University of Chicago
John Van Engen, University of Notre Dame
Geoffrey Wainwright, Duke University
Robert L. Wilken, University of Virginia (p.ii)
CHRISTIAN GRACE AND PAGAN VIRTUE

Page 1 of 5
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press,
2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use.
Subscriber: University of Nottingham, Malaysia; date: 22 July 2021
Title Pages
The Theological Foundation of Ambrose’s Ethics
J. Warren Smith
KARLSTADT AND THE ORIGINS OF THE EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSY
A Study in the Circulation of Ideas
Amy Nelson Burnett
READING AUGUSTINE IN THE REFORMATION
The Flexibility of Intellectual Authority in Europe, 1500–1620
Arnoud S. Q. Visser
SHAPERS OF ENGLISH CALVINISM, 1660–1714
Variety, Persistence, and Transformation
Dewey D. Wallace Jr.
THE BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION OF WILLIAM OF ALTON
Timothy Bellamah, OP
MIRACLES AND THE PROTESTANT IMAGINATION
The Evangelical Wonder Book in Reformation Germany
Philip M. Soergel
THE REFORMATION OF SUFFERING
Pastoral Theology and Lay Piety in Late Medieval and Early Modern Germany
Ronald K. Rittgers
CHRIST MEETS ME EVERYWHERE
Augustine’s Early Figurative Exegesis
Michael Cameron
MYSTERY UNVEILED
The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England
Paul C. H. Lim
GOING DUTCH IN THE MODERN AGE
Page 2 of 5
Title Pages
Abraham Kuyper’s Struggle for a Free Church in the Netherlands
John Halsey Wood Jr.
CALVIN’S COMPANY OF PASTORS
Pastoral Care and the Emerging Reformed Church, 1536–1609
Scott M. Manetsch
THE SOTERIOLOGY OF JAMES USSHER
The Act and Object of Saving Faith
Richard Snoddy
HARTFORD PURITANISM
Thomas Hooker, Samuel Stone, and Their Terrifying God
Baird Tipson
AUGUSTINE, THE TRINITY, AND THE CHURCH
A Reading of the Anti-Donatist Sermons
Adam Ployd
AUGUSTINE’S EARLY THEOLOGY OF IMAGE
A Study in the Development of Pro-Nicene Theology
Gerald Boersma
PATRON SAINT AND PROPHET
Jan Hus in the Bohemian and German Reformations
Phillip N. Haberkern
JOHN OWEN AND ENGLISH PURITANISM
Experiences of Defeat
Crawford Gribben
MORALITY AFTER CALVIN
Theodore Beza’s Christian Censor and Reformed Ethics
Kirk M. Summers
Page 3 of 5
Title Pages
THE PAPACY AND THE ORTHODOX
Sources and History of a Debate
Edward Siecienski
RICHARD BAXTER AND THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHERS
David S. Sytsma
DEBATING PERSEVERANCE
The Augustinian Heritage in Post-Reformation England
Jay T. Collier
(p.iv)
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.

It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and
education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford
University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of
America.
© Oxford University Press 2018
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as
expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the
scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University
Press, at the
Page 4 of 5
Title Pages
address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress

ISBN 978–0–19–085852–0
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America
Access brought to you by:
Page 5 of 5
The Church of England, Sources of Identity, and Theological Distinctives

Jay T. Collier

Print ISBN-13: 9780190858520
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190858520.001.0001
The Church of England, Sources of Identity,

and Theological Distinctives
Jay T. Collier
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780190858520.003.0001
Abstract and Keywords

This chapter discusses the influence of the early church and the consensus of
the Reformed churches upon the identity of the Church of England. It shows that
these two sources of identity have been set against each other in modern
scholarship rather than investigated to see how they interacted. This chapter
first notes the perseverance of the saints as the most distinctive doctrine for the
Reformed tradition and how Augustine was esteemed as the preeminent church
father. Then the chapter proposes to survey several debates involving competing
readings of Augustine on perseverance in order to see what contributions they
make to the discussion on the identity of the Church of England.
Keywords: early church, Reformed tradition, Calvinist consensus, Anglican, Church of England, via
media, perseverance, Augustine
The Church of England developed its theological identity during the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries through an association with two influential groups.
On the one hand, Church leaders strove to maintain relations to the movement
of Reformed churches throughout Europe. On the other hand, Church leaders
gazed back in time and found great significance in connection to the early
church. These two sources of influence often worked harmoniously together; on
occasion, they seemed in conflict. But both were ever-present forces on those
within the Church of England, shaping and molding a rather unique self-
understanding expressed in a particular pattern of doctrinal development and
argument. Nobody doubts that these two streams of influence were important
for the Church of England. Debate exists, however, over the significance of these
Page 1 of 16
two traditions and the degree to which they shaped the Church of England’s
identity.
Identity and the Church of England

When King Henry VIII abandoned Roman Catholicism and subsequently modified
the Church of England, he had little connection with the reformist activities of
William Tyndale, Robert Barnes, and their (p.2) circle. Nevertheless, the
Church of England was soon identified among the Reformed churches of Europe
during the sixteenth century. During the short reign of Edward VI, Archbishop
Thomas Cranmer made important connections with leading reformers from the
European mainland like Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr Vermigli. Both Bucer
and Vermigli were invited to England, the former appointed as Regius Professor
of Divinity at the University of Cambridge and the latter Regius Professor of
Divinity at the University of Oxford. Both men proved influential in shaping the
1552 Book of Common Prayer.1 And even though Queen Mary instituted a brutal
reversal of the Reformation, she inadvertently strengthened England’s
association with the mainland Reformed churches as numerous exiles fled to
cities like Geneva, Strasbourg, and Zurich. These refugees solidified relations
with Reformed churches and leaders in those places, and they returned to
prominence in the Church of England under Queen Elizabeth’s rule.2 Granted,
some differences remained between the Church of England and other Reformed
churches, as revealed in controversies over vestments, ceremonies, and polity.
Yet the leading reformers on the mainland considered these dissimilarities as
matters indifferent.3 There were no valid reasons for Reformed churches to
alienate the Church of England, and the Church of England certainly had no
desire to distance itself from the churches. (p.3) In fact, King James I fortified
England’s Reformed identity by his advocacy and support of the Synod of Dort—
an international gathering that received the British delegates with highest
honor.4
While the Church of England was identified with the Reformed churches of
Europe, it is equally evident that its leaders consciously aligned the Church with
the doctrine and practice of early Christianity. This ancient catholicity was
trumpeted in both John Jewel’s An Apologie of the Church of England and
William Perkins’s A Reformed Catholike and Probleme of Forged Catholicisme,
where they argued that Rome had strayed from the old paths and that England
simply upheld the scriptural position of the ancient faith.5 In fact, a strong sense
of English exceptionalism developed within the Church that recognized an early
uncorrupted Christianity prior to Augustine of Canterbury with strong remnants
of the ancient faith existing during the Middle Ages, despite some corrupting
papal influences and ills introduced after the Norman Conquest. Archbishop
Matthew Parker promoted this historical perspective by publishing an English
translation of an old Anglo-Saxon Easter sermon of Aelfric and in writing his own
history of the British church.6 Such a tie to the early church fathers (p.4) went
further than historical sentimentality. Even the sixth canon of the Convocation of
Page 2 of 16
1571 expected agreement with the early church, calling all preachers to align
themselves with the common doctrine of “the catholike fathers, and auncient
Bishops.”7 In various ways, the leaders of the Church of England made a
conscious effort to draw a connection between themselves and antiquity.8
Both the Reformed tradition and the early church tradition served as major
streams of influence, and their value in contributing to the identity of the
English church can be seen throughout various debates within the Church’s
history. Rival factions within the Church looked for precedents among the
Reformed churches and ancient catholicity as they sought to shape England in
their favor. Puritans, for instance, were quick to appeal to the Reformed
churches as they desired to establish a Genevan-style reform in England.
Depicting the establishment as only half-Reformed, Puritans questioned their
opponents’ commitment to the Reformed churches as if that tradition carried
weight in England.9 And they were right, at least in their assumption that the
Reformed tradition was respected by their opponents. The fact is that the
Reformed consensus provided abundant leverage for both sides of the debate.
Even Archbishop John Whitgift, the great scourge of the early Puritans,
continually appealed to Calvin and other reformers in order to demonstrate the
latitude afforded to Reformed churches with regard to (p.5) ecclesiastical
polity.10 Likewise, debates demonstrate how theologians felt comfortable using
the early church fathers in order to define official doctrine. For instance, English
delegates to the Synod of Dort justified their advocacy of universal redemption
by appealing to the early church and the Convocation of 1571.11 The point is
that church leaders freely drew upon each of these streams of influence as it
suited their purposes. The English church prized both the ancient church and
the consensus of Reformed churches as important sources of identity, and most
churchmen were not willing to do away with either association.
Beyond Anglicanism and Calvinistic Consensus

Surely churchmen had competing agendas as they struggled to form an identity
for the Church of England during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But
confusion persists today as historians propose competing paradigms for how
they should perceive the identity of the early modern Church of England. The
idea of an early Anglicanism looms large in the literature as scholars debate
whether the Church of England created a distinct “Anglican” Protestantism that
placed it between Rome and Geneva. Advocates of an early Anglicanism typically
emphasize the continuity of conformist thought among the early bishops and
persisting through the Laudian era and into the Restoration, viewing the Puritan
movement as a troublesome incursion into the English way of doing church.12
(p.6) Other scholars have challenged this approach to framing the identity of
the English church, calling it an anachronistic and reductionist reading of
conformist theology. These critics argue that advocates of an early Anglicanism
read high church ideals and nineteenth-century Anglo-Catholic sympathies back
Page 3 of 16
into early conformist thought. They suggest that the earliest semblance of such
an Anglican via media was found in a Laudian incursion, which may have had its
initial seeds sown by avant-garde conformists like Lancelot Andrewes, Richard
Hooker, and John Overall. This view tends to see more variance between earlier
conformist thought and later Laudian bishops.13
(p.7) One critical component of the debate over an early Anglicanism is

whether a “Calvinist consensus” existed within the Church of England during
the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Some critics against the
Anglican perspective have argued that there was an early English consensus of
Calvinistic thought that was eventually abandoned in later conformist thought.
By turning the discussion toward the theological issue of predestination, these
scholars argue for a theological solidarity among Puritans and conformists
during the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras of the Church of England that was
challenged by upstart anti-Calvinists in the 1590s and more trenchantly
assaulted by a rising tide of Arminianism during the 1620s and 1630s.14 In
response, advocates of the Anglican via media tend to deny a sudden rise of
Arminianism and view the church under the reign of Charles I as a conservative
movement rather than as something novel.15
Another important aspect of the Anglican via media debate has been the Church
of England’s relation to the early church. Some advocates of an early Anglican
spirit identify the Church of England as uniquely possessing a special devotion
to the authority of the early church fathers.16 (p.8) This perspective tends to
portray Puritans as opponents of the Church of England who devalued the early
church. However, this perspective has been challenged as being overly
simplistic. Recent scholarship differentiates between the ways conformists
appealed to the early church fathers before and after the restoration of the
monarchy following the English civil wars.17 Scholars have also demonstrated
that the Puritans themselves made repeated appeals to the early church
fathers.18 By distinguishing a more Anglo-Catholic valuation of antiquity from
what had been the norm in pre-Restoration England, and at the same time
recognizing the importance of the early church fathers among more than just the
conforming ministers, scholars willing to reevaluate the Church’s relation to the
ancient church raise significant questions for advocates of an early Anglican
spirit.
In all of these discussions, modern scholars are effectively debating the

significance of the international Reformed community and the ancient church as
sources of identity for the Church of England in the (p.9) sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries. Advocates of an early Anglican via media tend to
emphasize the early church as a source of identity for the Church of England
while deemphasizing the consensus of the Reformed churches as a source.
Conversely, revisionists have criticized claims of a unique devotion to the early
church fathers as support for an early Anglican via media and tend to emphasize
Page 4 of 16
a Calvinistic hegemony during the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras. These debates
highlight the importance of the Reformed and ancient communities for
determining the identity of the Church of England. But a certain oddity exists in
the modern debate. Scholars on both sides of the debate tend to gloss over the
possibility that ancient catholicity and the Reformed consensus simultaneously
served as sources of identity in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. That is
to say, scholars defend one of the two sources as primary, when it may be more
helpful to focus on how the two sources were harmonized.
In order to advance this discussion about England’s theological identity,

historians may do well to observe how the Church handled theological issues
that touch on both of these sources of identity at the same time. One profitable
way forward would be to evaluate how English theologians used the early
church fathers in discussions about Reformed doctrines and practices. Such a
project would have the advantage of seeing how church leaders managed both
sources of influence as they sought to implement policies and procedures within
the Church of England. However, it is well beyond the capacity of this study to
perform a comprehensive survey of all determinative theological issues
associated with being Reformed and how those topics were discussed in relation
to each of the early church writers. Rather, this study will single out one
distinctive of Reformed theology and see how receptions of a particular church
father on that topic factored into certain debates.
Perseverance as the Reformed Distinctive

Concerning Reformed distinctives, scholars tend to focus on the doctrines of
election and predestination. These teachings obviously (p.10) characterize the
Reformed tradition, so it is only proper for historians to pay attention to them in
efforts to detect a Reformed identity. But if one thinks of a distinctive more
narrowly as something that sets one thing apart from all others, the doctrine of
predestination by itself can hardly be characterized as a Reformed distinctive.
After all, strong predestinarian strains run throughout the course of church
history, even manifesting themselves during the Reformation and post-
Reformation eras in distinctly non-Reformed communions. For instance,
Dominicans and Jansenists rallied to the cause of unconditional election against
the Jesuits.19 Furthermore, such a position was not foreign to Lutheranism.20
Predestination can only be considered a distinctive of the Reformed tradition

insofar as it ties into the greater system of doctrines related to grace. For
instance, one could analyze the five heads of doctrine issued in the Canons of
Dort (1619) and say that a distinct Reformed position was taken in how these
theological issues work together as a whole. In fact, the Canons of Dort became
a defining document for the Reformed tradition, a creed in which non-Reformed
communions would have been hard pressed to affirm in total. However, of the
five heads, only one of the doctrines seems distinctively Reformed when taken
on its own. That doctrine is the perseverance of the saints. Like predestination,
Page 5 of 16
the Dortian doctrines of human depravity, effectual grace, and the restricted
efficacy of Christ’s satisfaction could be found within non-Reformed
communions. However, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Arminians all recoiled
from the notion that a person once possessing justifying faith could not lose it.
Even before the Synod of Dort, the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints
was a significant doctrine for the Reformed tradition. Those outside the tradition
recognized its popularity within Reformed (p.11) theology, as was evidenced in
1592 when the Lutherans cataloged it as a Calvinist error in the Saxon Visitation
Articles.21 And this perception was due, no doubt, to the fact that many leaders
within the Reformed churches explicitly, and sometimes forcefully, taught it.22 To
be sure, the doctrine lacked widespread confessional status before Dort. While
one may find a confession like the Irish Articles (1615) explicitly stating
perseverance of all those who are regenerate and have true faith (Art. 38), many
Reformed confessions, like the First Helvetic Confession (1536), simply don’t
address the topic. Similarly, doctrinal standards like the Belgic Confession
(1561) and the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), which many people find conducive
to the perseverance of the saints, never clearly state it. And while the tenth
chapter of the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) may be suggestive of
perseverance of the saints when it identifies those engrafted in Christ by faith
with the elect, it does not come out and say that those with true faith cannot lose
it. Other confessions, like the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563), speak of the elect
attaining everlasting felicity (Art. 17) without ever specifying that everyone with
saving faith is elect. This path was even followed by the French Confession
(1559) and the Confession of La Rochelle (1571), which were highly influenced
by Calvin and the Reformers in Geneva.23 But the fact that so many Reformed
confessions did not require adherence to the perseverance of the saints does not
mean that the doctrine was not prominent. To the contrary, the fact that the
confessions did not deny it allowed the doctrine to flourish (p.12) among the
Reformed. The doctrine of perseverance of all saints developed primarily and
extensively among Reformed Protestants, giving a distinct character to
Reformed theology.
Considering that perseverance of the saints developed distinctly within the

Reformed tradition, this study will analyze the reception of this doctrine among
the English in order to evaluate the struggles the Church of England faced by
identifying with other Reformed churches. Yet declaring perseverance of the
saints as the Reformed distinctive needs some qualification, and the significance
of Dort for making that qualification cannot be stressed enough. Perseverance of
the saints was the Reformed distinctive before the Synod of Dort in the sense
that Reformed churches were the only ones willing to give it a significant
hearing. But the Synod solidified a theological identity for Reformed churches by
issuing a statement of faith created by consent of an international cast of
Reformed delegations. When the Canons of Dort clearly articulated
perseverance of the saints and rejected the genuine apostasy of the regenerate
Page 6 of 16
as an error, it closed the gaps found in previous confessions and eliminated the
possibility of any other Reformed position. After Dort, perseverance of the saints
became a Reformed distinctive in the sense that churches could not maintain
their Reformed identity without it. Dort amplified the Reformed distinctive, and
this maneuver will prove important as this study progresses.24
Augustine as the Preeminent Church Father

Historical theologians have rapidly expanded their understanding of the
reception of early church fathers within the Protestant Reformation.25 (p.13) A
major subset of this reception history is dedicated to readings of Augustine of
Hippo, due to the substantial influence his writings exerted on the church’s
theology for centuries.26 Considering his importance, (p.14) Augustine
provides a suitable choice in assessing the English reception of the church
fathers on the doctrine of perseverance. For one thing, sixteenth- and
seventeenth-century theologians often treated Augustine as preeminent among
the early church fathers. But beyond the high regard people had for his
theological opinion in general, Augustine wrote a treatise specifically focused on
perseverance, On the Gift of Perseverance, and spoke of the doctrine extensively
in a couple of his other writings.27 Moreover, Englishmen had recognized the
importance of these treatises as evidenced in their retrieval of English
translations beginning in the reign of King Edward VI and continued by exiles
under Queen Mary.28 Modern scholars have recognized the significance of
Augustine’s thought on perseverance for subsequent church history, but while
studies have been done on the reception of Augustine on perseverance in the
medieval era, historians have not yet advanced (p.15) the topic into the
Reformation and post-Reformation eras.29 Modern scholarship needs to
recognize the significance that the Reformed tradition attributed to Augustine’s
thought on perseverance.
Scope of the Study

Given the distinctive nature of the doctrine of perseverance of the saints for the
Reformed tradition, as well as the high regard English theologians had for
Augustine during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, an evaluation of the
English reception of Augustine on perseverance could provide a valuable
contribution to discussions regarding the identity of the Church of England. As
happens to be the case, English theologians developed several discussions
during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries where readings and the
reception of Augustine influenced their treatment of perseverance. Therefore,
this study selects various English debates over perseverance in order to
demonstrate the critical importance that readings of Augustine on perseverance
played in the development of England’s relation to the Reformed churches of
mainland Europe.
Page 7 of 16
This book does not intend to give a comprehensive history of perseverance in

seventeenth-century England. Many important debates and books receive less
treatment than others or even none at all. However, like an ecologist surveying a
landscape, this book takes ground samples at significant points along the
contours of the English church of the seventeenth century. In selecting samples,
this study adopts events before, during, and after the Synod of Dort in order to
reflect the changing circumstances within England and the greater Reformed
community. It also selects debates where prominent churchmen wrestled with
(p.16) readings of Augustine on perseverance in settings where the shape or
acceptance of confessional standards were at stake. The study also selects
debates and characters that already appear in scholarly discussions of
Anglicanism, Puritanism, and the identity of the Church of England, but not in
ways that reflect the significance of perseverance. While these samples will not
exhaust every detail of how the readings of Augustine on the doctrine of
perseverance shaped the identity of the Church of England, a close analysis of
the samples provides a good starting place to assess the critical role played by
perseverance.
Chapter 2 examines the debates at Cambridge University that set the context for
the famous Lambeth Articles of 1595. While scholars frequently reference these
articles for their importance regarding the doctrine of predestination, this
chapter shows that the doctrine of perseverance played much more significantly
into the debates that brought about the articles. Furthermore, it looks
specifically at the way perseverance was handled in the construction of the
Lambeth Articles and how variant readings and receptions of Augustine factored
into the version of the articles that were finally approved. Thus, it shows that
readings of Augustine influenced the way bishops made policies and strictures
for the University of Cambridge. This reevaluation of the Lambeth Articles has
added value in that it assesses thoughts on perseverance on the front edge of
the seventeenth century, before perseverance of the saints was explicitly
confessed as a mark of the international Reformed community. It suggests the
existence of a strong Reformed influence in England that was broad enough to
admit diversity on perseverance due to its regard for the early church. That is, it
discovers the existence of a minority opinion within the Reformed tradition that
took advantage of confessional latitude and dissented from the majority opinion
regarding the perseverance of every saint.
Chapter 3 crosses the English Channel to the Synod of Dort and analyzes the
British delegation’s participation in that famous international conference of
Reformed churches. The significance of Dort’s codification of perseverance of
the saints as a Reformed distinctive has already been mentioned. Yet it is also
important to understand the way (p.17) British theologians handled the issue
in dialogue with other Reformed churches. This chapter uncovers a consistent
English strategy of conciliatory confessionalism, even when it was painfully
inconvenient. Even though the delegates agreed theologically with the rest of
Page 8 of 16
the Synod on perseverance, their sensitivity to readings of Augustine prepared

them to advocate unity among the Reformed churches in a way that would avoid
unnecessary offense to those rejecting the prevailing view on the doctrine. And
while the British delegation’s request was not granted, this episode
demonstrates yet another attempt by Englishmen to use readings of Augustine
to shape doctrinal standards within a Reformed context.
Chapter 4 returns to England in order to survey a significant debate that Richard

Montagu stirred in the aftermath of Dort. This debate has been largely
classified, both then and now, as one between Arminians and Calvinists.
However, this reanalysis of the debate suggests that Montagu better fits the
profile of a previously permitted minority opinion within the Reformed tradition
that followed a different reading of Augustine on perseverance. The chapter
argues that Montagu was not a genuine Arminian and that his repudiation of an
irrespective divine decree did not propose a view of election caused by foreseen
faith. By better understanding Montagu’s context and arguments, one can see
that Montagu’s denial of perseverance of all saints was not presented on semi-
Pelagian grounds. The chapter also demonstrates the way Dort’s narrowing
tendencies created difficulties for the Church of England’s broad-church
approach to being Reformed.
Chapter 5 continues to sample the English soil of the Montagu affair with a view
to surveying adjacent doctrines related to the perseverance debate. For
instance, Dort’s more narrow definition of perseverance caused difficulties for
those holding a more traditionalist view of baptism and regeneration. After
looking at Montagu’s baptismal argument against perseverance of the saints, the
chapter evaluates published responses to Montagu’s advocacy of baptismal
regeneration as well as more private debates where John Davenant and Samuel
Ward tried to reconcile a form of baptismal regeneration with Dort’s
determination on perseverance. This survey shows (p.18) division on the
efficacy of baptism even within the pro-Dortian party, with readings and
receptions of Augustine factoring in. It also reveals further evidence of how a
broad-church approach to being Reformed set the Church of England at odds
with the international trends of the Reformed churches.
Chapter 6 collects samples from a debate on perseverance that arose among the
Puritans after England’s civil war. The debate was started by the avowed
Arminian John Goodwin, who appealed to Augustine and the early church for a
denial of the perseverance of the saints. The chapter focuses on the Reformed
responses among his Puritan counterparts, like John Owen and George Kendall,
and how they challenged Goodwin’s reading of Augustine and defended the
importance of perseverance for confessing the Reformed faith. It also focuses on
Richard Baxter’s alternate perspective, which affirmed the doctrine on
perseverance of the saints but questioned whether it should be a confessional
issue based on his reading of Augustine and the witness of church history. This
Page 9 of 16
chapter has the value of tracking England’s struggle with perseverance in a time
when the pro-Dortian party had gained ascendancy. Given the fact that the
Westminster Assembly sought to bring the Church of England into closer
alignment with mainstream Reformed thought, one might easily assume that the
temporary triumph of the Puritan cause would have settled the issues related to
perseverance. Nevertheless, this chapter reveals how competing readings of
Augustine on perseverance persisted among Reformed Englishmen and also how
these readings influenced the way Puritans developed and used confessions so
as to handle concerns of catholicity.
Again, this is not a complete history of readings of Augustine on perseverance

among English churchmen. This project neither is strictly limited to an analysis
of readings of Augustine on the point nor does it treat every book and debate on
perseverance. Instead, this limited study demonstrates that churchmen in
various stages of post-Reformation England relied on readings and receptions of
Augustine on perseverance to influence the way confessional statements were
used. In doing so, this study follows recent trends in Reformation- and post-
Reformation-era studies that recognize the diversity that existed (p.19) within
the pursuit of a unified Protestant front.30 It also uncovers competing readings
of Augustine on the doctrine of perseverance, which in turn led to variant
understandings of the doctrine within the Reformed community. By evaluating
these debates, this study sets up a better approach to framing the identity of the
Church of England. Rather than identifying the Church as either part of a
Calvinist consensus or an adherent to the ancient Christian faith, this study
grants the possibility of seeing both the Reformed churches and the early church
fathers as confluent sources of identity for the Church of England. It witnesses a
broad approach to being Reformed that respected traditionalist elements in its
midst—a Reformed catholicity derived from great sensitivity to the early church.
It also helps make sense of the struggle the Church of England faced in
maintaining its Reformed identity after Dort, recognizing how the international
Reformed community demanded tighter confessional definitions that alienated
England’s traditional, broad-church approach to being Reformed. Surely the
doctrine of perseverance was not the sole issue behind England’s faltering
Reformed identity. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged as a significant factor
in that demise and even as emblematic of other issues. Debating perseverance,
the Church of England witnessed the importance of that doctrine for maintaining
both an ancient and a Reformed identity.
Notes:
(1.) While Bucer and Vermigli were asked to write critiques of the prayer book,
only Bucer’s is extant. For a Latin edition with a parallel English translation, see
Martin Bucer and the Book of Common Prayer, ed. E. C. Whitaker (London:
Mayhew-McCrimmon, 1974). For a look at the direct role some mainland
Reformers played in the English Reformation, see Timothy Morris McAlhaney,
Page 10 of 16
“Influence of the Continental Reformers Bucer, Vermigli, and Laski upon

Cranmer and the ‘Via Media’ of the English Reformation” (PhD diss.,
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002).
(2.) A still-useful resource on Marian exiles is Christina Hallowell Garrett, The

Marian Exiles: A Study in the Origins of Elizabethan Puritanism (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1938).
(3.) Martin Bucer, Martin Bucer and the Book of Common Prayer, 18–21;
Vermigli to John Hooper, Nov. 4, 1550, Life, Letters, and Sermons, trans. and ed.
J. P. Donnelly (Kirksville, MO: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1999), 102–
109; Vermigli to Henry Bullinger, Jan. 28, 1551, Life, Letters, and Sermons, 111–
114.
(4.) See particularly the correspondence with King James I in The British
Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), ed. Anthony Milton (Woodbridge,
Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2005).
(5.) John Jewel, An Apologie, or Aunswer in Defence of the Church of England,

Concerning the State of Religion Used in the Same (London, 1562); William
Perkins, A Reformed Catholike: Or, a Declaration Shewing How Neere We May
Come to the Present Church of Rome in Sundrie Points of Religion: and wherein
We Must for Ever Depart from Them: With an Advertisement to All Favourers of
the Romane Religion, Shewing That the Said Religion Is against the Catholike
Principles and Grounds of the Catechisme (Cambridge: John Legat, 1598);
William Perkins, Problema de Romanae Fidei Ementito Catholicismo (Cambridge:
John Legat, 1604); English trans. Probleme of Forged Catholicisme, or
Universalitie of the Romish Religion, in The Works of That Famous and Worthy
Minister of Christ in the Universitie of Cambridge, M. William Perkins, vol. 2
(London: John Legat, 1631), 485–602.
(6.) A Testimonie of Antiquitie Shewing the Auncient Fayth in the Church of

England Touching the Sacrament of the Body and Bloude of the Lord Here
Publikely Preached, and also Receaued in the Saxons Tyme, aboue 600. Yeares
Agoe (London, 1566); Matthew Parker, De Antiquitate Britannicae Ecclesiae &
Priuilegiis Ecclesiae Cantuariensis cum Archiepiscopis eiusdem 70 (London,
1572).
(7.) A Booke of Certaine Canons, Concerning Some Parte of the Discipline of the
Church of England (London: John Daye, 1571), 23.
(8.) England’s appeal to antiquity was not unique among Protestant churches. In
fact, it was a common strategy among Protestants to argue that they were the
faithful followers of the ancient catholic faith and that it was Rome that had
abandoned it.
Page 11 of 16
(9.) William Fuller, “Booke to the Queene,” in The Second Parte of a Register,
Being a Calendar of Manuscripts under That Title Intended for Publication by
the Puritans about 1593, and Now in Dr. Williams’s Library, London, 2 vols., ed.
Albert Peel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915), 2:52. “But halflie by
your majesty hath God been honoured, his church reformed and established, his
people taught and comforted.”
(10.) John Whitgift, “The Defense of the Answer to the Admonition, against the
Reply of Thomas Cartwright,” in The Works of John Whitgift, 3 vols. (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1851–1853).
(11.) John Davenant et al., “Dr. Davenant on the Atonement,” in The British
Delegation and the Synod of Dort, 219.
(12.) For a forceful assertion of this in nineteenth-century literature, see J. H.

Newman, The Via Media of the Anglican Church Illustrated in Letters, Lectures
and Tracts Written between 1830–1841 (London: Longmans, Green, 1877). For
more recent expressions, see J. E. Neale, Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 2 vols.
(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1958); H. C. Porter, “Hooker, The Tudor
Constitution, and the Via Media,” in Studies in Richard Hooker: Essays
Preliminary to an Edition of His Works, ed. W. Speed Hill (Cleveland: Case
Western Reserve Press, 1972), 77–116; George W. Bernard, “The Church of
England, c. 1529–1642,” History 75 (February 1990): 183–206; Christopher Hill,
A Nation of Change and Novelty: Radical Politics, Religion and Literature in
Seventeenth-Century England (New York: Routledge, 1990), 56–81; Kevin
Sharpe, Politics and Ideas in Early Stuart England (New York: Printer, 1989);
Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1992); Peter White, “The Via Media in the Early Stuart Church,” in The Early
Stuart Church, 1603–1642, ed. Kenneth Fincham (Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan,
1993), 211–230.
(13.) Patrick Collinson, The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English

Society 1559–1625 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984); Peter Lake,
Anglicans and Puritans? Presbyterianism and English Conformist Thought from
Whitgift to Hooker (London: Unwin Hyman, 1988); Peter Lake, “Lancelot
Andrewes, John Buckeridge, and Avant-garde Conformity at the Court of James
I,” in The Mental World of the Jacobean Court, ed. Linda Levy Peck (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991), 113–133; Nicholas Tyacke, “Lancelot
Andrewes and the Myth of Anglicanism,” in Conformity and Orthodoxy in the
English Church c. 1560–1660, ed. Peter Lake and Michael Questier
(Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000), 5–33; Diarmaid MacCulloch, “The Myth of
the English Reformation,” Journal of British Studies 30 (January 1991): 1–19;
Diarmaid MacCulloch, “Putting the English Reformation on the Map,”
Transactions of the RHS 15 (2005): 75–95; Kenneth Fincham, “Clerical
Conformity from Whitgift to Laud,” in Lake and Questier, Conformity and
Page 12 of 16
Orthodoxy in the English Church c. 1560–1660, 125–158; Dewey D. Wallace Jr.

“Via Media? A Paradigm Shift,” Anglican and Episcopal History 72, no. 1 (March
2003): 2–21; Anthony Milton, “ ‘Anglicanism’ by Stealth: The Career and
Influence of John Overall,” in Religious Politics in Post-Reformation England, ed.
Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press, 2006), 159–
176.
(14.) Dewey D. Wallace Jr., Puritans and Predestination: Grace in English

Protestant Theology, 1525–1695 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
1982); Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of Arminianism c. 1590–1640
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987); Nicholas Tyacke, “The Rise of
Arminianism Reconsidered,” Past and Present 115 (May 1987): 201–216; Peter
Lake, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1982); Peter Lake, “Calvinism and the English Church 1570–
1635,” Past and Present 114 (February 1987): 32–76.
(15.) See H. C. Porter, Reformation and Reaction in Tudor Cambridge

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958); Peter White, Predestination,
Policy and Polemic: Conflict and Consensus in the English Church from the
Reformation to the Civil War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992);
Peter White, “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered,” Past and Present 101
(November 1983): 34–54; Peter White, “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered:
A Rejoinder,” Past and Present 115 (May 1987): 217–229.
(16.) A. J. Mason, The Church of England and Episcopacy (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1914); Henry R. McAdoo, The Spirit of Anglicanism:
A Survey of Anglican Theological Method in the Seventeenth Century (New York:
Scribner, 1965); Henry R. McAdoo, “The Influence of the Seventeenth Century
on Contemporary Anglican Understanding of the Purpose and Function of
Authority in the Church,” in Christian Authority: Essays in Honor of Henry
Chadwick, ed. G. R. Evans (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 251–277;
Theodore Dwight Bozeman, To Live Ancient Lives: The Primitivist Dimension in
Puritanism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988); Henry
Chadwick, “Tradition, Fathers, and Councils,” in The Study of Anglicanism, ed.
Stephen Sykes, John Booty, and Jonathan Knight, rev. ed. (London: SPCK, 1998),
100–115; Arthur Middleton, Fathers and Anglicans: The Limits of Orthodoxy
(Leominster: Gracewing, 2001).
(17.) Jean-Louis Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity: The
Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2009); Mary Morrissey, “The ‘Challenge Controversy’ and the
Question of Authority in the Early Elizabethan Church,” in The Search for
Authority in Reformation Europe, ed. Elaine Fulton, Helen Parish, and Peter
Webster (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), 147–169.
Page 13 of 16
(18.) Colin John Cruickshank, “Saint Augustine in Early New England” (PhD
diss., University of Maine, 1996); Ann-Stephane Schäfer, Auctoritas Patrum?: The
Reception of the Church Fathers in Puritanism (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2012).
Even pro-Anglican writers, in an attempt to belittle the Puritans’ use of early
church fathers, nevertheless demonstrate that the Puritans made appeals to the
ancient church. See John K. Luoma, “Who Owns the Fathers? Hooker and
Cartwright on the Authority of the Primitive Church,” Sixteenth Century Journal
8, no. 3 (October 1977): 45–59.
(19.) Cornelius Jansen, Augustinus, seu Doctrina Sancti Augustini de Humanae

Naturae Sanitate, Aegritudine, Medicina adversus Pelagianos & Massilienses, 3
vols. (Paris: 1641); Jacques-Hyacinthe Serry (under the pseudonym Augustino le
Blanc), Histiriae Congregationum de Auxiliis Divinae Gratiae, sub Summis
Pontificibus Clemente VIII et Paulo V (Leuven, 1700).
(20.) Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Art. 11.
(21.) For German, Latin, and English versions, see Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds
of Christendom, vol. 3, 4th rev. ed. and enl. (New York: Harper & Brothers,
1919), 181–190.
(22.) For examples, see John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols.,
trans. John Allen (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1921), 3.24.7;
Heinrich Bullinger, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, the First and Second
Decades, trans. H. I., ed. Thomas Harding (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1849), 99; Girolamo Zanchi, De Religion Christiana Fides (Neustadt an
der Haardt, 1585), 20.8–9 (pp. 127–128).
(23.) English translations of these confessions can be found in James T.

Dennison, ed., Reformed Confession of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English
Translation, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–2014).
(24.) For someone else who has pointed out the distinctive nature of
perseverance for the Reformed and called for historians to devote more
attention to it, see Seán F. Hughes, “The Problem of ‘Calvinism’: English
Theologies of Predestination c. 1580–1630,” in Belief and Practice in
Reformation England: A Tribute to Patrick Collinson from His Students, ed.
Susan Wabuda and Caroline Litzenberger (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 1998), 229–
249.
(25.) S. L. Greenslade, The English Reformers and the Fathers of the Church
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960); Peter Fraenkel, Testimonium Patrum: The
Function of the Patristic Argument in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon
(Geneva: Droz, 1961); Hughes O. Old, Patristic Roots of Reformed Worship
(Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975); E. P. Meijering, Melanchthon and Patristic
Thought: The Doctrines of Christ and Grace, the Trinity, and the Creation
Page 14 of 16
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1983); Irvin B. Horst, “Menno Simons and the Augustinian
Tradition,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 62 (October 1988): 419–430; Dennis D.
Martin, “Menno and Augustine on the Body of Christ,” Fides et Historia 20
(October 1988): 41–64; Leif Grane, Alfred Schindler, and Markus Wriedt, eds.,
Auctoritas Patrium: Zur rezeption der Kirchenväter im 15. Und 16. Jahrhundert
(Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1993); Leif Grane, Alfred Schindler, and
Markus Wriedt, eds., Auctoritas Patrium II: Neue Beiträge zur Rezeption der
Kirchenväter im 15. Und 16. Jahrhundert (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern,
1998); Irena Backus, ed., The Reception of the Church Fathers, 2 vols. (Leiden:
Brill, 1997); David Steinmetz, ed., Die Patristik in der Bibelexegese des 16.
Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1999); Anthony N. S. Lane, John Calvin:
Student of the Church Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999); Irena Backus,
Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation,
1378–1615 (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Günter Frank, Thomas Leinkauf, and Markus
Wriedt, eds., Die Patristik in der Frühen Neuzeit: Die Relektüre der Kirchenväter
in den Wisssenschaften des 15. bis 18. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt:
Frommann-Holzboog, 2006); Antonia Lucic Gonzalez, “Balthasar Hubmaier and
Early Christian Tradition” (PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2008);
Andrew P. Klager, “Balthasar Hubmaier and the Authority of the Church
Fathers,” Historical Papers 2008: Canadian Society of Church History: Annual
Conference, University of British Columbia, 1–3 June 2008, 18 (2008): 133–152;
Andrew P. Klager, “Balthasar Hubmaier’s Use of the Church Fathers: Availability,
Access and Interaction,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 84 (January 2010): 5–65;
Andrew P. Klager, “ ‘Truth Is Immortal’: Balthasar Hubmaier (c. 1480–1528) and
the Church Fathers” (PhD diss., University of Glasgow, 2011). Esther Chung-
Kim, Inventing Authority: The Use of the Church Fathers in Reformation Debates
over the Eucharist (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2011); David M. Barbee,
“A Reformed Catholike: William Perkins’ Use of the Church Fathers” (PhD diss.,
University of Pennsylvania, 2013); Byung Soo Han, Symphonia Catholica: The
Merger of Patristic and Contemporary Sources in the Theological Method of
Amandus Polanus (1561–1610) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015).
(26.) For an impressive project for facilitating studies in the reception of

Augustine, see Karla Pollman, ed., The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception
of Augustine, 3 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). Some individual
studies are Luchesius Smits, Saint Augustin dans l’oevre de Jean Calvin, 2 vols.
(Assen: van Gorcum, 1956–1958); Robert Dodaro and Michael Questier,
“Strategies in Jacobean Polemic: The Use of and Abuse of St. Augustine in
English Theological Controversy,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 44, no. 3 (July
1993): 432–449; Arnoud S. Q. Visser, Reading Augustine in the Reformation: The
Flexibility of Intellectual Authority in Europe, 1500–1620 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011); Karla Pollman and Meredith Jane Gill, eds., Augustine
beyond the Book: Intermediality, Transmediality, and Reception (Leiden: Brill,
2012); Peter Webster, “Augustine ‘Falleth into Dispute with Himself’: The Fathers
Page 15 of 16
and Church Music in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England,” in The Search for
Authority in Reformation Europe, ed. Elaine Fulton, Helen Parish, and Peter
Webster (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2014), 171–187.
(27.) Augustine’s three main works treating the topic are On Rebuke and Grace,
On the Predestination of the Saints, and On the Gift of Perseverance. English
translations can be found in the volume titled Saint Augustine: Anti-Pelagian
Writings, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip
Schaff, ser. 1, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 471–491, 497–519, 525–
552.
(28.) Augustine, A Worke of the Predestination of Saints Written by the Famous

Doctor S. Augustine Byshop of Carthage, . . . Item, Another Worke of the Sayde
Augustyne, Entytuled, Of the Vertue of Perseveraunce to Thend, trans. Nicholas
Lesse (London, 1550); Augustine, Two Bokes of the Noble Doctor and B. S.
Augustine Thone Entiteled of the Predestinacion of Saintes, Thother of
Perseveueraunce unto Thende, whereunto Are Annexed the Determinacions of
Two Auncient Generall Councelles, Confermyng the Doctrine Taught in These
Bokes by S. Aug., trans. John Scory (Geneva, 1556).
(29.) Joseph P. Wawrykow, “ ‘Perseverance’ in 13th-Century Theology: The

Augustinian Contribution,” Augustinian Studies 22 (1991): 125–140; Joseph P.
Wawrykow, God’s Grace and Human Action: “Merit” in the Theology of Thomas
Aquinas (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995); Cyril Anthony
Gorman, “Augustine and High Medieval Theologies of Perseverance: The
‘Perseverance’ Teaching of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Matthew of Aquasparta
and Gregory of Rimini” (PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2005).
(30.) For instance, some studies have argued for various Reformations over
against “the Reformation,” showing various approaches and circumstances that
allowed for different developments. This is reflected in the titles of James D.
Tracy, Europe’s Reformations, 1450–1650: Doctrine, Politics, and Community,
2nd ed. (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006); Carter Lindberg, The
European Reformations, 2nd ed. (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010); and Alec
Ryrie, ed., Palgrave Advances in the European Reformations (Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2006). Studies have also given more recognition to levels of
diversity within the boundaries of Reformed orthodoxy, demonstrating how even
the Puritan tradition in England was not as monolithic in its theological makeup
as some may think it to be. See Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones, eds.,
Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity within Seventeenth-
Century British Puritanism (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011).
Access brought to you by:
Page 16 of 16
Cambridge Aflame with Controversy

Jay T. Collier

Print ISBN-13: 9780190858520
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190858520.001.0001

Reassessing the Lambeth Articles
Jay T. Collier
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780190858520.003.0002
Abstract and Keywords

Chapter 2 shows how perseverance was a major topic in the debates at
Cambridge University that set the context for the famous Lambeth Articles of
1595. Furthermore, the chapter looks specifically at the way perseverance was
handled in the construction of the Lambeth Articles and how variant readings
and receptions of Augustine factored into the version of the articles that was
finally approved. Thus, it shows that readings of Augustine influenced the way
bishops made policies and strictures for the University of Cambridge. It suggests
the existence of a strong Reformed influence in England that was broad enough
to admit diversity on perseverance due to its regard for the early church. That is,
it discovers the existence of a minority opinion within the Reformed tradition
that took advantage of the confessional latitude and dissented from the majority
opinion regarding the perseverance of every saint.
Keywords: Cambridge University, perseverance of the saints, apostasy, Augustine, Archbishop John
Whitgift, Lancelot Andrewes, Richard Hooker, Matthew Hutton, Adrianus Saravia, John Overall,
William Whitaker, William Barrett
On November 20, 1595, Archbishop John Whitgift authorized nine propositions,

now known as the Lambeth Articles. These articles were forged in the context of
a theological controversy that broke out at Cambridge University, and though
they were created to subdue unrest at Cambridge, the propositions became a
source of contention in the Church of England for years to come. Accordingly,
historians are faced with the problem of understanding the significance of this
Page 1 of 32
document so as to identify the nature and character of the Church of England in

the late sixteenth century.
In hopes of determining the theological identity of the Elizabethan Church, great

attention has been given to the birth of Puritanism and its interaction with the
reigning establishment. Within those discussions, a predominant concern among
scholars has been to determine where the church stood on matters of divine
sovereignty and human responsibility in matters of salvation. Debates have
largely concentrated on whether there was a Calvinist consensus to the Church
of England during the second half of the sixteenth century.1 Playing into (p.21)
this grander debate, treatments of the Lambeth Articles tend to run in two
different lines of scholarship. Some maintain that the Lambeth Articles were
instigated by Calvinists but ended up being less than a Calvinist document.2
Others argue that the nine propositions are essentially Calvinistic.3 In either
case, the result is that the Lambeth Artlicles are mainly understood within a
Calvinist versus anti-Calvinist framework. Consequently, the predominant
concern related to these discussions is predestination, and the way the Lambeth
Articles are described depends a lot on one’s definition of Calvinism and its
relation to Calvin’s own thought.4
While the doctrine of predestination was certainly a part of the Lambeth Articles
and contributed to the circumstances that demanded (p.22) their formulation,
it was arguably not the most significant influence. This chapter will give a brief
review of the controversy at Cambridge that led to the Lambeth Articles in order
to show the significance of the doctrine of perseverance for that debate. It will
also examine the development of Lambeth Article 5, which is on perseverance,
and the theological significance it held. Bringing attention to how perseverance
was treated at Lambeth may shed some light on the identity and character of the
Church of England during the late sixteenth century. The reconsideration of
Article 5 suggests the inadequacy of the Calvinist versus anti-Calvinist
framework for portraying a diversely Reformed identity for the Church of
England that was highly influenced by the conflicting readings and reception of
Augustine.
Controversy at Cambridge
The early 1590s saw a quieting of the disciplinarian controversies of the
Puritans with the rise of a “new Contention” at Cambridge University
“concerning some Points of Doctrine: As, whether true Faith might fail; and
whether every Believer was sure of his Salvation, &c.”5 This controversy appears
largely due to lectures given by William Whitaker and Peter Baro, where they
reportedly took opposing positions. By 1595, the dispute had become such a
concern that the vice chancellor and heads of the colleges petitioned Archbishop
John Whitgift on how to handle the matters. Whitaker met with Whitgift and
returned to Cambridge with the archbishop’s advice that they should use the
governing channels of the university to settle down the disruptions, but this was
Page 2 of 32
to provide little hope. Whitaker quickly wrote back to Whitgift that a

determination had been held at the university, claiming “That Justifying Grace
and Faith might not only be lost, in some finally, but even in the Elect, for a Time
totaliter.”6 Interestingly enough, Whitaker (p.23) complained that the culprit
had the audacity to claim Calvin as support for such a position.7
The flames of this controversy rose to new heights when William Barrett, a
fellow of Gonvillle and Caius College, delivered his sermon ad clerum at St.
Mary’s church on April 29, 1595. Barrett stirred considerable trouble by vilifying
men like John Calvin, Peter Martyr, Theodore Beza, and Francis Junius as he
challenged God’s sovereignty in reprobation. Yet the larger part of the sermon
that caused such disruption discussed issues related in some fashion to the
defectibility of faith. Within a couple of weeks, Barrett had undergone meetings
with Vice Chancellor John Duport and with a consistory court made of heads of
colleges at Cambridge, and he was ordered to read a public statement of
retraction.8
Barrett’s retraction is informative in that it reveals what the heads of the

colleges found objectionable in the troublesome sermon and what they accepted
as Reformed doctrine. Barrett first confessed that he had denied man’s ability of
being certain of salvation without receiving revelation from God, and thus he
professed that those who have been justified by faith also “stand in that grace by
faith” and therefore should be “certain and secure” of their own salvation.9 His
second point retracted his statement that only Peter’s faith could not fail, since
Christ had (p.24) only prayed for Peter’s faith to be sustained. In turn he
acknowledged that John 17:20 records Jesus praying for every true believer,
making it to where “their faith cannot fail.”10 The third retraction denounced his
view that it is arrogant and wicked to affirm such perseverance of faith that
would foster security of salvation, agreeing that “true and justifying faith” could
never be “plucked out by the roots” from those who once have it but will
increase due to the believer’s union with Christ and last to the end due to God’s
gift of constancy.11 Barrett’s fourth point retracted his denial of distinctions
between kinds of faith, affirming instead a distinction between saving faith and a
feigned, temporary faith.12 This distinction proved important for those
advocating certain perseverance in faith because it allows for an explanation of
apostasy among professing Christians while maintaining indefectibility of those
who are genuinely justified by faith. The fifth retraction concerned Barrett’s
denial of man’s ability to know if his sins were forgiven, turning to embrace the
idea that every true believer is obligated to “believe his own particular sins are
freely forgiven him.”13 The sixth point retracted his claim that sin was the cause
of reprobation and affirmed that God’s mere knowledge of sin was not enough to
explain reprobation and election. The seventh retraction was a petition for
pardon of Barrett’s rash and bitter remarks directed to respectable Reformed
leaders, which included “calling them that odious name of Calvinists.”14
Page 3 of 32
What may have looked like a tidy end to the controversy quickly proved
inflammatory. Barrett’s retraction came off as less than sincere, which irritated
numerous masters and fellows in the university. Having (p.25) read the
retractions, he is reported to have concluded by effectively saying, “There, I
read it,” clearly conveying that he had simply gone through the motions.15 The
next several months of the controversy confirmed that those retractions were
not genuinely offered.
Tension grew between Barrett and the college heads, resulting in further
confrontations and a series of letters written to Archbishop Whitgift. Letters
from both Barrett and the offended members of the university reveal a fair
measure of political positioning in order to gain Whitgift’s support. For instance,
Barrett framed the controversy as a conspiracy by Robert Some, the master of
Peterhouse College, and “Puritans” in Cambridge.16 And while Barrett was
careful to qualify his previous comments regarding Calvin, he took the
opportunity to say that Calvin held some rash opinions.17 No doubt such
posturing caught the attention of Whitgift, who had opposed Puritans during the
disciplinarian controversies and the Genevan-style church polity they were
hoping to establish in England. Alternately, letters to Whitgift from those
offended by Barrett’s sermon did not construe the dispute as Puritans against
the church establishment, or as the Calvinists versus the anti-Calvinists. Rather,
numerous fellows from several colleges found Barrett’s position “savouring of
Popish Doctrine in the whole Course and Tenor thereof.”18 The vice chancellor
and college heads were greatly concerned by his “taking upon him to answer
those Places, which were alleged of Protestants for the Certainty of Faith; and
alledging those Places and Speeches which were used in the Tridentine Council
and Popish Writers, to prove Popish Doubtfulness; and that we cannot assure
ourselves of our salvation.”19 Barrett’s “Familiarity and (p.26) Conversation
with Recusants and Papists” only added to their suspicions.20 This accusation
against Barrett came with a concern about the spread of Jesuit and other Roman
Catholic books at the university.21 The threat of Roman Catholicism weighed
heavily on Whitgift, and no doubt its association with the Barrett case caused
him great concern. Barrett and the Cambridge heads portrayed each other as
enemies of the Church of England, while claiming to uphold the doctrines of the
Church of England themselves.
Beyond all the political posturing, it remains clear that the major theological
concerns of the dispute revolved largely around the issues of assurance and
perseverance of faith, along with the additional issue of the cause of
reprobation. For Barrett’s part, in correspondence with Whitgift, he limited his
theological defense to a clarification on assurance of salvation. He swore that his
position was “That Believers were certain of Salvation: But to be secure, that
they ought not to be.”22 Since “security” had historically been associated with
presumption, it carried a negative connotation even among some of the
Reformed. And to be sure, the consistory court had required Barrett to affirm
Page 4 of 32
security of salvation. Yet the distinction between certainty and security was not
lost on the Cambridge dons. Writing to Whitgift, the heads of colleges clarified
their position on certainty as a “Spiritual Security,” arguing that such a kind of
security was held “not only by some late Writers and Preachers, but by ancient
and Catholic Doctors of the Church.”23 Spiritual security, as distinct from carnal
security, was their concern and they surmised that Barrett meant to deny more
than just presumption. In further support of assurance of salvation, they
reiterated their (p.27) position that all true believers can affirm the remission
of their own sins. As to perseverance, they restated that Christ prayed to uphold
the faith of all believers in Christ, that true justifying faith cannot be
extinguished or utterly lost, and that distinctions must be made between
different kinds of faith and the one true justifying faith. They also took the
opportunity to clarify their position on the nonelect, distinguishing between
damnation and reprobation, where sin is the cause of the former and God’s good
pleasure is the cause of latter.24 So while the fine points of election and
reprobation were part of the discussion, they were second to issues of the
perseverance of faith and assurance of salvation.
At the same time that concerns about Barrett were being addressed, Barrett’s
opponents kept up similar disagreements with Baro. Baro took Barrett’s side
against the consistory and challenged the idea of the indefectibility of faith, so
Robert Some delivered a sermon “to prove that Faith were it is once, never
faileth.”25 The consistory deliberated on whether to grant Baro the opportunity
to present a written refutation to Some, but decided to simply hear his opinion
instead.26 All the while, Whitgift grew more and more dissatisfied with the
mounting unrest the matter was causing at Cambridge, and he was particularly
disturbed at the manner in which the consistory was handling it.
In order to intervene more directly in the matter, Whitgift drafted eight

questions related to the original seven points of Barrett’s retraction, directing
Whitaker and the consistory to reexamine Barrett under the Archbishop’s
orders.27 Whitaker found Barrett’s response to the questionnaire rather evasive
and inadequate. He was not happy that Barrett avoided answering whether
Christ prayed for all the elect so as to make certain that their faith would not fail
either totally or finally. Whitaker was also disturbed by Barrett’s response (p.
28) concerning the distinction between justifying faith and hypocritical faith;
Barrett employed a distinction between fides formata and fides informis that
Whitaker thought threatened to subvert the Protestant doctrine of justification
by faith alone.28 Whitaker was not alone in his disappointment, for Archbishop
Whitgift was equally disappointed in Barrett’s use of the distinction between
formed and unformed faith.29 Furthermore, Whitaker and Whitgift were both
frustrated by Barrett’s evasive response concerning whether believers should
believe in the remissions of their personal sins.30 There was some disagreement
between Whitaker and Whitgift as to whether Barrett was actually denying
assurance of salvation by certainty of faith and whether the question about how
Page 5 of 32
Paul gained his assurance was open to various opinions without reproof.31
Interestingly enough, Barrett actually satisfied both Whitaker and Whitgift on
the doctrine of predestination. Barrett affirmed that God from all eternity
predestined and reprobated certain men, and this because He willed to.32
Controversy continued to burn at Cambridge, so Whitaker sought to extinguish it

as best as he could. In what was to be his last sermon ever, on October 9, 1595,
he preached on the topics of predestination, perseverance, and certainty of
salvation. Whitaker sent a copy of this sermon to Whitgift, informing him of how
the controversy persisted.33 The (p.29) archbishop requested that some
university officials accompany Barrett to Lambeth palace in order to put the
controversy to rest, and the vice chancellor appointed Whitaker and Humphrey
Tyndall. In November, they met at Lambeth, Barrett was examined, and another
retraction was ordered to be given by Barrett at Cambridge. That retraction
promised that he would neither profess nor defend the errors he had espoused
in his sermon. And though Whitgift felt confident that Barrett would be willing to
make a genuine retraction, it never came about.34
More significantly, the conference generated the Lambeth Articles. Considering

the ongoing turmoil at Cambridge and the apparent rise of semi-Pelagianism,
Whitaker submitted nine propositions for Whitgift’s consideration. Articles 1–4
concern predestination, defining it as eternally established, divinely determined,
particular and unchanging in its scope, and exclusive of those reprobated.
Article 5 concerns perseverance in saving grace. Article 6 concerns assurance of
salvation through faith. Articles 7–9 concern effectual calling, clarifying the
particularity of saving grace and inability of the human will. The archbishop,
eager to see an end of controversies on these matters, made a few adjustments
to the propositions and affirmed them as “universally professed in this church of
England, and agreeable to the Articles of Religion established by authority.”35
Whitaker and Tyndall were sent back to Cambridge with the Lambeth Articles in
hand, and the college heads were to make sure that those doctrines were not
attacked at the university.36
One thing that stands out about the Lambeth Articles, especially in relation to
the Barrett controversy that preceded them, is that they give greater attention
to unconditional predestination and effectual calling than to perseverance and
assurance. This shift of emphasis suggests that the college heads were taking
the opportunity to address their fuller concerns about the rise of semi-
Pelagianism. And such a shift (p.30) of emphasis seems validated by
subsequent interactions with Baro. Shortly after the Lambeth Articles were
brought back to Cambridge, Baro raised questions about the meaning of the
nine propositions and even preached a sermon that, among other things, was
taken to affirm conditional election and universal grace.37
Page 6 of 32
The predominance of predestination and effectual calling in the Lambeth

Articles has led to the unfortunate shortcoming in modern scholarship to
overlook the significance of perseverance in the Cambridge debates. To be sure,
modern scholarship rightly takes note of the significance of the role of
reprobation and irresistible grace and how semi-Pelagianism was a mounting
concern in the Church of England. To overlook that would be an error for sure.
Yet it seems that it has allowed discussion on Barrett and the Lambeth Articles
to revolve around predestination, which in turn facilitates a conditional-versus-
unconditional-predestination debate couched as Calvinism versus anti-Calvinism.
Thus a reminder is needed that the issues regarding perseverance and
assurance were a much larger part of the debate than is reflected in current
scholarship. Perhaps if the thread of perseverance is investigated, it will give us
further insight into the debate and the differences and concerns that were
involved.
The Lambeth Articles, Proposed and Approved

In neglecting to emphasize the importance of perseverance in the Barrett
controversy, scholarship has overlooked some of the finer nuances of the debate
and obscured some of the deeper concerns that lay behind the approval of the
Lambeth Articles. Thus, it is important to investigate the significance of the
proposition from the Lambeth Conference that related to perseverance in order
to uncover some of these concerns.
Two different versions of the Lambeth Articles exist: the one originally submitted
for discussion at the Lambeth Conference and the one finally approved by
Whitgift. On the whole, when one compares the two lists of articles, there does
not appear to be a lot of difference (p.31) between them. Only four of the
articles received changes (Arts. 2, 5, 6, 7), consisting of only a few shifts in
wording each. Yet in spite of the low percentage of changes to the propositions,
changes there are. And the alterations in propositions have been noticed by
modern scholarship, though with differing judgments. Some contend that the
changes were insignificant and were mostly instances of Whitgift asserting his
authority in the controversy.38 Others have placed greater significance on the
changes, saying that Whitgift sought to chart a middle course between the
Calvinists and the anti-Calvinists.39
It is beyond the scope of this chapter to conduct a careful analysis of every

alteration to the Lambeth Articles. Suffice it to say that none of the revisions
made by Whitgift detracts from the solid Reformed convictions of unconditional
election and effectual calling. For that matter, the document clearly favored the
Cambridge heads in their dispute against Baro and Barrett. Yet the fact that
there were changes should give us pause, for some of the alterations reveal
subtleties of the intramural issues being debated among the Reformed in
England. As will become apparent, the slight shift made to the article concerning
the doctrine of perseverance reveals an often overlooked breadth within the
Page 7 of 32
Reformed tradition and the important place Augustine held among its
theologians.
The Lambeth Articles discuss the issue of perseverance in Article 5. The articles
as they were originally proposed and then finally approved read thus:
(p.32)
Proposed Article 5:
A true, lively, and justifying faith, and the sanctifying Spirit of God, is
neither extinguished nor lost, nor does it depart from those that have once
been partakers of it, either totally or finally.40
Approved Article 5:
A true, lively, and justifying faith, and the sanctifying Spirit of God, is
neither extinguished nor lost, nor does it depart from the elect, either
totally or finally.41
The change is subtle, but it is substantial. Whereas the proposed article says the
benefits of salvation are indefectible in “those that have once been partakers of
it,” the revised article designates total and final perseverance to “the elect.” This
may not seem significant if one assumes that only the elect can have saving
faith, for that would make the two versions of Article 5 synonymous. But if one
assumes that some nonelect were able to have saving faith—for the Lambeth
Articles never assert that only the elect will be drawn to faith—then the
consequence of the change in Article 5 becomes more apparent.42
The significance of the change is that it allows for, without explicitly stating or
requiring, the conviction that some people might actually partake of justification
and sanctification without being saved in the end. By specifying the elect as the
ones unable to lose saving grace, it leaves open the possibility of claiming that
some reprobates may genuinely participate in saving grace yet lose it. It does
maintain the safety (p.33) of the elect, but technically it does not deny that
some people can lose their salvation.
Given the state of scholarship and how the literature has tried to understand the
Lambeth Articles within the framework of Calvinists versus anti-Calvinists, one
could be tempted to see this change in the article as a move to tolerate semi-
Pelagianism. To be sure, the possibility of falling from saving faith was often
affirmed by adherents of conditional predestination, as seen in the case of
Barrett and Baro. But that is not a sufficient reason to frame the allowance made
in Article 5 as a concession to semi-Pelagianism. It is important to consider this
article in the context of the Lambeth Articles as a whole and the debate that
made the Cambridge heads demand some guidelines for what was allowable for
public debate at the university. It is true that, taken by itself, the approved form
Page 8 of 32
of Article 5 could be endorsed by advocates of conditional predestination. After

all, the point of the debate was not whether the elect are the ones who make it
to heaven. Semi-Pelagians could easily admit that all the elect are saved in the
end; they simply differed with Reformed theologians as to how it was that one
gains the status of being the elect. Yet one should not see the significance of this
change as a compromise to a basic Reformed approach to divine sovereignty.
While Article 5 itself does not stipulate the doctrine of unconditional election
that would keep someone from interpreting it in a manner favorable to those
embracing conditional election, other articles in the document do. Furthermore,
the Cambridge heads seemed pleased with the final statement as a means to
defend unconditional election against those that they deemed as troublemakers
around their colleges. Therefore, the changes in Article 5 should not be
understood as a concession to semi-Pelagians or a weakening of the Reformed
stance on unconditional election.
While maintaining the Reformed stance on unconditional predestination and

effectual calling, Whitgift’s alteration of Article 5 severed a theological bond that
Whitaker and others preferred to maintain. Whitaker’s proposed version of
Article 5 consolidates the divine gift of conversion with perseverance by
stipulating that the benefits of saving faith can never be lost in those who have
it, but Whitgift’s revision (p.34) leaves that matter an open question. In a
sense, it was no loss for Whitaker since advocates of the proposed articles could
still affirm the revised article in good conscience; their conviction about the
indefectibility of everyone experiencing saving faith was not denied by the
change. However, someone believing that the nonelect could be sovereignly
converted by God and yet sovereignly allowed to not persevere would not be
able to affirm the article as it was initially proposed. This latter group, equally
faithful to a Reformed understanding of unconditional predestination and divine
sovereignty, would only be able to affirm the revised article—and Whitgift knew
it.
A Search for Respectable Men

If Whitgift’s alterations of Article 5 was not meant to be a concession to Barrett,
Baro, or some rising group of proponents of conditional election, what could
have motivated him to make it? Who were some of the people that he was
making room for under Article 5, and what was it about their positions that
helped persuade him to leave it as an acceptable expression of Reformed
theology in England? To better answer these questions, it is helpful to take note
of some of Whitgift’s responses to the Cambridge heads in the midst of the
Barrett case.
From his earliest correspondence with the Cambridge heads on the matter,
Whitgift voiced concern that they made Barrett “affirm that which was contrary
to the Doctrine, holden and expressed by many sound and learned Divines in the
Church of England, and in other Churches likewise, Men of best Account.”43 He
Page 9 of 32
wanted them to be sensitive to disputable matters “wherein learned Men did,

and might dissent without Impiety.”44 Whitgift even expressed concern to
Chancellor Burghley that “some of the Points wherewith they had charged
[Barrett], and which they had caused him to recant . . . were such as the best
learned Protestants, then Living, varied in Judgment upon.”45 (p.35) Given
Whitgift’s care to evaluate matters with regard to learned and pious men of the
church, looking at some respected leaders on the issue of perseverance and the
Lambeth Articles may shed light on the reason for Whitgift’s revision of Article
5. So who were these respectable men that Whitgift consulted?
Lancelot Andrewes
One obvious figure to investigate as a possible influence on Whitgift to revise the
Lambeth Article on perseverance is Lancelot Andrewes. Andrewes held the
academic post of master of Pembroke College at Cambridge, and he had the
honor of being a chaplain to Queen Elizabeth. Not only did he have respectable
appointments to both the school and the royal court, he also served as a chaplain
to Whitgift himself. Furthermore, Andrewes’s reputation over the years has been
associated with anti-Calvinist and proto-Laudian sympathies. Thus, Andrewes
seems to be a good start for such an investigation.
Although Andrewes was not directly involved in the development of the Lambeth
Articles, he was asked to give his judgment of the approved version of the
articles. Concerning Article 5, Andrewes responded by saying, “Certainly, I
suppose, no one would ever say, ‘Faith finally fails in the elect,’ for truly it does
not fail. But that it does not fail, I think it has this by the nature of its subject
and not its own, from the privilege of the person and not of the thing—and this
on account of apostates, who should not be faulted for falling from that faith
which was never true and lively.”46 Beyond recognizing the fact that the final
perseverance of the elect was an uncontested proposition, Andrewes reveals
that his understanding of perseverance was not driven by semi-Pelagianism. (p.
36) His qualifying statement about apostates not really having saving faith
suggests that he would have been comfortable with the assertion in Whitaker’s
submitted articles that no person who was truly justified could fall away in the
end. One theological implication of this is that, so it appears, Andrewes
restricted the gift of regenerating grace to the elect alone. Therefore, he was not
comfortable asserting that some reprobates may be genuinely converted, and
thus would not have been a reason for the change given to Article 5.
There is another reason to see that Andrewes was not one of the respectable
men who stood behind Whitgift’s alteration of Article 5. Although he could agree
with Whitaker’s more narrow affirmation about the final indefectibitlity of saving
faith, he questioned the idea of total perseverance in faith. He continued his
response to Article 5 saying, “But whether the Holy Spirit can be temporarily
removed or extinguished, I think it can still be questioned; I admit to hesitate
Page 10 of 32
myself.”47 The primary reason for his hesitation was the presence of exhortation
and warning in Scripture. Andrewes argued:
Concerning faith—“You stand by faith; do not be high-minded, but fear . . .

otherwise you also will be cut off.” How is this not a mocker’s precept if it
is not possible to fall off?
1. “Beware lest you are also, being led away with error, fall from
your own steadfastness,” etc.
2. “See that no man fails of the grace of God; for you are fallen from
grace who are under the law,” Gal. 5:4.
3. “Do not take Your Holy Spirit from me,” Ps. 51:13.
4. “Do not quench the Spirit.”
How are these not ridiculous precepts and speeches if we are in no way
able to fall off from the steadfastness of faith or defect from grace, if there
is no way the Holy Spirit can be removed or extinguished?48
(p.37) For Andrewes, warnings against falling away implied the ability to fall
away. And if the ability to fall away was there, he was open to the idea of a
temporary apostasy in the faithful.
Interestingly enough, Andrewes tried to argue that his openness to a temporary

defection from grace was compatible with the Lambeth Articles. Having made
his query about the ability to lose faith, he closed his response to Article 5
saying, “Even so, I am not unaware of this very thing, that ‘faith cannot be
totally lost’ may be so explained as, though all is lost, it is unable to be
completely lost on the whole; that is, not such a loss that they find themselves in
a place where they fail to return.”49 Andrewes sought to give an etymological
defense for how he could entertain a temporary defection under the article’s
clear denial of total apostasy. In effect, he submitted the possibility of reading
“totally” as it relates to time and thus as synonymous with the term “finally.”
This appears to be a clever diversion in order to avoid contradicting the
Lambeth Articles; however, the debate shows that these terms were not typically
understood as synonymous and that Andrewes’s sentiments on perseverance
were not fully in accord with the Lambeth Articles.
Perhaps Whitgift had Andrewes in mind when he responded to Barrett’s initial

retractions, saying, “To say also, the Credentium Fides, or Electorum Fides,
potest desicere Totaliter, sed non finaliter . . . . Against (p.38) what Article of
Religion established in this Church was it? That it was a Matter disputable, and
wherein learned Men did, and might dissent without Impiety.”50 And why
Whitgift initially showed respect to total apostasy of the elect, only to ban it at
Cambridge through the Lambeth Articles, one cannot be entirely sure.
Page 11 of 32
While Andrewes was a highly respected chaplain for Whitgift, one can hardly say
that Whitgift altered the reading of Lambeth’s fifth proposition for his sake.
After all, Andrewes was able to affirm that only the elect could have true saving
faith, which was the very point Whitgift set out to change. And while Whitgift’s
revision still affirmed the faith of the elect as safe from being totally lost,
Andrewes wanted to entertain the possibility of the elect temporarily losing their
faith. So it appears that Whitgift actually changed the parts Andrewes was
already comfortable with, and he retained the parts that made him most
uncomfortable. Therefore, the conclusion is that Whitgift’s change of Article 5
was not made as a concession to Andrewes.
Richard Hooker
Another prominent figure who has received a reputation as a foe to Puritans and
Calvinists is Richard Hooker. From his conflict with Walter Traverse to the
publication of his multivolume Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie, Hooker has
been recognized as a prime supporter of Conformist sympathies and the bane of
English Puritanism. Since he is often viewed as a key spokesman for an Anglican
middle way, it seems appropriate to see if his reputation could have had any
influence on Whitgift’s alteration of Article 5.51
(p.39) Ten years before the conference at Lambeth, Hooker preached a

pastorally sensitive treatment of assurance and perseverance titled “A Learned
and Comfortable Sermon of the Certaintie and Perpetuitie of Faith in the Elect.”
While the sermon title modestly ascribes perseverance to the elect, the content
of the sermon makes a bolder claim. He confidently proclaims that “the fayth
wherby ye are sanctified cannot faile.”52 In asserting this, he was not talking
only about the sanctifying faith of the elect. Showing the difference between
believers and unbelievers, and having described the seed of God as the initial
grace that incorporates one into Christ, he says, “Yeat they which are borne of
god do not sinne ether in this or in any other thing any such sinne as doth quit
extinguish grace, clean cut them from Christ Jesus, because the seed of god
abideth in them and doth shield them from receyving any irremediable wound.
Their fayth when it is at the strongest is but weake, yeat even then when it is at
the weakest so strong that utterly it never faileth, it never perisheth altogether
no not in them who think it extinguished in them selves.”53 He is clear that
believers cannot become devoid of grace, and they can neither totally nor finally
lose their faith: “The faith therfore of true beleevers though it have many great
and grevous dounfals, yeat doth it still continew invincible, it conquereth and
recovereth it selfe in the end.”54
(p.40) Although Hooker was not personally involved in the Barrett controversy
or the Lambeth Conference, it is clear that he was aware of the Lambeth
Articles. In an unpublished group of essays that has become known as the
“Dublin Fragments,” Hooker affirms a set of points that are clearly reflective of
the Lambeth Articles. Aligning with Article 5 of Lambeth, Hooker asserts, “That
Page 12 of 32
to Gods foreknowne elect, finall continuance of grace is given.”55 By limiting

claims of perseverance here to the elect, Hooker appears to have the approved
version of the Lambeth Articles in mind rather than the proposed version. And it
is also interesting to note that this simple statement speaks only of final
perseverance, leaving out any claim to total perseverance. Nevertheless, a look
at Hooker’s full position explained within the “Dublin Fragments” reveals that he
maintained his earlier position of the total and final perseverance of true faith.56
To be sure, Hooker’s presentation of perseverance in the “Dublin Fragments” is

more carefully developed and qualified than the statements he made years
earlier in his sermon. Addressing the difference between the elect and those
whom God casts away, he says it is not simply the case that “the one have grace
always, the other, never: butt in this that the one have grace that abideth, the
other, eyther not grace att all, or else grace which abideth not.”57 So Hooker
clearly believed that some kind of grace could be lost, and that this phenomenon
must be taken into account when discussing apostasy. Yet due to Hooker’s own
teachings on grace in the earlier pages of the “Dublin Fragments,” one must
assess the matter of what sort of grace Hooker thinks apostates lose. Hooker
outlined “three kinds of Grace”: (1) Divine inclination of benevolence toward
man, which he explains as “the well spring of all good”; (2) “outward
instruction,” which acts as “the instrument thereof to our good”; and (3) “inward
sanctification,” which makes (p.41) effectual the other two kinds of grace and
“is the gratious and blessed guift of his Holy Spiritt.”58 Hooker’s first kind of
grace is related to the general disposition of God, and as such, he was not
speaking of losing that when he spoke of the reprobates losing grace. However,
the second and third kinds of grace take up residence in men, making them both
categories of grace that Hooker could have potentially meant people lose. If
Hooker meant to say that the third kind of grace is losable, it would have been a
change of position from his earlier sermon on perseverance. But if he only meant
that the second kind of grace was losable, then he maintained his conviction on
the indefectiblity of faith.
While Hooker’s treatment of grace and perseverance in the “Dublin Fragments”

is complex and finely nuanced, there is enough evidence to conclude that the
sort of grace that he spoke of as losable was this second kind of grace, which
was merely the external means of grace. Directly after his corrective about a
“grace which abideth not,” Hooker made a similar distinction with election that
parallels his second and third kinds of grace: “There is a visible election of
people which the world seeth, according whereunto of old the Jewes, and now all
the Nations of the world are elect. Butt besides this externall election, there are
out of the body of these elect, others invisible and eternallie chosen in Christ
before the foundations of the world were laid.”59 The framework he sets up is
that the visible/external church established by the first kind of election
facilitates the outward/instrumental means associated with the second kind of
grace. Likewise, the invisible/eternal church established by the second kind of
Page 13 of 32
election participates in the inward/effectual work of the Holy Spirit associated

with the third kind of grace. The invisible group of elect are chosen in Christ and
given to Him “with purpose of custodie and safetie for ever.”60
Hooker never attributes justification and glorification to the visible church but
reserves that for the invisible: “Men thus predestinated in his secret purpos,
have their actual vocation and adoption likewise (p.42) intended into that
fellowship or societie which is invisible, and reallie his true Catholique Church
through the grace of the Spiritt of Christ given them. Whome his will is
effectuallie to gather unto the Societie of Saincts by the Spiritt of Christ, them
he hath purposed as effectuallie to justifye through Christs righteousness, whom
to justifye, them to glorifye both here with that bewtie of holines which the Law
of Christ prescribeth, and hereafter as well in body as in soule.”61 For Hooker,
members of the invisible church can neither totally nor finally fall away: “Their
temptations God will not suffer to exceed the strength of measure of that grace
which himself hath given. That they should be finallie seduced, and clean
drawne away from God, is a thing impossible. Such as utterly depart from them,
were never of them.”62 And it is not simply the case that Hooker neglected to
attribute true saving grace to reprobates. He positively excluded it by saying
that only the eternally elect receive an effectual call, justification, and
glorification: “neyther is it possible that any other should be glorified, or can be
justified and called, or were predestinated besides them which in that manner
foreknowne, whereupon wee finde in Scripture the principall effects of Gods
perpetuallie during favour applied only unto them.”63 If reprobates cannot
receive justifying faith, they cannot rightly be said to fall away from it.
Even with all of his qualifications, Hooker’s position in the “Dublin Fragments”
substantially agrees with the position he took in his sermon on perseverance.
And it seems clear that he could have affirmed Whitaker’s proposed Article 5, for
his consistent position was that all those with true and justifying faith could not
lose it either totally or finally. Therefore, as much of a moderating figure as
Hooker is made out to be, Whitgift’s change to Article 5 must not have been on
his account.
(p.43) Matthew Hutton

Having looked at a couple of the usual suspects and come up empty, the search
for Whitgift’s respectable men must proceed to influential men of the day that
have not received as much recognition over the years. One such man was
Matthew Hutton. Hutton and Whitgift held a friendship that went back to their
younger days at Cambridge, where Whitgift followed in Hutton’s footsteps
through various levels of academic preferment. During the 1560s, Hutton held
distinct honors as Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity, master of Pembroke
Hall, and Regius Professor of Divinity, and in each of these positions he was
succeeded by Whitgift. Over the years, the two shared concerns with Puritanism
Page 14 of 32
and theological matters of the church, and the Whitgift often inquired on
Hutton’s opinions in these matters.
Whitgift certainly availed himself of the counsel of Hutton in the disputed

matters at Cambridge. In a letter dated August 19, 1595, Whitgift wrote to
Hutton requesting his opinion on Barrett’s recantation. Whitgift also asked
Hutton to give his thoughts concerning the cause of reprobation, the distinction
between one’s certainty and security of salvation, and whether “the elect can fall
totally from faith for a time, but not finaly.”64 It is difficult to know just how
much correspondence the two men had on these matters, but it is clear that
opinions were exchanged. In a letter written on the first of October, Hutton
acknowledged Whitgift’s request and, deciding not to give a detailed response to
every point, satisfied himself with expressing his general concurrence with
Whitgift’s thoughts.65
Although Hutton was not present at the Lambeth Conference, he did give a
response to the nine propositions approved there. Responding specifically to
Article 5’s statement on perseverance, Hutton wrote that it was “no less true.”66
Seeing as Hutton was responding to Whitgift’s (p.44) revision of the articles,
his response to Article 5 sheds no light on his opinion of Whitaker’s original
proposal. That is, it was clear that he affirmed the perseverance of the elect, but
it reveals nothing about his thoughts on Whitaker’s claim on the perseverance of
all true believers. However, Hutton’s response to Article 6 reveals more about
his understanding of perseverance than it does of the doctrine of assurance,
which that article actually addresses. Here is what he says on Article 6:
Augustine, The Gift of Perseverance, ch. 8: Some reprobates are called,

justified, and renewed by the laver of regeneration; and yet they go out
because they were not called according to His purpose. Therefore, it is
good to add “called according to His Purpose.”67
Two things stand out in this response that shed great light on the debated
matter of perseverance. First, Hutton is sensitive to the idea that some believers
can lose saving faith because they are reprobates. Second, he appeals to
Augustine as an authority on the matter.
Granted, as this is attached to Article 6 on assurance, Hutton’s main point is that

he thinks it wise to remember that those justified who are also elect are the ones
who can truly be assured of their salvation. Yet in spite of his aim to address a
matter of assurance, his counsel clearly rests on his reading of Augustine on
perseverance. Hutton’s reading of Augustine is that some reprobates may
genuinely participate in some of the blessings of salvation but not persevere to
the end. He sees Augustine distinguishing between those merely called and
those being called according to God’s purpose. And the implication is fairly clear.
Page 15 of 32
Hutton was reminding Whitgift of the importance of not unnecessarily excluding

Augustine from his theological determinations.
Hutton’s reading and reception of Augustine was not uncritical. That is, he was
not afraid to voice disagreement with Augustine and even (p.45) charge him
with error. For example, Whitgift had solicited Hutton’s opinion on several
questions related to the Puritan concerns that were to be addressed at the
Hampton Court Conference. In giving his advice on matters of appropriations,
church government, laymen performing baptism, the sign of the cross in
baptism, and prayers for deliverance from sudden death in the litany, Hutton
made continual appeal to Augustine for support of his opinions. Nevertheless, in
voicing his disapproval of laymen performing baptisms, Hutton took his stand
against the tradition of the church. Recognizing that the ancient fathers of the
church and the medieval schoolmen allowed for lay baptism in difficult
circumstances, he says, “This erroneous Custom and Abuse of the Holy
Sacrament did grow from another Error, urged especially by that good Father,
St. Augustine, (Quandòque bonus dor itat Homerus) that Children dying without
baptism, could not be saved.”68 While Hutton’s reference to this as a Homeric
nod signifies a good measure of respect, it does not remove the fact that he
charged Augustine with a serious error of which the Church of England would
do well to avoid. All this to say, Hutton was not uncritically bound to so great an
authority as Augustine.
Yet even with this disclaimer about Hutton’s ability to disagree with Augustine,
it does not negate the fact that he made frequent appeals to Augustine and is
most often found concurring with the Bishop of Hippo’s judgment. In fact, in
relation to the Lambeth Articles, one notices that Hutton responds to four of the
nine articles (Articles 3, 4, 6, and 7) with references to Augustine. Furthermore,
he concludes the letter stating, “These theses can either be clearly gathered or
deduced by necessary consequence from sacred Scriptures and from the
writings of Augustine.”69 Though not infallible, Augustine was certainly a prized
authority.
(p.46) Hutton’s correspondence with Whitgift brings a certain measure of

clarity to change in Article 5. He approved of the Lambeth Articles, which
indicates his adherence to the Reformed tradition. Yet Hutton’s views on
perseverance would not have been acceptable under Whitaker’s proposed
version of Article 5. Considering the fact that Whitgift had been seeking
Hutton’s consultation throughout the Barrett controversy, it seems most
probable that Hutton was one of those pious and respectable men that Whitgift
was so concerned not to marginalize. Furthermore, Hutton’s appeal to Augustine
reveals how readings and receptions of Augustine played a significant part in
these matters. Hutton was clearly influenced by Augustine, and it is also obvious
that he used Augustine as leverage in trying to influence Whitgift’s opinion.
Page 16 of 32
Whitgift valued the opinions of both Hutton and Augustine, and it is hard to
believe that they were not significant factors behind the change to Article 5.
Adrianus Saravia
Another important figure that is often overlooked is Adrianus Saravia. Before his
stay in England, Saravia developed respectable Reformed credentials in The
Netherlands. There, he was instrumental in promoting the Belgic Confession
among the Dutch nobles and defended the orthodoxy of the Heidelberg
Catechism against Dirk Volckertszoon Coornhert. After teaching some years at
Leiden University, he moved to England in the 1580s, where he quickly showed
his support of episcopal church government and royal supremacy over the
church, making him a staunch defender of the established church in England.
He rapidly gained the respect of Whitgift, who utilized him in defense against
Puritan and Separatist causes. He was also honored during the reign of King
James I, becoming one of the translators of the 1611 Authorized Version of the
Bible.70
(p.47) During the Barrett controversy, Whitgift sought counsel from Saravia. As
he had requested of Hutton, Whitgift also assigned Saravia to review the initial
set of retractions that the Cambridge heads made Barrett read. Saravia was
clearly unhappy with Barrett’s disparaging remarks against learned men of the
church. However, Saravia was also disturbed by some of the retractions that
Barrett was ordered to make. Most particularly, Saravia judged that Barrett was
wrongly ordered to retract that he “disapproved of security of salvation and
asserted that temporary faith in some differs nothing from justifying faith.”71
Thus, Saravia’s big disagreements with the retractions were related to
assurance and perseverance.
Related to assurance of salvation, Saravia was troubled with the rising use of the
term “security.” That term had associations with carelessness, which could
hardly be counted a Christian virtue. He was quick to assert: “There is a great
difference between certainty of salvation and security. Faith brings forth
certainty; presumption and arrogance bring forth security.”72
Whereas the disagreement over the use of security proved to be largely

semantic, Saravia’s concern about temporary and justifying faith was
substantially at odds with Whitaker’s understanding of perseverance. In
defending Barrett on the idea of temporary faith, Saravia was careful to qualify
himself by affirming that not all temporary faith is true. Nevertheless, he was
ready to advocate that some kinds of temporary faith were only distinguished
from true faith by duration.73 Again, Saravia said, “There is only one true faith,
which is inserted (p.48) into Christ and renewed by the Holy Spirit. But the
temporary faith of some so inserts them into Christ and makes them participate
in the Spirit of Holiness that if they persevere they will obtain eternal life.
Therefore that is true faith.”74 In essence, Saravia was supporting the idea that
Page 17 of 32
some reprobates temporarily had saving faith. Thus, when commenting on

Barrett’s second retraction that addressed Jesus’ prayer of perseverance for His
people, Saravia said, “for ‘every single believer’s faith,’ I would have put ‘every
single elect’s faith,’ because not all true believers are elect and the faith of some
true believers can fail—though not of the elect.”75
It should be noted that Saravia held this position on the possibility of losing true
faith while also affirming unconditional predestination, saying, “it has always
been beyond controversy among all the orthodox that there is no cause of
predestination and election besides God’s gracious mercy.”76 Therefore, he must
not be seen as supporting a semi-Pelagian use of temporary faith. God ordains
all that comes to pass, regulating even the faith and apostasy of a believing
reprobate. As he says, “It is believable that some of the sons of perdition not
having the gift to persevere to until the end begin to live in faith working by
love, live faithfully and justly for some time, and fall after a while—neither shall
they be taken away from this life before these things happen.”77
(p.49) In developing an argument for temporary saving faith, Saravia appealed

to an assortment of biblical passages. For instance, he pointed to Hebrews 6 to
show how some temporary faith has attributes of true saving faith. He argued
that the declaration “he who perservers to the end shall be saved” in Matt. 10:22
and Matt. 24:13, and the exhortation “you stand by faith, do not be high minded”
in Rom. 11:20, would be absurd if perseverance was certain. He even went to
Jesus’ analogy of the vine and branches in John 15 to show that some people
united to Christ could be cut off and damned in the end.78
While he held his position for biblical reasons, Saravia was proud to proclaim
that his exposition was “confirmed in the opinions of the fathers and especially
in Augustine,”79 and that Augustine taught a “temporary justifying faith.”80 He
quotes from Augustine’s On the Gift of Perseverance 8, 19 to show how “God
judges it better to mingle a certain number of some who would not persevere
with His saints.”81 Likewise, he appeals to Augustine’s work On Rebuke and
Grace 6, 9 to argue that some regenerated and justified people can lose that
same grace.82
While the Cambridge heads were, over the course of the debate, able to qualify
their understanding of “security” as spiritual and distinct from a presumptive,
arrogant, and carnal security—and, moreover, (p.50) were able to make a
concession on the use of the word and satisfied themselves with the claim of
certainty—the statement on perseverance in the fifth article proposed at
Lambeth would not have sat well with Saravia. Saravia was yet another
Reformed theologian committed to the doctrine of unconditional election and
effectual calling who nevertheless questioned the notion that everyone with true
saving faith persevered with it to the end. His rejection of the perseverance of
all saints had no link to semi-Pelagian sympathies but was grounded in an
Page 18 of 32
Augustinian view of divine sovereignty. He was not only a respectable man

among the Reformed but also a close confidant of Whitgift.
When looking at reasons for Whitgift’s change of Article 5, Saravia must not be
overlooked. Whitgift asked for Saravia’s opinion on the Cambridge debates, and
Saravia marshaled an Augustinian argument for denying the perseverance of
every true believer. Furthermore, the very change that Whitgift made to the
Lambeth Articles was to limit references of perseverance to the elect, so that the
view that some reprobates have saving faith and lose it was not denied. Once
again, one can see respectable divines in the English church and their readings
of Augustine making a significant impression on Whitgift.
John Overall
Another significant figure in the church at the end of the sixteenth century was
John Overall. Following the death of Whitaker, Overall became the Regius
Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. He became a significant figure at the
Hampton Court Conference, was favored by King James, and served as a
translator of the Authorized Version of the Bible. Overall is a very interesting
character in that he was at Cambridge during the Barrett and Baro debates, was
well aware of the Lambeth Articles, proved himself opposed to the Cambridge
heads, and became an influential man in the Church of England.
In spite of his proximity to the situation, it is most unlikely that Whitgift had
Overall in mind when he made the change to Article 5. On December 8, 1595,
Whitgift wrote a letter to Thomas Nevile, who was master of Trinity. He
mentioned his grief over Whitaker’s death, and (p.51) briefly addressed
Nevile’s nomination of Overall as Whitaker’s successor. Whitgift wrote: “I have
received your letters touching Mr Overall, and I very much rely upon your
judgment in that case. Nevertheless I am informed by some others that Mr
Overall is something factious and inclined to that sect, that loveth to pick
quarrels to the present state and government of the church; which I hope not to
be true because of your commendation.”83 Whitgift’s response suggests that he
was not personally familiar with Overall and expresses concerns about him
being a troublemaker. Therefore, it would be too much to claim that Whitgift
changed Article 5 in order to protect Overall.
While Overall may not have had a direct bearing on Whitgift’s decision to alter
the Lambeth Articles, a review of Overall’s opinion on perseverance is
nonetheless instructive. At the time of the Synod of Dort, Overall shared his
opinions on the debated five points of debate raised by the Arminian controversy.
Reflecting on the doctrine of perseverance, Overall catalogs three basic
perspectives on perseverance. The first is the semi-Pelagian view that
perseverance and apostasy are both possible, being up to the will of man and
dependent upon what one may do with faith and grace. The second represents
the view taken by Whitaker at Lambeth and the Synod of Dort, which is the
Page 19 of 32
certain perseverance of all who truly believe. But the opinion that Overall favors
is his final category: “The third, with St. Augustine, makes Believers, through
the infirmities of the flesh, and temptations, to be able to depart from Faith and
Grace, or Likewise to fall away; but it adds, those Believers who are call’d
according to purpose, and who are firmly rooted in a lively Faith, cannot either
totally or finally fall away, or perish, but by special and effectuall grace, so to
persevere in a true and lively Faith, that at length they may bee brought to
eternal life.”84 Overall saw an (p.52) option for perseverance that avoided
semi-Pelagianism, affirmed the Reformed conviction of unconditional election
and effectual grace, and aligned itself with what he saw as the tradition of
Augustine and the ancient church. This reading and reception was extremely
important to Overall and other English divines as they sought to frame the
character of the English church.
Overall did not just have a preference for his third category but was decidedly
against the Reformed churches taking a stand on perseverance that contradicted
the Augustinian tradition. In a piece where he expounds what he sees as the
position of the Church of England on predestination, he gives these rather
confident remarks concerning perseverance: “Without doubt that Opinion, so
much debated; of the certain Perseverance of All those, who did once believe
and were regenerated, was never approved of by any of the Fathers of the
Primitive Church; but was rejected by all Antiquity; and has been too much
confuted by the constant Experience of all Times. It had its Birth in this last Age,
and was then brought into the Church from a Quarrel that Zuinglius and his
Associates had with Luther.”85 Overall considered indefectibility of true faith as
a novel doctrine within the Reformed churches, which he obviously would have
liked to see uprooted. Over the course of time, Overall made his opinion on
perseverance well known. And that he was not content with Whitaker’s position
continuing in the Church of England is reflected in his post-Lambeth debates
with Roger Goad, Laurence Chaderton, and Robert Some, as well as his
involvement at the Hampton Court Conference.86
While Whitgift did not particularly have Overall in mind when he changed Article
5, it is safe to say that Overall promoted the very same (p.53) position that
Whitgift intended to leave open. Thus, it gives evidence that this position was
not secluded to just one or two of Whitgift’s confidants. Rather, it appears that it
had a wider reception among English divines and that Whitgift was discerning
enough to take this into consideration. Furthermore, it is observable that this
position was supported with a particular reading of Augustine and a concern to
have him and the early church on one’s side.
The Cambridge Dons and Augustine

While the authority of Augustine was a major factor in the position taken by men
like Hutton and Saravia, and subsequently instrumental in the alteration of
Lambeth’s fifth article, readings and receptions of Augustine were also
Page 20 of 32
important for the heads of Cambridge who were arguing for the perseverance of
all with true faith. That is, even within the debates that set the context for
Lambeth, there was not a singular reading of Augustine regarding the sovereign
gift of perseverance. Although there were those that believed Augustine taught
that reprobates could have saving faith, and thus some with saving faith could
fall from grace, others took a different reading and claimed Augustine in support
of the perseverance of all possessing saving faith.
The year after the Lambeth Conference, Robert Some was still engaging in
debates and published a defense of three propositions, the first being that those
having justifying faith cannot lose it.87 While it is not surprising that Some
continued to argue for the perseverance of all true believers, it is interesting
that he thought he had Augustine on his side. Some gave eleven reasons why the
truly regenerate could not lose justifying faith. Each of his reasons was
developed from biblical texts, yet he also interacted with Augustine at a couple
of points for added confirmation. For instance, in defense of Peter’s denial of
Christ as something other than a loss of faith, he appealed to Augustine in (p.
54) Of Rebuke and Grace to support his contention that “Peters faith was soone
shaken, but it was not ouerthrown.”88 And concerning David’s fall into sin, Some
wrote: “S. Augustine, whose iudgement I willingly embrace, writing vpon psal.
51. saith, that Dauid the prophet by sinne did wrest and turne aside the right
spirit within him. The reuerend father doth not say that the right spirit was
vtterly lost in Dauid.”89
Whitaker was also of the mind that Augustine supported their cause. In his final
public discourse at Cambridge, Whitaker addressed the debated topics of
reprobation, perseverance, and assurance.90Aware of the danger of appeals to
authority other than Scripture, he firmly declares: “The authority of no man
whatever ought to be of so much weight with us, that we should believe this or
that to be true, because he thinks it is so. It is madness for you to believe so or
so, because another believes so, without better reasons for such belief. It is not
sufficient to warrant our faith, that we have been instructed, informed, or
commanded to believe so and so.”91 Yet with this warning against misplaced
authority, Whitaker was not suggesting that the doctrines of the church and
teaching of respectable theologians are not important. Instead of disposing of
nonbiblical authorities, he examines them in light of Scripture and uses them in
so far as they agree with it. And thus, throughout the sermon, Whitaker makes
constant reference to schoolmen, early church fathers, and most of all
Augustine.
In defending his position that saving grace cannot be lost, Whitaker argues that
those who fall from their Christian profession never really had saving grace. His
goal is to close the gap between the gifts of regeneration and perseverance, and
whereas men like Hutton and Saravia appealed to Augustine to say that some
reprobates temporarily participated in saving grace, Whitaker asserts
Page 21 of 32
Augustinian authority to the (p.55) contrary: “But our adversaries urge the
testimonies of the fathers; and we too can produce them on our side. For a
specimen: Augustine says, ‘God makes those to persevere in doing good whom
he has made good. The love which can be forsaken, was never true.”92 Arguing
from John 6:56 that abiding in Christ means perseverance to the end, Whitaker
appeals to Augustine for help. “Thus there is a mutual and perpetual communion
between Christ and his people, as between the head and the members. From this
head no member perished, which the Spirit hath once firmly united to it.
Augustine says ‘The reprobate does not believe in him whom he hath not eaten,
and so hath not the faith of Christians, by which alone sins are forgiven.’ Christ
is eaten by faith; reprobates have it not: therefore they neither eat Christ, nor
are their sins forgiven them.”93 He also quotes Augustine as saying “none of
those who are drawn by the Father, perishes: That none are called with a calling
according to his purpose, but the predestinated.”94 Whitaker stood confident in
his position that “this grace comes to none but those predestined and elected:
for it is the effect of predestination, as all allow, and as Augustine most clearly
proved in opposition to the Pelagians; and therefore belongs to none but the
predestinated children of God.”95
Although Whitaker acknowledged that his opponents appealed to Augustine, he

did not directly respond to their particular reading of Augustine. That is to say,
he did not refute their claims on particular passages in Augustine or give a
counterargument to prove how they misunderstood. Nevertheless, Whitaker did
read Augustine as making a distinction between true and false faith, and that
may be a clue to how he rationalized his opponent’s claims. Whitaker remarked,
(p.56) “Wherefore Augustine says ‘Others think, but the godly believe.’ Again,
‘He believes in Christ, who hopes in Christ, and loves him. He who has faith
without hope and love, believes only that there is a Christ.’ But true faith
believes in Christ, and not simply that there is one.”96 Whitaker, therefore,
seems to have understood Augustine’s use of “faith working by love” as true
saving faith. Perhaps Whitaker read Augustine’s controversial passages that
depict some reprobates with faith as descriptions of a faith without love, and
thus as something substantially different from saving faith. Regardless of how he
understood opposing treatments of Augustine, Whitaker’s personal position is
clear: “True faith therefore is not found in a reprobate, or one not
predestinated.”97 And in this, he was confident that Augustine was on his side.98
Conclusion
As has been shown, the Lambeth Articles are not just significant for what they
say about predestination and how the Elizabethan Church dealt with it. Although
predestination played a big part, the doctrine of perseverance stood at the heart
of the controversy that gave rise to the articles. It was also demonstrated that
the change Whitgift made to the article on perseverance is theologically
significant.
Page 22 of 32
In analyzing the significance of this change to Article 5, several things stand out
as a challenge to the conventional Calvinist versus anti-Calvinist framework for
understanding the Lambeth Articles. While (p.57) “Calvinists” was a term
associated with the debate, it was polemically used and proved to be unhelpful
for anything other than stirring up a fight. As far as modern scholarship goes,
the term does not seem to be any more helpful for analyzing the data. Perhaps
the more general term “Reformed” is better suited for the task.
Barrett and Baro were obviously pushing things beyond the acceptable limits of
the Reformed tradition. However, men like Hutton, Saravia, and Overall were
able to hold to the doctrine of genuine apostasy of some true believers within a
Reformed framework of unconditional election and effectual calling.
Furthermore, the change to Article 5 was not so much a softening of Reformed
theology as it was a concern to not lop off existing Augustinian options within
the Reformed church. What should be understood is that there was broadness to
the Reformed consensus. Although perseverance of the saints was the
predominant view among Reformed churches, a minority opinion existed that
satisfied itself with the perseverance of the elect. Prominent Reformed
theologians had rejected the perseverance of the saints before. Wolfgang
Musculus, for instance, could not embrace it.99 So Whitgift’s change to Article 5
suggests that this minority opinion found haven within the Church of England.
Given that the Synod of Dort had not yet occurred—definitively endorsing the
certain perseverance of all true believers as the accepted view among the
international Reformed community—there was no reason for the Church of
England to think that an alternative view on perseverance should be eliminated.
Key to this whole debate on perseverance is that there were different readings
of Augustine, even among the Reformed. More significant than identifying
diversity within the Reformed tradition, these divergent readings of Augustine
on perseverance affected policy making within the Church of England. Due to
the readings and receptions of Augustine (p.58) among respectable leaders in
the Church of England, Whitgift modified Article 5 in such a way that allowed for
differing positions on perseverance to go unchallenged at Cambridge. And
though the authority of the Lambeth Articles at Cambridge was short-lived, an
examination of its composition and theology opens a valuable window into the
identity of the Church of England at that time.
Notes:
(1.) For examples of those denying a Calvinist consensus, see H. C. Porter,
Reformation and Reaction in Tudor Cambridge (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1958); Peter White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic: Conflict
and Consensus in the English Church from the Reformation to the Civil War
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Peter White, “The Rise of
Arminianism Reconsidered,” Past and Present 101 (November 1983): 34–54;
Peter White, “The Rise of Arminianism Reconsidered: A Rejoinder,” Past and
Page 23 of 32
Present 115 (May 1987): 217–229. For examples of those arguing for a Calvinist
consensus, see Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of Arminianism c.
1590–1640 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987); Nicholas Tyacke, “The Rise
of Arminianism Reconsidered,” Past and Present 115 (May 1987): 201–216; Peter
Lake, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1982); Peter Lake, “Calvinism and the English Church 1570–
1635,” Past and Present 114 (February 1987): 32–76.
(2.) W. D. Sargeaunt, “The Lambeth Articles, II,” Journal of Theological Studies

12, no. 3 (April 1911): 436; H. C. Porter, “The Anglicanism of Archbishop
Whitgift,” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 31, no. 2 (June
1962): 129, 140; White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic, 101.
(3.) Betsy Halpern Amaru, “Arminianism in England 1595–1629” (PhD diss.,

University of Massachusetts, 1969), 106–107; Lake, Moderate Puritans, 226;
Lake, “Calvinism and the English Church 1570–1635,” 46; Tyacke, Anti-
Calvinists, 30; Victoria C. Miller, The Lambeth Articles (Oxford: Latimer House,
1994), 90–91. J. V. Fesko goes so far as to say that they “reflect
Supralapsarianism,” in Diversity within the Reformed Tradition: Supra- and
Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort, and Westminster (Jackson, MS: Reformed
Academic Press, 2001), 243–245. Similarly, John William Perkins considers them
“definitive high predestinarianism,” in “The 1595 Lambeth Articles and the So-
called ‘Calvinist Consensus’ (2),” British Reformed Journal 46 (Winter 2007): 19.
(4.) On problems created in historical studies by the term “Calvinism,” see

Richard A. Muller’s essay “Was Calvin a Calvinist?” in Calvin and the Reformed
Tradition: On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2012), 51–69.
(5.) John Strype, The Life and Acts of the Most Reverend Father in God, John
Whitgift (London, 1718), bk. 4, ch. 14, p. 434. Note: due to irregular pagination,
book and chapter references are also given for this book.
(6.) Whitaker to Whitgift, June 13, 1595, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 14, p.
434.
(7.) Whitaker to Whitgift, June 13, 1595, in Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 14, p.
434.
(8.) Strype, John Whitgift, bk. 4, ch. 14, pp. 435–436.
(9.) “Mr. Barrets Retractions of some Points,” in Strype, John Whitgift, app. 22,
p. 185. “per fidem in illo gratiâ stare . . . certos esse & securos.” Thomas Fuller’s
English translation of Barrett’s retractions obscures a further debate in England
concerning the difference between “certainty” and “security” by translating
securus here as “assured,” and even as “certainty” in a subsequent paragraph.
Page 24 of 32
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Eindrahter wurden geschmackvoll als »Topfstricker-Kolonne«
bezeichnet.
Jeder, welcher den Herd, mochte es dienstlich oder anders
begründet sein, betrat, selbst die Herren Ministerialdirektoren waren
nicht ausgeschlossen, mußte mit seiner Fußbekleidung in ein
Becken mit Petroleum treten – dies wiederholte sich auch beim
Verlassen des Herdes. Auf diese Weise sollte die Verschleppung der
Reblaus gehindert werden – auch ein sorgfältiges Abbürsten der
Oberkleider mußte man darum über sich ergehen lassen. Aus
gleichem Grunde wurde auf den Herden sogar eine Nachtwache
bezogen, die leider von der Bevölkerung in der ersten Erbitterung
tätlich angegriffen wurde. Auch wir Hilfssachverständigen wurden
auf dem Heimwege von unserer anstrengenden Tätigkeit (acht
Stunden stehen auf geneigtem Gelände!) des öfteren mit
Steinwürfen bedacht.
Aufnahme von Joh. Hartmann
Abb. 6 Verbrennen der Reben und Rebpfähle
Welch ungeheuere Verseuchung einzelne Berge aufwiesen mag

das Beispiel des von mir untersuchten Weinberges des
Kammerherrn Exzellenz von Minckwitz zeigen. Dieser Berg zählte
allein über dreitausend infizierte Stöcke. Hierbei fanden sich nicht
bloß die Nodositäten an den jungen Wurzeln; auch das alte
Wurzelholz zeigte knotige Anschwellungen, sogenannte
Tuberositäten (Abb. 2g), welche oft honiggelb überzogen waren, da
Laus an Laus, Eigelege an Eigelege saß.
Auf die »Topfstricker« folgte die Schätzungskommission. Diese
hatte die durch gekalkte Rebpfähle kenntlich gemachten
verseuchten Stöcke, und gesondert, die in den Herd einbezogenen
gesunden Reben auszuzählen, sowie den Wert der daran
befindlichen Trauben abzuschätzen. Die durch die Vernichtung
entgangene Traubenernte und die in dem Herde befindlichen
»gesunden« Rebstöcke wurden vom Staate den jeweiligen Besitzern
oder Pächtern nach besonderen »Bonitätsklassen« vergütet.
Nunmehr trat die Vernichtungskolonne in Tätigkeit.
Wagen fuhren die zur Bodendesinfektion und zum Verbrennen der
Rebpflanzen und Rebpfähle nötigen Petroleummengen in Fässern
heran, später auch die Schwefelkohlenstoff-Behälter, und es
entstand ein oft recht bedeutendes Stofflager in der Nähe des
betroffenen Weinbergsgeländes.
Es wurden alsdann im Herde die Rebpfähle gezogen, die
Rebstöcke und etwa vorhandenen Bäume herausgehackt, die
Zwischenkulturen, meist Erdbeeren, aber auch Gemüse
herausgerissen. Alles wurde zu einem Scheiterhaufen geschichtet,
der, mit Petroleum besprengt, schließlich entzündet wurde, so daß
allenthalben von den Bergen die Rauchsäulen emporstiegen, als
Zeichen, daß dort eine hundertjährige Weinkultur mit all ihrem
Mühen und Hoffen zu Grabe geleitet wurde (Abb. 6).
Aufnahme von Joh. Hartmann
Abb. 7 Bodendesinfektion mit Schwefelkohlenstoff
Dieses Autodafé hat den Herzen der Bewohner und dem Reiz des
Landschaftscharakters tiefe Wunden geschlagen.
Der nunmehr von allen Pflanzen geräumte Herd wurde alsdann
teils durch Überbrausen, teils durch Eingießen von Petroleum in
etwa fünfzig Zentimeter tiefe Löcher desinfiziert. Der später
verwendete Schwefelkohlenstoff wurde mit besonderem Apparat
dem Boden eingespritzt (Abb. 7).
Abb. 8 Verödete Weinberge in Oberlößnitz
Das Petroleum durchdrang leider den Boden nicht gleichmäßig, so

daß man eine leicht vergasende Flüssigkeit, welche alle Erdporen
gleichmäßig durchdrang, erstrebte. Diese schien im
Schwefelkohlenstoff gegeben. Derselbe wirkte aber im Übermaß als
Wurzelgift; so daß seine Verwendung außerordentlich vorsichtig
gehandhabt werden mußte. Ein sicherer Fortschritt in der
Reblausbekämpfung lag in dem Bestreben, die
Schwefelkohlenstoffgaben so zu bemessen, daß die ungeheuere
Vermehrung der Reblaus geschwächt wurde, ohne dabei das
Gedeihen des Stockes zu schädigen. Dieses sogenannte
»Kulturalverfahren« hat bei einzelnen Bodenklassen, z. B. in dem
Muschelkalkgelände des Unstrutgebietes guten Erfolg gezeigt. Bei
uns in Sachsen wurde ihm von Anfang an mit Mißtrauen begegnet,
um so mehr, als dadurch die vom Staate gewährte Entschädigung
für befallene Stöcke in Wegfall kam. Ich bin der Überzeugung, daß
bei geeigneten Versuchen für sächsische Verhältnisse ein
brauchbares Kulturalverfahren hätte ausgearbeitet werden können.
Die von mir auf Brabschützer Flur, gegenüber der Lößnitz, mit
Erlaubnis des Ministeriums ausgeführten Versuche mit
Schwefelkohlenstoffemulsionen hatten sehr guten Erfolg. Leider
stockten diese Versuche, da im Jahre 1907 von der Reichsregierung
das sächsische Weinbaugebiet als unheilbar verseucht erklärt
wurde, sodaß die sächsische Regierung die kostspieligen
Untersuchungs- und Bekämpfungsarbeiten zum größten Teil
einstellte.
Abb. 9 Erdbeerkulturen auf früheren Reblausherden
Trotz sorgfältigster Untersuchung und gründlicher Bekämpfung

hatte alljährlich die Reblauskalamität wie ein glimmendes Feuer
weiter um sich gefressen, so daß nach einem Jahrzehnt die grünen
Rebenhänge verschwanden. Öde, mit Unkraut bestandene
Geländewunden starrten uns entgegen (Abb. 8), denn erst nach
einer vier- bis fünfjährigen Quarantänezeit durften die geräumten
Herde wieder bepflanzt werden.
Reben wurden aber auch dann nicht wieder angepflanzt, denn die
geschädigten Besitzer hatten Lust und Mut verloren; die alten
Winzer mit ihren weinbaulichen Erfahrungen starben ab, – und der
Weinbau der Lößnitz schien auf immer begraben zu sein. Erdbeer-
und Obstkulturen (Abb. 9), oft auch Gemüseflächen erhoben sich
zwar an Stelle des grünen Rebenkleides, konnten aber das
ursprüngliche, an die schönsten Gegenden des Rheines erinnernde
Landschaftsbild mit seinem Rebenzauber nicht wieder schaffen.
Immer blieben unschöne Ödstellen, die das früher so liebliche
Gelände schändeten.
Erst eine neue Bekämpfungsart unter Verwendung amerikanischer
Reben als Wurzelunterlage sollte der landschaftlichen Schönheit der
Lößnitz wieder aufhelfen.
Überall sieht man schon auf amerikanischer Unterlage veredelte,
üppig gedeihende Neuanlagen, so daß wir hoffen dürfen, allmählich
die frühere Anmut der Lößnitz wieder erstehen zu sehen. Von
tüchtigen Weinbausachverständigen beraten, beginnt auch die
Kellerwirtschaft sich zu heben, so daß bei guten Jahren uns ein
trinkbarer Tropfen winkt, ein Tropfen, viel viel besser als sein Ruf.
Möchten dann die Sklavenketten, mit denen das Ausland uns
fesselt, gefallen sein, so daß wir bei funkelndem heimischen
Rebensaft frohen Herzens jubeln können:
Heil dem freien Deutschland, heil unserem Sachsenland!
Fußnoten:
[2] Z. B. Weinstuben von Julius Papperitz, Dresden,
Scheffelstraße.
[3] Frankreich: Champagne. Spanien: Barcelona. Schweiz: Zürich
und Genf. Italien: Lago Maggiore, Calabrien. Österreich:
Steiermark, Niederösterreich, Dalmatien. Ungarn: Tokaier Lagen.
Kroatien 13,5%. Rußland: Kaukasus bei Batum. Rumänien: 31%.
Serbien. Bulgarien. Türkei. Außerdem Süd-Amerika: Brasilien,
Uruguay. Afrika: Kap. Australien.
[4] In den südlichen Ländern wird außer der Wurzelreblaus eine
oberirdische Form: die Blattreblaus in kugeligen Blatt- und
Rankengallen gefunden.
Die Rotalge Hildenbrandia rivularis
(Liebm.) Bréb., ein ausgestorbenes (?)
Naturdenkmal Sachsens
In dem 1922 erschienenen Heft 2 Band IX die Beiträge zur
Naturdenkmalpflege (herausgegeben von der Staatlichen Stelle für
Naturdenkmalpflege in Preußen) berichtet A. v. Lingelsheim über
diese bemerkenswerte Rotalge des Süßwassers, die in Deutschland
nur an wenigen Stellen, so in einigen Bächen des Riesengebirges,
im oberen Rhein, in der Werra und Fulda, im Dieksee in Holstein und
nach einem Bericht von R. Wollny aus dem Jahre 1886 in einem
felsigen Waldbach bei Niederlößnitz in Sachsen vorkommt. Die Alge
ist ein Naturdenkmal von hervorragender Bedeutung; abgesehen
von ihrem örtlich sehr beschränkten Vorkommen, ist sie »die einzig
wirklich rote Süßwasserfloridee«; bei den übrigen herrscht Blaugrün
oder Violettgrün vor. Infolgedessen zeigt das Bett der Gebirgsbäche,
wo die Alge reichlich vorkommt, prachtvoll bräunlich »blutrote«
Überzüge der Gerölle oder der anstehenden Felsen. Ferner aber
gleicht sie in Wuchsform, Mikrostruktur und anderen Punkten ihrer
nächsten Verwandten, Hildenbrandia rosea Kütz aus dem
Atlantischen Ozean, welche in ganz ähnlicher Weise rote, krustige
Beläge auf Steinen oder Muscheln bildet. An Hildenbrandia sehen
wir somit sehr deutlich, daß bei ihr der Übergang in ein ganz anders
geartetes Medium jedenfalls habituell nicht die geringsten
umgestaltenden Einflüsse bewirkt hat. Der Geruch der absterbenden
Alge gleicht völlig jenem eigenartig dumpfveilchenartigen
»Seetanggeruch«, wie er den Bewohnern der Meeresküsten bekannt
ist. Unsere Alge selbst ist ferner in den Subtropen (Nordafrika) und
Tropen (Niederländisch Indien, Jamaica, Kongogebiet) vertreten.
Wir haben also in Hildenbrandia rivularis eine Pflanze vor uns,
deren ganz nahe Verwandtschaft zu Meerespflanzen erwiesen ist,
ohne daß es bisher gelungen wäre, diesen Zusammenhang
aufzuklären. Aus der Beschaffenheit der verschiedenen Standorte
hat v. Lingelsheim festgestellt, daß die Rotalge ihrem gewissen
Wärmebedürfnis nach dem atlantischen Florenbezirk angehört. Sie
stellt weniger Ansprüche an die chemische und optische Reinheit
ihres Wohngewässers, vielmehr scheinen »physische Faktoren, wie
festes Substrat zur dauernden Fixierung, eine gewisse Stärke der
Wasserbewegung, sowie eine genügende Durchlüftung des
Wassers« für ihr Leben ausschlaggebend zu sein. Weiter wurde
festgestellt, daß die Alge den Schatten liebt und sich an belichteten
Stellen auf die Unterseite des Gesteins usw. zurückzieht oder wohl
gar abstirbt. Mit Vorliebe bewohnt sie tiefe Gewässer, so kommt sie
im Gardasee noch in neunzig Meter Tiefe vor. Sie siedelt sich auf
Gestein verschiedener Art an, meidet jedoch kalkhaltigen Boden.
Ihre Vermehrung ist noch nicht aufgeklärt, v. Lingelsheim hält es
jedoch für wahrscheinlich, daß sich losgelöste Thallusfäden
anderwärts festsetzen und so der Verbreitung dienen.
Vor einiger Zeit durchsuchte ich das in Frage kommende
sächsische Gebiet nach Hildenbrandia rivularis. Meine Bemühung
war erfolglos und so glaube ich zunächst annehmen zu müssen, daß
dieses Naturdenkmal bei uns ausgestorben ist. Ich vermute wohl mit
Recht, daß unter dem felsigen Waldbach der »Lößnitzbach« zu
verstehen ist. Da seine Quelle im Dippelsdorfer Teiche liegt, kommt
das Wasser genügend durchwärmt in die kurze enge Talschlucht, so
daß das Wasser den gestellten Ansprüchen genügen würde. Die
einst dicht bewaldete, unwegsame Schlucht wird auch den von der
Alge bevorzugten Schatten gespendet haben. Die Pflanzenseltenheit
wurde im Jahre 1886 festgestellt. Welche Veränderung ist aber seit
dieser Zeit im Lößnitzgrunde vorgegangen! Die Erbauung der
Eisenbahn und der Promenadenwege brachte eine Lichtung des
Tales mit sich. In den letzten Jahren zumal sind die einst bewaldeten
Talhänge beim Kurhaus Friedewald völlig kahlgelegt worden. Auch
die vielfache Bebauung des Tales mag das Aussterben beschleunigt
haben. Beim Kurhaus und bei der Meierei Lößnitzgrund sind
Gondelteiche angelegt worden, die der Lößnitzbach durchfließen
muß. Selbst wenn sich die Alge im Oberlauf des Baches noch einige
Zeit gehalten hätte, würde eine Neubesiedelung des Unterlaufs
dadurch unmöglich geworden sein, da die in die Teiche gelangten
Thallusfäden unter der Einwirkung des Lichtes und der mangelnden
Durchlüftung des Wassers sicher zugrunde gegangen sind.
Hildenbrandia rivularis ist also wahrscheinlich ein Opfer der in den
letzten Jahrzehnten in den Lößnitzgrund getragenen »Kultur«
geworden. Oder sollte die Rotalge doch noch in einem meiner
Nachforschung entgangenen unscheinbaren Bächlein des Gebiets
ein verstecktes Dasein fristen? Wer hilft suchen? Algen sind
botanische Naturdenkmäler, deren Standortgeheimnisse der
Öffentlichkeit wohl unbedenklich preisgegeben werden können; sie
fallen Pflanzensammlern kaum zum Opfer, was man von anderen
Gewächsen leider nicht immer behaupten kann.
v. Lingelsheim vermutet, daß die Rotalge wahrscheinlich auch an
anderen Orten noch hin und wieder vorkommt und ein unbemerktes
und unbekanntes Dasein fristet. Vielleicht hat auch Sachsen noch
einen Standort, nachdem der Lößnitzgrund anscheinend dafür nicht
mehr in Frage kommt.
Klengel.
Vom neuen Weinbau
Von Carl Pfeiffer, Hoflößnitz
In den Jahren 1886 bis 1889, teilweise etwa 1892, hat der alte
sächsische Weinbau aufgehört irgendeine wirtschaftliche Bedeutung
zu haben. Mit dem Reblauskampfe waren wohl auch manche
Weinberge aus Mangel an Pflege eingegangen. Fehlende Technik,
Führung und erlahmtes Interesse haben nur noch kleine Reste alter
Weingärten kleineren Besitzes im Lande zerstreut erhalten lassen.
Einige verbleibende Kernpunkte der Orte Kossebaude, Mobschatz,
Merbitz, Leuteritz im bäuerlichen Besitz, das alte von Haagensche
Stadtgut zu Meißen, die Rote Presse von Langelätze Sörnewitz mit
kleinen Resten bäuerlichen Weinbesitzes, der Krassoberg der Stadt
Meißen, kleinere Weinflächen der Bauern von Rottewitz, Zadel,
Diesbar, Seußlitz und der Schloßweinberg von Seußlitz, wohl noch
zwanzig Morgen groß, der Johannisberg des Herrn Nacke am
Kroatengrund, Naundorf, der Eckberg des Herrn Böhme,
Niederlößnitz, mit wenigen kleinen Nebenliegern haben den
Grundstock erhalten, aus dem der neue Weinbau emporgediehen
ist.
Die ersten Versuche, den alten Weinbau wieder neu aufleben zu
lassen, wurden von den Amtshauptmannschaften Dresden-N. und
Großenhain veranlaßt. Amtshauptmann Dr. v. Hübel, der bekannte
Förderer des Heimatschutzes, berief die Winzer der Lößnitzorte zu
gemeinsamer Arbeit zusammen, der verstorbene Großenhainer
Amtshauptmann Dr. Uhlemann tat das gleiche für die Seußlitzer
Pflege. Beide Arbeiten begannen im Jahre 1907, und zwar im
ersteren Falle durch Anregung der alten Winzer und in Großenhain
durch die Anpflanzung der ersten, auf amerikanischen Reben
gepfropfter Setzlinge, deren Widerstandsfähigkeit gegen die Reblaus
im preußischen Weinbau an der Pfropfanstalt zu Naumburg an der
Saale bereits erprobt gewesen ist. Den ersten dieser rekonstruierten
Weinberge legte Baumeister Reinhold Bahrmann zu Seußlitz,
Amtshauptmannschaft Großenhain, an.
Das erfolgreiche Gedeihen dieser Pfropfreben in Seußlitz
veranlaßte den damaligen Vorsitzenden des Landesobstbauvereins
(heute Landesverband Sachsen für Obst- und Weinbau,
Vorsitzender Forstmeister Timaeus) Geheimen Regierungsrat Dr.
Uhlemann, Großenhain, die dem Landesverein angeschlossenen
Bezirksobstbauvereine der Lößnitz und Meißen ebenfalls gepfropfte
Reben versuchsweise anzupflanzen. Diese Anregung war nun in der
Lößnitz, wo Geheimer Regierungsrat Amtshauptmann Dr. von Hübel
bereits großes Interesse geweckt hatte, auf fruchtbaren Boden
gefallen. Der Böhmesche Eckberg (heute Dr. Tiedemann) erhielt
eine größere Pflanzung dieser Pfropfreben, die Geheimrat Dr.
Uhlemann aus der preußischen Pfropfanstalt Naumburg bezogen
hatte. Viele Mitglieder des Bezirksobstbauvereins der Lößnitz
erhielten gleichfalls einige solcher Reben.
Dieser erste Versuch, unter Gewährung kleiner Staatsmittel,
wurde nun ständige Einrichtung. In jedem Frühjahr wurden vom
Landesobstbauverein eine Anzahl Pfropfreben aus Naumburg
bezogen und an Mitglieder der Bezirksobstbauvereine der Lößnitz
und Großenhain kostenlos abgegeben, während sich Meißen noch
zurückhielt.
Man hatte mit diesen ersten Rebenbezügen zunächst nur die
Anregung und den Kleinversuch im Auge, bis dann 1912 von Dr.
Goldschmidt, Niederlößnitz, zirka fünftausend, von Kaufmann
Günther, Oberlößnitz, dreitausend Reben in einer Fläche als
Weinberg angelegt worden sind.
Abb. 1 Weinberge der Hoflößnitz
Der Bezirksobstbauverein der Lößnitz hatte 1911, um dem
steigenden Rebenbedarf zu folgen, in Erwägung gezogen, eine
Rebenveredlungsanstalt einzurichten, war aber bei der Regierung
mit seiner Vorstellung um Gewährung von Beihilfen abschlägig
beschieden worden. Diese Anregung des damaligen Vorsitzenden
Ahrends, Niederlößnitz, hatte der Bezirksobstbauverein zu Meißen,
unter dem Vorsitz des Amtshauptmanns von Oer, aufgegriffen und
sich für Schaffung einer Rebschule staatliche Mittel verschafft, so
daß dort 1914 die ersten veredelten Reben verfügbar, aber, da nicht
genügend vorgearbeitet worden war, keinen leichten Absatz fanden.
In der Lößnitz war inzwischen 1913 auf Anregung von Geheimrat Dr.
Uhlemann eine Vereinigung zur Förderung des Weinbaues der
Lößnitz und Umgebung mit etwa dreizehn Mitgliedern und dem
Weinbergbesitzer Max Böhme als Vorsitzendem gegründet worden,
die es sich zur Aufgabe machen wollte, den Weinbau zu fördern.
Diese Vereinigung arbeitete sehr rege durch Aufklärung,
Neuanpflanzung von Weinbergen, Errichtung einer
Rebenveredlungsstation, zu deren Einrichtung auf Anregung des
Amtshauptmanns von Dresden-Neustadt, Geheimrat Dr. von Hübel,
das Ministerium dreitausend Mark Beihilfe bewilligte. Der
Landesobstbauverein trug zu den Kosten der Rebschule jährlich
etwa eintausendzweihundert Mark, eine gleiche Summe bewilligte er
der Meißner Schule. Die Leitung der Rebschule lag in Händen des
Rebschulausschusses unter Vorsitz von Oberingenieur Brückner,
Radebeul. Einen nicht unbedeutenden Anteil an der Einrichtung
hatte die 1912 gegründete Hoflößnitzgesellschaft, durch Gestellung
ihres Gärtners für Durchführung der Veredlungen, kostenlose
Benutzung des Hoflößnitzgeländes von zunächst viertausend
Quadratmeter und Errichtung der Unterstützungsgestelle für Anzucht
der amerikanischen Reben.
Die nun bis dahin geleistete Kleinarbeit hatte besonders bei den
alten Lößnitzern, die nun ihren Weinbau wieder haben sollten, sehr
befruchtend angeschlagen und auch links der Elbe, in Kossebaude
war Vater Tielemann der erste Neuwinzer, nicht minder die
Kleinwinzer von Diesbar, Seußlitz. Meißen hielt sich noch zurück.
Erst als der Landesobstbauverein den Mangel geeigneter Führung
feststellte und 1912 den Weinbaulehrer, der bis dahin zwölf Jahre in
dem Hauptweinbaugebiet am Rhein und an der staatlichen
Weinbauanstalt zu Oppenheim am Rhein war, nach Sachsen berief,
wehte frisches Leben durch den neuen Weinbau.
Der Stadtrat von Meißen begann nach einem vor dem gesamten
Kollegium durch den Weinbaulehrer gehaltenen Vortrage mit der
Rekonstruktion seiner Weinberge. Es wurde sachgemäße Düngung
eingeführt, geringwertige Berglagen durch neuzeitliche Pflanzungen
ersetzt und zur Durchführung aller Belange ein Oberwinzer vom
Rhein angestellt. Ebenso hat Herr von Harck den neuen
Weinbaufachmann herbeigezogen, den Winzern von Diesbar,
Seußlitz gute Lehren erteilen lassen, in größeren
Rebenschnittkursen einen sachgemäßen Schnitt der Reben
eingeführt und so den Ertrag der Weinberge gehoben. Nach
wenigen Jahren wirkte sich diese Arbeit so aus, daß z. B. der
Bahrmannsche Weinberg seine Erträge von sieben Zentner Trauben
im Herbst auf vierundfünfzig Zentner gehoben hat. Mit diesem
Zeitpunkte begann auch die Hebung der Kellerwirtschaft, die ihre
größten Erfolge im Keller des Herrn Baumeister Bahrmann, Seußlitz,
hatte.
Im Jahre 1916 begann ein erneuter Abschnitt für den neuen
Weinbau, nachdem bereits 1913, 1914, 1915 recht bedeutende
Neuanpflanzungen der Herrn Günther, Dr. Goldschmidt,
Wackerbarths Ruhe; Kammerherrn von Minckwitz, Niederlößnitz;
Gasch und Fährmann in Rottewitz; Bahrmann, Seußlitz; Kupfer,
Kossebaude, entstanden waren und ihre Entwicklung vorbildlich, die
Erträgnisse in seltener Höhe ausfielen. Man muß diese
Musterpflanzungen neuer Art gesehen haben. Das Jahr 1916
brachte für die Weiterentwicklung des Weinbaues die Erweiterung
der Rebenveredlungsstation zu Schloß Hoflößnitz, die Übersiedlung
des bis dahin in Meißen stationierten Weinbaulehrers und die
Einrichtung von Musterweinbergen, für Sortenprüfung, Prüfung der
Widerstandsfähigkeit gegen Krankheiten, Prüfung des
Kellerergebnisses aus neueingerichteten Düngungsversuchen,
Geräteprüfung und die Einrichtung laufender Lehrgänge über
Weinbau, Kellerbehandlung der Weine und Bekämpfung von
Krankheiten und Schädlingen.
Aufnahme von P. Georg Schäfer, Dresden
Abb. 2 Weinberge Wackerbarths Ruhe, Niederlößnitz
Diese Lehrgänge, vom Landesverband Sachsen für Obst- und

Weinbau und der Lößnitzer Weinbaugesellschaft werden laufend gut
besucht.
Abb. 3 Winzerhaus im Weinberg Eckberg mit Jakobstein (zu Wackerbarths
Ruhe, Niederlößnitz, gehörig)
Mit diesem Zeitpunkte wurde in Hoflößnitz die Anzucht veredelter

Reben sehr gehoben. Neben den hier gewonnenen amerikanischen
Unterlagsreben bezog die erweiterte Anstalt verschiedene
Waggonladungen solchen Amerikanerrebenholzes aus den
Rebenzuchtstellen Preußens zu Oberlahnstein und Engers und der
Bayrischen aus Regensburg, der Badischen Augustenberg.
Abb. 4 Weinbergsmauer am Kroatengrund, Naundorf-Kötzschenbroda
(aus dem Heimatschutzarchiv, Dresden)
Um diese großen Posten Veredlungen – siebzig- bis

zweihunderttausend Stück – rechtzeitig und gut herstellen zu
können, war zur Veredlungszeit im Frühjahre die Einstellung von
fünfzehn bis sechzehn Akkordveredlern aus Dresdener
Baumschulen nötig geworden. Das Rebenvortreibehaus mußte
wiederholt beschickt werden, so daß die letzten Veredlungen erst in
den ersten Junitagen zur Auspflanzung gelangten.
Abb. 5 Bergaltar mit Kastanie im Weinberg »Johannisberg«,
Naundorf-Kötzschenbroda
Diese Massenvermehrung ist vorübergehend zurückgetreten, weil
mit dem immer stärker werdenden Vordringen der Reblaus im
Rheinweingebiet dort alle vorhandenen Aufzuchten für eigene
Vermehrung verwendet werden müssen. Es sind daher in den
letzten Jahren nur die den eigenen Zuchtgärten entnommenen
Rebenhölzer zur Veredlung gelangt. Aber auch nach dieser Richtung
ist Neumaterial bezogen und als Zuchtgarten aufgepflanzt worden,
so daß bald wieder in gleichem Ausmaße herangezüchtet werden
kann.
Mit regem Eifer hat sich hier etwas entwickelt, was kein Mensch
geahnt hätte. Noch viel mehr hätte aber geschehen können, wenn
die freudige Arbeit sich auf Hilfe hätte stützen können. Der Krieg mit
seinem Vernichten hat auch diesen Arbeiten den kleinen
Jahreszuschuß von 1200 bis 1800 Mark entrissen, so daß seit den
Kriegsjahren alle Arbeiten der neuen Weinbauanstalt aus eigenen
Einnahmen bestritten werden mußten. Dieses Missen hat auch nach
neuen Einnahmen geschaut und so ist daraus die Schaffung eines
Kellereibetriebes zur Kelterung der in den Versuchsweinbergen
geernteten Trauben hervorgegangen. Hier soll bei den Lehrgängen
durch das Beispiel Erzeugung von Rebensaft, Verlauf der Gärung
und Erzielung edler Weine gezeigt werden. Auch das ist gelungen,
wie bereits durch die von hier ausgehende Beratung in privaten
Kellern ein Weg gewiesen worden ist, der dem Sachsenwein alle
Ehre macht.

Debating Perseverance The Augustinian Heritage in Post Reformation England Oxford Studies in Historical Theology 1St Edition Collier Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debating Perseverance The Augustinian Heritage in Post Reformation England Oxford Studies in Historical Theology 1St Edition Collier Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debating Perseverance: The

Debating Perseverance: The Augustinian

Print publication date: 2018

Oxford Studies in Historical Theology

(p.iii) Debating Perseverance

(p.vii) Debating Perseverance (p.viii)

Richard A. Muller, Calvin Theological Seminary

Irena Backus, Université de Genève

Robert C. Gregg, Stanford University

George M. Marsden, University of Notre Dame

Wayne A. Meeks, Yale University

Gerhard Sauter, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn

Susan E. Schreiner, University of Chicago

John Van Engen, University of Notre Dame

Geoffrey Wainwright, Duke University

Robert L. Wilken, University of Virginia (p.ii)

CHRISTIAN GRACE AND PAGAN VIRTUE

The Theological Foundation of Ambrose’s Ethics

KARLSTADT AND THE ORIGINS OF THE EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSY

A Study in the Circulation of Ideas

Amy Nelson Burnett

READING AUGUSTINE IN THE REFORMATION

The Flexibility of Intellectual Authority in Europe, 1500–1620

SHAPERS OF ENGLISH CALVINISM, 1660–1714

Variety, Persistence, and Transformation

Dewey D. Wallace Jr.

THE BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION OF WILLIAM OF ALTON

MIRACLES AND THE PROTESTANT IMAGINATION

The Evangelical Wonder Book in Reformation Germany

THE REFORMATION OF SUFFERING

CHRIST MEETS ME EVERYWHERE

Augustine’s Early Figurative Exegesis

The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England

GOING DUTCH IN THE MODERN AGE

Abraham Kuyper’s Struggle for a Free Church in the Netherlands

John Halsey Wood Jr.

CALVIN’S COMPANY OF PASTORS

Pastoral Care and the Emerging Reformed Church, 1536–1609

THE SOTERIOLOGY OF JAMES USSHER

The Act and Object of Saving Faith

Thomas Hooker, Samuel Stone, and Their Terrifying God

AUGUSTINE, THE TRINITY, AND THE CHURCH

A Reading of the Anti-Donatist Sermons

AUGUSTINE’S EARLY THEOLOGY OF IMAGE

A Study in the Development of Pro-Nicene Theology

PATRON SAINT AND PROPHET

Jan Hus in the Bohemian and German Reformations

JOHN OWEN AND ENGLISH PURITANISM

MORALITY AFTER CALVIN

Theodore Beza’s Christian Censor and Reformed Ethics

THE PAPACY AND THE ORTHODOX

Sources and History of a Debate

RICHARD BAXTER AND THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHERS

The Augustinian Heritage in Post-Reformation England

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

© Oxford University Press 2018

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

You must not circulate this work in any other form

CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress

Access brought to you by:

Debating Perseverance: The Augustinian

Print publication date: 2018