Toleration, Supersessionism and Judaeo-Centric Eschatology
This article on an early modern pamphlet which can be found in the John Rylands Library Special Collections asserts the importance of John Goodwin’s analysis of Zechariah 13:3 in A Post-Script or Appendix to […] Hagiomastix (1647). I argue that this pamphlet’s significance is not only its emphasis on toleration, but also that it is a striking example of Judaeo-centric millenarian thought in which Zechariah 12–14 is understood as prophesying a future time in which the Jews will be restored to the Land of Israel. I also analyse the pamphlet’s relationship to supersessionism and compare Goodwin’s interpretation with those of Samuel Rutherford, William Prynne, John Owen and, in particular, Jean Calvin. I explain that Goodwin’s use of the analogy of Scripture hermeneutic helps to explain his belief in Judaeo-centric eschatology. I then show how one of Goodwin’s followers, Daniel Taylor, used Judaeo-centric biblical exegesis to petition Oliver Cromwell for Jewish readmission to England.
Twelve friends of the late Mark Kishlansky reconsider the meanings of England’s mid-seventeenth-century revolution. Their essays range widely: from shipboard to urban conflicts; from court sermons to local finances; from debates over hairstyles to debates over the meanings of regicide; from courtrooms to pamphlet wars; and from religious rights to human rights. Taken together, these essays indicate how we might improve our understanding of a turbulent epoch in political history by approaching it more modestly and quietly than historians of recent decades have often done.
visitation of 1633 and its aftermath, it would
appear that by the mid to late 1630s Bridgeman had seen that threat well and
truly off. No Laudian himself, but by now securely located in Laud’s good
books, Bridgeman seemed set fair to sail serenely on through the otherwise
increasingly turbulent waters of the Personal Rule of Charles I.
MR PRYNNE COMES TO TOWN
Until, that is, 1637, when, through no fault of poor Bridgeman’s, WilliamPrynne came to town. In August 1637, on his way to his final place of imprisonment at Caernarvon castle, Prynne stopped off at Chester. One
hierarchical view of marriage. In addition, James’s reliance on his favourites revealed him as a man who could not control his emotions and who allowed himself to be ruled by his subordinates. The question of his sexuality was a subset of these concerns; even while he was alive, some noted that ‘King Elizabeth’ had been replaced by ‘Queen James.’ 7
We are less accustomed to thinking about Charles I as a failed patriarch: after Buckingham’s murder he was a model family man. However, from the late 1620s, WilliamPrynne was obsessed with womanish court fashions and especially
The Societies for the Reformation of Manners' first victim in their systematic entrapment of 'homosexuals', Edward Rigby was earlier acquitted of sodomy by a naval court. Plain Reasons, Hell upon Earth, John Dunton's 'He-Strumpets', and Ward's London Clubs are all invested in a conservative gender and class hierarchy. Like their sixteenth-century predecessors John Bale, Thomas Beard and William Prynne, the writers engage in virulent xeno-homophobia, painting 'homosexuality' as a foreign vice bent on the destruction of the English nation. Edward (Ned) Ward's description, in fact, complicates our perception that the new 'homosexual' is characterized largely at the turn of the century by an increasingly strong link between sodomy and effeminacy. Trial transcripts and published polemics describing and condemning the new 'homosexual' subculture have proved highly controversial sources, particularly when they have been used to date the shift from Renaissance to modern models of 'homosexual' identity.
-religionists (Introduction), show that several textual communities coalesced around the text according to their religious views. That Hollister, Fairlambe, and Bugg used the lollards of Acts and Monuments to rebuke their former nonconformist brethren suggests that the lollards were significant historical examples prized by these communities. Back into the Church of England fold, they read the lollards of Acts and Monuments a different way. Buttressing those examples is the figure of WilliamPrynne, who accepted the radical lollards as historical proof that episcopacy was wrong, at a
Paul D. Halliday, Eleanor Hubbard, and Scott Sowerby
concluded when analysing parliamentary selections in the early seventeenth century, Patterson finds more signs of contested elections in urban settings, along with an often divisive reliance on majoritarian procedures.
Susan Amussen reveals a cultural fault line as she reads the gendered political language about men’s hair. WilliamPrynne occupies the heart of her account, the same Prynne whose supposed moderation in the eyes of other historians Mark dismissed as relying ‘upon a special meaning of moderate and a subtle reading of one of the least subtle of puritan
WilliamPrynne, A Brief Narrative (London, 1660), p. 2.
63 WilliamPrynne, A Plea for Sr George Booth (1660).
64 Hale, Happy Handfull, p. 32; Alan Everitt, Suffolk and the Great Rebellion (Ipswich: Suffolk
Records Society, 1960), pp. 141–42.
65 Hale, Happy Handfull, p. 59.
66 Ibid., pp. 8, 10.
67 An Outcry of the Youngmen and Apprentices of London (1649), pp. 1, 6.
68 Parliamentary or Constitutional History of England, xxii, 99.
69 Coate, ed., Letter-Book of John Viscount Mordaunt, p. xi.
70 Sachse, ed., Diurnal of Thomas Rugg, p. 34.
71 State Papers
’s teachings were in any way seditious. Likewise, the Church of England divine Andrew Willet, replying to the ‘raylings, slanders, forgeries, vntruthes’ of Catholics, eulogised Wyclif’s loyalty to Edward III. 111 Half a century later in 1641, just before the outbreak of civil war, when the spectre of another rebellion against an ‘ungodly’ king loomed, the puritan WilliamPrynne went further, portraying the slain archbishop as the real traitor. This was, perhaps, divine punishment for the ultimate enemy in a book dedicated to the overreach of prelates. 112
Two-kingdoms theory, ‘Erastianism’ and the Westminster assembly debate on
church and state, c. 1641–48
to the House of Commons under the influence of John Selden and to the
The first target of the term ‘Erastian’ in print, however, was Thomas
Coleman, the Westminster assembly divine and Hebraist. Coleman had been
a thorn in the side of presbyterian ambitions in the assembly from its inception.6 After two and a half years of punishing internal debate, Coleman had
finally broken ranks with the assembly. In a sermon before the House of
Commons on 30 July 1645, Coleman counselled Parliament to establish the
government of the church by law