OCR Specification focus:
‘the development of Arminianism; the growth of Puritan opposition’
The early Stuart religious landscape was marked by increasing divisions, with Arminianism rising within the Anglican Church and Puritan hostility intensifying in response.
The Religious Context under James I
James I inherited a Church of England shaped by the Elizabethan Settlement of 1559. This sought a middle way between Catholic tradition and Protestant reform, retaining episcopal structures and ritual while emphasising Protestant doctrine. However, within this compromise, two opposing groups became increasingly vocal:
Puritans, who desired further reform and a move away from ceremonial practices.
Arminians, who emphasised ceremony, hierarchy, and free will in salvation, moving away from strict Calvinist orthodoxy.
These tensions created a fragile equilibrium that would gradually collapse under pressure during James’s reign.
Arminianism: Beliefs and Development
Arminianism originated from the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609), whose views challenged Calvinist doctrines of predestination.
#######################################
Image: insert image from
Identification: Half-length portrait in dark gown and ruff; page heading “File: Portret van Jacobus Arminius, hoogleraar Godgeleerdheid te Leiden — Icones 45”; main image at the top, choose large preview 3,356 × 4,440
Caption: Formal portrait of Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609), whose teachings on free will challenged strict Calvinist predestination and influenced English church debates. The painting presents Arminius as a learned Reformed divine, in academic dress. Source
Arminianism: A theological movement emphasising free will in salvation, ceremonial worship, and the authority of bishops, contrasting with Calvinist predestination and simplicity in worship.
Key features of Arminianism included:
Rejection of strict predestination, stressing that salvation was open to all who accepted God’s grace.
Support for ceremonial worship — vestments, altar rails, and music were emphasised as means of reverence.
Identification: Landscape photograph of wooden communion rails and table inside St Andrew’s, Lyddington; page heading “Lyddington, St Andrew – Laudian rails”; main image at top; original resolution 1,200 × 901
Caption: Photograph of Laudian rails surrounding a communion table, illustrating the emphasis on order, separation of sacred space, and reverence in Arminian/Laudian worship. Puritans opposed such ceremonial features as dangerously close to Catholic ritual. Source
Defence of episcopal authority, placing importance on bishops as guardians of the Church.
A tendency towards toleration of Catholic forms, which Puritans saw as dangerously close to Rome.
James I initially discouraged the spread of Arminian thought, favouring Calvinist orthodoxy as established at the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), where English delegates supported the Dutch Calvinists against the Arminians. However, by the late 1610s and early 1620s, Arminian thinkers in England began to gain influence.
Key Figures
Richard Montagu: His works, such as A New Gagg for an Old Goose (1624), defended Arminian theology and angered Calvinist Puritans. James protected him from Parliamentary criticism, signalling a shift in tolerance.
William Laud: Later Archbishop of Canterbury under Charles I, Laud was a committed Arminian. His emphasis on ceremony and order began to reshape the Church’s direction.
Puritanism and Its Opposition to Arminianism
Puritanism remained influential within Parliament, the clergy, and local communities.
Puritanism: A movement within English Protestantism seeking further reformation of the Church, emphasising preaching, moral discipline, and simplicity in worship.
Puritans opposed Arminianism because:
They viewed it as a betrayal of the Reformed tradition and dangerously close to Catholicism.
Arminian emphasis on ceremony conflicted with Puritan ideals of simplicity in worship.
Arminian stress on free will contradicted Calvinist teachings on predestination, a cornerstone of Puritan belief.
They feared the political implications, as Arminians tended to support stronger royal authority, undermining Parliament’s influence.
Growth of Opposition
Puritan hostility grew in several ways:
Parliamentary Attacks: Puritan MPs often criticised Arminian preachers, particularly Montagu, as undermining Protestantism.
Pamphlet Wars: The early 1620s saw the spread of polemical pamphlets that attacked Arminian doctrines and defended Calvinism.
Clerical Resistance: Many parish ministers resisted Arminian practices, maintaining Calvinist preaching traditions and aligning with local Puritan communities.
Suspicion of Catholic Sympathies: Puritans associated Arminians with a dangerous tolerance for Catholic ritual, linking the rise of Arminianism with fears of popery.
Political Dimensions of the Conflict
Religion under James I was inseparable from politics. Arminianism and Puritanism had direct implications for royal authority and parliamentary relations.
Royal Support for Arminians: James’s protection of Montagu suggested growing royal sympathy for Arminianism. This worried Puritans, who saw the king aligning with their religious enemies.
Parliamentary Tensions: Puritan MPs increasingly viewed the promotion of Arminianism as part of a broader attempt to undermine Protestant unity and weaken parliamentary influence.
Foreign Policy Context: During the Thirty Years’ War, English Protestants sympathised with Calvinist forces on the Continent. Arminian hesitation to fully support these causes deepened suspicions that they were undermining Protestant solidarity.
The Road to Conflict
The development of Arminianism and Puritan opposition during James’s reign laid the groundwork for more intense disputes under Charles I. When Charles openly supported Arminians like Laud, Puritan fears appeared vindicated, setting the stage for greater political and religious conflict.
Consequences by 1625
By the end of James’s reign:
Arminianism had established itself within sections of the Church hierarchy, though it was still a minority view.
Puritan opposition had hardened, increasingly linking religious grievances to broader political concerns.
The trust between monarchy and Parliament was strained, as Puritans associated royal favour towards Arminians with authoritarian tendencies.
The stage was set for the explosive conflicts of Charles I’s reign, where religious division would intertwine with constitutional crisis.
FAQ
At parish level, Arminianism altered worship practices. Priests introduced altar rails, emphasised the Eucharist, and wore more elaborate vestments.
These changes disrupted established Puritan habits, which prioritised preaching and plain services. Communities often clashed over whether local clergy should follow traditional Calvinist sermons or adopt Arminian ceremonial reforms.
Puritan resistance hardened into a political as well as religious struggle. Their concerns about Arminianism merged with distrust of royal authority, creating a framework for future conflicts under Charles I.
By 1625, opposition was less about doctrine alone and more about fears of a Catholic drift and absolutist monarchy.
This fusion of religious and political grievances made compromise increasingly unlikely, intensifying divisions that would shape the coming decades.
James I was a convinced Calvinist in theology, supporting predestination at the Synod of Dort. However, he valued order and authority within the Church, which led him to tolerate Arminian thinkers who emphasised ceremony and episcopal hierarchy. This pragmatic approach reflected James’s desire for conformity and unity, rather than a wholehearted embrace of either extreme.
Arminianism stressed obedience to bishops and royal authority in religious matters, which aligned well with monarchical interests.
Calvinism encouraged strong preaching traditions and empowered local communities, making it harder for kings to control religious expression.
Arminian ceremonial practices reinforced hierarchy and discipline, qualities attractive to a monarch wary of dissent.
Arminianism gained traction in universities, especially at Oxford and Cambridge. Tutors sympathetic to Arminian theology influenced future clergy, embedding ceremonial preferences and anti-Calvinist interpretations into the Church’s intellectual culture.
University sermons, debates, and pamphlets gave Arminians a platform to refine arguments against predestination. This academic presence strengthened their position, despite Puritan resistance in parishes and Parliament.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
What was the central theological difference between Arminianism and Puritan Calvinism in the early seventeenth century?
Mark scheme:
1 mark for identifying that Arminianism emphasised free will in salvation.
1 mark for identifying that Puritan Calvinism emphasised predestination.
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain why Puritans opposed the rise of Arminianism during the reign of James I.
Mark scheme:
1 mark for reference to ceremonial worship (e.g. use of vestments, altar rails) which Puritans saw as too close to Catholicism.
1 mark for noting that Arminianism stressed free will, undermining the Calvinist belief in predestination.
1 mark for pointing out the perceived political implications, as Arminians tended to support royal authority.
1 mark for linking opposition to foreign policy concerns, with Arminian reluctance to strongly back Protestant forces in the Thirty Years’ War.
1 mark for mentioning the promotion and protection of Arminians such as Richard Montagu by James I, which angered Puritans.
1 mark for explaining that Puritans increasingly associated Arminianism with Catholic sympathies or “popery.”
