Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T01:53:35.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anglican Against Puritan: Ideological Origins during the Marian Exile

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Ronald J. Vander Molen
Ronald J. Vander Molen
Affiliation:
Associate professor of history in California State CollegeStanislaus, Turlock, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Traditionally, divisions among Protestant groups during the English Reformation have been examined as deep theological crises, simply written off as manifestations of economic or political struggles, or, more recently, treated as having roots in basic ideological commitments. One of the most important Protestant divisions, that between Anglicans and Puritans, has undoubtedly had a great impact on western history; however, it lacks full treatment from the point of view of its intellectual and social bases. One's attention is easily drawn to the Anglican-Puritan conflict of Queen Elizabeth's rule or to the seventeenth-century revolution in England; but earlier origins often receive only cursory treatment. Actually, the ideas, party divisions and social characteristics of the Anglican-Puritan division in the Elizabethan and Stuart eras have their roots and first appearance during the flight of Protestants from England after the reign of King Edward VI. It is to the ideological and social factors which appeared in the congregation of English exiles at Frankfurt-am-Main in 1554–55 that I should like to draw attention, for it was in the “Troubles at Frankfurt” that the historical pattern of the Anglican-Puritan division assumed a form which was to have such a great impact on western society.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 1973 , pp. 45 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Hinds, Allen, The Making of the England of Elizabeth (New York, 1895)Google Scholar; Witherspoon, H. J., The Second Prayer Book of Edward the Sixth and the Liturgy of Compromise (London, 1905)Google Scholar; Knappen, Marshall M., Tudor Puritanism (Chicago, 1965).Google Scholar

2. Garrett, Christina, The Marian Exiles (Cambridge, 1938).Google Scholar

3. New, John, Anglican and Puritan: The Basis of Their Opposition (Palo Alto, 1964).Google Scholar

4. Collinson, Patrick, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (London, 1967)Google Scholar; Hailer, William, The Rise of Puritanism (New York, 1939).Google Scholar

5. A Brief Discourse of the Troubles Begun at Frankfort in Germany Anno Domini 1554 (England, 1575)Google Scholar; cited below as Troubles. Though this is the main source for reconstructing the story of the Frankfort troubles, it is hardly unbiased. It is an anonymous, yet pro-Puritan tract and apparently was written to build Puritan loyalty and attack Anglicanism, especially the Anglicanism epitomized by Richard Cox, bishop of Ely-Though traditionally accredited to the Puritan William Whittingham, the pamphlet's authorship has been recently discussed by Collinson, Patrick, “The Authorship of A Brief Discourse,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 9, pp. 188–208.Google Scholar

6. Troubles, 6; for a discussion of the French order, see Cowell, Henry, “The French Walloon Church at Glastonbury, 1550–53,” Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London, 13 (1923-1929), pp. 502–503Google Scholar. Coweli points out that the French liturgy had its origin in John Calvin'a religious service, which he created when in exile in Strasbourg.

7. Troulbes, 6.

8. Ibid., 7, 8.

9. Ibid., 8.

10. Garrett, 111–114. Though there is confusion as to chambers“ exact identify, Garrett maintains that he was the exiles” contact, along with Robert Horne, with the English Protestant leaders. He and Horne apparently controlled the common purse, and thus their advice and consent was naturally cherished by the exiles.

11. Frankfurt Congregation to the Strashourg Congregation, October, 1554, Troubles, 20.

12. Strasbourg Congregation to the Frankfurt Congregation, November, 1554, Troubles, 22, 24.

13. Troubles, 27.

14. John Calvin to the Frankfurt Congregation, January 2, 1555, Troubles, 35–36.

15. Troubles, 37. Musculus was a German reformer who had been influenced by Bucer. Viret was a disciple of Calvin. His influence on English religion is discussed by Linder, Robert, “Pierre Viret and the Sixteenth-Century English Protestants,” Arohiv fur Reformationsgeschichte, 58 (1967), pp. 149–171.Google Scholar

16. Troubles, 38.

17. This method of preaching became a critical issue in the Elizabethan period. When Archbishop Grindal refused to discipline prophesiers, he was suspended by Queen Elizabeth.

18. Knox, John, “Sermon”, Troubles, 38, 39.Google Scholar

19. Troubles, 39.

20. Ibid., 40. Glauberg was the intermediary between the exiles and Frankfurt's Senate, and is described as “one of the chiefest Senators” (Troubles, 6).

21. Troubles, 40–43.

22. Ibid., 43, 49. This action opened Cox to charges of being “double-faced”.

23. Knox accused Edward Isaac of giving the pamphlet to the authorities. Knox, John, Works (Edinburgh, 1895), 4, pp. 46, 47.Google Scholar

24. Troubles, 45. Regarding Gilby, see Danner, Dan G., “Anthony Gilby: Puritan in Exile- A Biographical Approach,” Church History, 40, 4 (12, 1971), 412–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Troubles, 46, 47. The clergy chose those “whom they thought most meant to be Bishops, Superintendent or Pastor with the rest of the officers, as Seniors, Ministers and Deacons”.

26. Ibid., 47. According to the author of the Troubles, Cox's “proceedings … were such as if there had been neither orders, officers, or church there, before their coming”.

27. Cox, Richard et al. to Calvin, John, 04 5, 1555, Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation, Robinson, Hastings, ed. (Cambridge, 1846), 2, pp. 755–56.Google Scholar

28. Calvin, John to Cox, Richard et al. , Troubles, 51 ff.Google Scholar

29. Ibid., 52.

30. Ibid., 53.

31. Ibid.

32. Troubles, 50, 51. Bullinger apparently did not allow the use of surplices, wedding rings or private baptism; but neither would he intervene on Whittingham 's side.

33. Ibid., 53.

34. Cole, Thomas, “Letter”, n.d., Troubles, 59, 60.Google Scholar

35. The use of the labels “Puritan” and “Anglican” from this point on in the essay is based on the distinct ideology revealed by each exile party, and admitedly not on contemporary usage. The writer of The Troubles viewed the distinction as one between “the learned men of Strasbourg” (Cox's followers) and those who were “most godly and farthest off from superstition” (Knox's followers). If one is to consider the parties' leadership, the correct labels are, as Patrick Collinson points out, “Coxian” and “Knoxian” (Elizabethan Puritan Movement, 13, 33). The Coxians wanted a church with an “English face”, while Knoxians thought they could go “purely” and “truly” back to the New Testament model. Because each party relied on ideologies to give content to their charges and counter charges, they clearly revealed Puritan (Knoxian) and Anglican (Coxian) views which were later refined during the Tudor and Stuart eras. Also see Emerson, Everett, English Puritanism from John Hooper to John Milton (Durham, N.C., 1968), 3–11Google Scholar; Trinterud, Leonard J., ed., Elizabethan Puritanism (New York, 1971), 3–10Google Scholar; and Knappen, , Tudor Puritanism, 487–493.Google Scholar

36. Whitehead, D. et al. , to Calvin, John, 09 20, 1555, Original Letters, 2, pp. 755ffGoogle Scholar. According to this letter, some changes were made in the Anglican order after Cox's party won its victory.

37. Objections to the book were maintained by Knox and the immigrant churches in England, but there is no evidence of widespread Protestant opposition.

38. Strasbourg exiles to the Frankfurt exiles, November 28, 1554, Troubles, 22.

39. Ibid., 22.

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid., 6.

42. “Description of the Worship Service,” Troubles, 7.

43. Ibid., 6.

44. Ibid., 7.

45. Frankfurt exiles', “General Letter,” November 28, 1554, Troubles, 8.

46. Cox had been educated in the New Learning at King's College, Cambridge. King's College was a center of radical thinking, from which Cardinal Wolsey recruited scholars, including Cox, for Cardinal's College, Oxford, in the 1520s. At Oxford, Cox had become associated with the Lutheran group and was put out of the University. Strangely, he returned to prominence almost immediately as head of Eton School, and (not so strangely) rose in the church and at the royal court during the 1530s. His views were solicited by Cranmer in the writing of the Bishops' Book and the King's Book, and he expressed Zwinglian theology quite forcefully; later, he was appointed tutor of Prince Edward. During the reign of King Edward VI, he was instrumental in writing the Edwardian Prayer Book, in reforming the canon law (a project which never was completed), and in bringing Protestants to Oxford. After the Marian exile he became Bishop of Ely, a very lucrative and powerful position. As bishop from 1559 to 1581, Cox carried on his attack against Puritans with considerable enthusiasm.

47. Frankfurt exiles to Strasbourg exiles, December 3, 1554, Troubles, 27, 29ff.

48. Garrett, 27, 329.

49. Troubles, 1. In the “Preface” the author alludes to a conspiratorial attempt to discredit the Puritans as frustrated office seekers.

50. Garrett, 329.

51. Biographical information is found in Garrett's work for the following men: Michael Reniger (269), Augustine Bradridge (96), Arthur Saule (284), Thomas Steward (299), Humphrey Alcoson (70), Thomas Lakin (216), John Huntington (194), and Thomas Crofton (137). Reniger, Bradridge, Saule, Steward and Crofton all left Cox's party eventually.

52. Garrett summarizes their lives: Edward Sutton (310), William Whittingham (327), Thomas Wood (343), William Williams (334), John Stanton (297), William Hammon (175) and Michael Gill (162).

53. This information is found in the biographies contained throughout Garrett's work on the exiles.

54. Troubles, 13, 61 ff. Whittingham's followers continually appealed to the belief that the congregation should select its own leaders and its own order of worship. The later troubles at Frankfurt were almost entirely devoted to the problem of lay control.

55. Ibid., 12. Also see the letter written to Zurich and addressed to “The students of Zurich” (Ibid., 20).

56. Troubles, 59.

57. Frankfurt congregation to Calvin, John, Troubles, 33, 34.Google Scholar

58. John Calvin to the Frankfurt congregation, Troubles, 35.

59. Cox, Richard et al. to Calvin, John, 04 5, 1555, Original Letters, 2, pp. 753ff; Troubles, 47.Google Scholar

60. Original Letters, 2, p. 753.

61. John Calvin to the Frankfurt exiles, May, 1555. Troubles, 53.

62. This was especially apparent in the later quarrels between Bishop Whitgift and Thomas Cartwright in the 1570s and 1580s. See P. Collinson, pp. 120 ff.

63. Appeals to Calvin by Anglicans were especially strong once the troubles passed. Whitead, R., Cox, Richard et al. to Calvin, John, 09 20, 1555, Original Letters, 2, pp. 755ff.Google Scholar

64. Knox, John, The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, (Geneva, 1558).Google Scholar

65. Bullinger, Heinrich to Calvin, John, 03 26, 1554, Original Letters, 2, pp. 543–547Google Scholar; Knox, , Works, 3, pp. 216–226Google Scholar; cited below as “An Answer”.

66. “An Answer,” 22.

67. Ibid., 223.

68. Ibid., 223.

69. Ibid., 223.

70. Ibid., 224.

71. Ibid., 225.

72. Ibid., 226.

73. Knox, John, A Faithful Admonition, Works, 3, pp. 257–330.Google Scholar

74. Ibid., 261.

75. Ibid., 286.

76. Ibid., 294.

77. Ibid., 296.

78. Ibid., 297.

79. Ibid., 327. It was the continued use of such prophecies that caused Queen Elizabeth to condemn Puritan prophesyings.

80. Ibid., 329. This argument was invoked by French rebels in their Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (London, 1924).Google Scholar

81. Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Beveridge, H., trans. (Grand Rapids, 1962), Book 4, chapter 20.Google Scholar

82. Ibid., b. 4, c. 20, p. 25. The debate concerning Calvin's political significance seems interminable, but is compactly discussed in Kingdon, Robert M. and Linder, Robert, eds., Calvin and Calvinism, Sources of Democracy? (New York, 1970), pp. vii–xii, 77–83Google Scholar. Further, the view of Calvin's impact on democracy is stressed in Herbert Foster, Collected Papers of Herbert Foster (privately printed, 1929), while Calvin's authoritarianism is emphasized in Mayer, Jacob. Political Thought (New York, 1939)Google Scholar. Modifications of Calvin's political thought by Frankfurt Puritans is discussed by Waizer, Michael, The Revolution of the Saints (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), 93–113.Google Scholar

83. Goodman, Christopher, How Superior Powers Ought to be Obeyed (Geneva, 1558)Google Scholar. This pamphlet defended tyrannicide, and its preface was written by Whittingham, who injured his career by writing it, for he never rose above the position of Dean of Durham when he returned from the exile.

84. Whittingham, William to Calvin, John, The Life of William Whittingham, from a MS of Anthony Wood, Green, Mary E., ed., Miscellany, Camden, 6 (London, 1870), p. 6.Google Scholar

85. Bale, John to Ashley, Thomas, Strype, John, Ecclesiastical Memories (Oxford, 1824), 3, pp. ii, 314.Google Scholar

86. Ibid., 315.

87. Garrett, 253 ff.

88. Ponet, John, A Short Treatise of Politike Power (Strasbourg, 1556)Google Scholar. If he was the head of an Anglican conspiracy, as Garrett contends, he held political ideas which were anathema to most Anglicans.

89. Aylmer, John, An Harborowe for the Faithful and true subjects against the late blown blast, concerning the government of women, where in he confuted all such reasons as a stranger of late made in that behalf with a brief exhortation to obedience (Strasbourg, 1559).Google Scholar

90. Ibid., A3.

91. Ibid., B1.