A Calvinist Confession? Interpreting the Thirty-Nine Articles and Writing the History of the Reformation in Eighteenth-Century Ireland

IF 0.4 3区 哲学 0 RELIGION
JOURNAL OF RELIGION Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1086/725062
Simon Lewis
{"title":"A Calvinist Confession? Interpreting the Thirty-Nine Articles and Writing the History of the Reformation in Eighteenth-Century Ireland","authors":"Simon Lewis","doi":"10.1086/725062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In eighteenth-century Ireland, there were two competing historiographical traditions, fighting to tell their story of the Church of Ireland’s doctrinal heritage, as outlined in its confession, the Thirty-Nine Articles, which were formulated in the sixteenth-century Church of England. Article XVII: Of Predestination and Election—the most controversial article—contained no reference to the “reprobate.” Mainstream Anglican clergymen, who taught an Arminian soteriology, cited this omission as proof that the sixteenth-century framers had not intended Article XVII to be read in a Calvinist light. These “Caroline” historians also stressed the importance of the Laudian reforms of the 1630s, when the Irish Church’s original, ultra-Calvinist confession, the 1615 Articles, were virtually (but not officially) rescinded in favor of the English Church’s allegedly un-Calvinist confession, the Thirty-Nine Articles. There was, however, another, resolutely Protestant historiographical tradition, stressing the Irish Church’s doctrinal links with the continental Reformation. Proponents of this tradition argued that the Thirty-Nine Articles needed to be read in the light of the 1615 Articles, which, they claimed, remained an authoritative confession in the Irish Church. This essay explores how contemporaries interpreted and reinterpreted the Thirty-Nine Articles, thereby illuminating the ways in which the historiography of the Reformation was shaped by politico-theological concerns in eighteenth-century Ireland. It displays the eighteenth century as a fundamental period of transition, in which a largely dormant historiographical tradition was revived in the Irish Church by a small but growing faction of evangelicals, who sought to write Calvinism back into the history of their denomination.","PeriodicalId":45199,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF RELIGION","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF RELIGION","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/725062","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In eighteenth-century Ireland, there were two competing historiographical traditions, fighting to tell their story of the Church of Ireland’s doctrinal heritage, as outlined in its confession, the Thirty-Nine Articles, which were formulated in the sixteenth-century Church of England. Article XVII: Of Predestination and Election—the most controversial article—contained no reference to the “reprobate.” Mainstream Anglican clergymen, who taught an Arminian soteriology, cited this omission as proof that the sixteenth-century framers had not intended Article XVII to be read in a Calvinist light. These “Caroline” historians also stressed the importance of the Laudian reforms of the 1630s, when the Irish Church’s original, ultra-Calvinist confession, the 1615 Articles, were virtually (but not officially) rescinded in favor of the English Church’s allegedly un-Calvinist confession, the Thirty-Nine Articles. There was, however, another, resolutely Protestant historiographical tradition, stressing the Irish Church’s doctrinal links with the continental Reformation. Proponents of this tradition argued that the Thirty-Nine Articles needed to be read in the light of the 1615 Articles, which, they claimed, remained an authoritative confession in the Irish Church. This essay explores how contemporaries interpreted and reinterpreted the Thirty-Nine Articles, thereby illuminating the ways in which the historiography of the Reformation was shaped by politico-theological concerns in eighteenth-century Ireland. It displays the eighteenth century as a fundamental period of transition, in which a largely dormant historiographical tradition was revived in the Irish Church by a small but growing faction of evangelicals, who sought to write Calvinism back into the history of their denomination.
加尔文主义的忏悔?解读三十九篇文章,书写十八世纪爱尔兰宗教改革史
在18世纪的爱尔兰,有两种相互竞争的史学传统,它们争相讲述爱尔兰教会的教义遗产,正如其忏悔书《三十九条》中所概述的那样,该书是在16世纪的英国教会制定的。《第十七条:命运与选举》是最具争议的一篇文章,其中没有提到“叛逆者”。教阿米尼神学的主流圣公会神职人员引用这一遗漏作为证据,证明16世纪的制宪者并没有打算从加尔文主义的角度来解读第十七条。这些“卡罗琳”历史学家还强调了16世纪30年代罗第改革的重要性,当时爱尔兰教会最初的极端加尔文主义忏悔书《1615条》实际上(但不是正式)被废除,取而代之的是英国教会所谓的非加尔文主义的忏悔书《三十九条》。然而,还有另一个坚定的新教历史传统,强调爱尔兰教会与大陆宗教改革的教义联系。这一传统的支持者认为,《三十九条》需要根据1615年的《条款》来阅读,他们声称,《条款》仍然是爱尔兰教会的权威忏悔书。本文探讨了同时代人如何解读和重新解释《三十九条》,从而揭示了18世纪爱尔兰宗教改革史学是如何受到政治神学关注的。它将18世纪展示为一个基本的过渡时期,在这个时期,爱尔兰教会中一个基本上处于休眠状态的史学传统被一个规模较小但不断壮大的福音派复兴,他们试图将加尔文主义写回他们教派的历史中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: The Journal of Religion is one of the publications by which the Divinity School of The University of Chicago seeks to promote critical, hermeneutical, historical, and constructive inquiry into religion. While expecting articles to advance scholarship in their respective fields in a lucid, cogent, and fresh way, the Journal is especially interested in areas of research with a broad range of implications for scholars of religion, or cross-disciplinary relevance. The Editors welcome submissions in theology, religious ethics, and philosophy of religion, as well as articles that approach the role of religion in culture and society from a historical, sociological, psychological, linguistic, or artistic standpoint.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信