ELIZABETHAN PURJTANISM AND THE POOR: A RECONSIDERATION Ryan Lewis B.A., Simon Fraser University, 1995. THESIS SUBMï'rTED EN PARTIAL FULFILMET OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of History O Ryan Lewis 1998 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY January 1998 AI1 rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whoIe or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. National Library Bibliothèque nationale du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellngton Street 395, nie Wellington OttawaON K1AON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or seil reproduire, prêter, distri'buer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/fih, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor subsîmtial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Until recently, historians have accepted al1 too readily the arguments of Max Weber, R.H. Tawney, and Christopher Hi11 that the Puritans of English society, and the clergy in particular, discriminated against the poor, and tended to exclude them from participation in the church. These clerics are said to have assumed that the poor were inherently wicked in some way, because their Calvinist theology equated poverty with divine dispIeasure and condemnation. Puritan evangelism was little more than an attempt to modify and control the behaviour of the lower classes. Drawing heavily on the writings of Richard Greenham and William Perkins, two of the most influentid of the "godly" in EIizabethan England, together with the published works of less well- known ministers €rom the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, this thesis seeks to re-examine the attitudes of Puritan clergy towards the poor. Their writings consistently assume that the poor were an accepted part of the parish church cornrnunity. Many of the godly clergy sought to reach the poorer, Iess Iiterate members of their parishes through "plain style" preaching, catechetical instruction, visitation, and alms giving. They taught that the physical well-being of the parish poor was the responsibility of their wealthier parish "brethren", and there is no evidence they equated poverty with reprobation. Indeed, many of these clergymen imply that some of their most faithful and devoted parishioners were humble folk. This subject is deeply informed in the theology as weII as the religious history of the late sixteenth century. 1 have chosen to look at preachers who were living and preaching at this time because the late 1590s were rnarked by periodic econornic instability, unemployment, and poor harvests, aspects of life that affected those at the lower end of the social spectnim more severely than others. The plight of the poor was particularly acute in these closing years of Elizabeth's reign, and the cIergy were not insensitive to their predicament. 1 would lie to dedicate this thesis to my wife Joanne, who has patientiy endured my lengthy sojourn througti the late sixteenth century, and to my son Evan, who has kept me young dong the way. Over the 1st two years, I have been assisted, in one way or another, by a variety of different people. But four especially stand out. 1 would like to thank my father, Sam Lewis, fxst of dl, for proof reading sections of this work as it progressed, and for following its development with considerable interest. 1 would also like to thank Lilly Lewis, my mum, and Dorothy Smith, my mum-in-law, for al1 the practicd assistance they have provided. Without their help, the task of writing this thesis would have been far more difficult. Finally, I would like to thank John Craig, my senior supervisor, for dl of his help in guiding me through the process of writing and revising. TABLE OF CONTENTS Approval Abstract Dedication iv Ac kno wledgments v Table of Contents vi-vii Cha~ter1: The Puritan CClergy and the Poor in Elizabethan England: Some Historiographical Reflections. 1. A Divided Society? II. The Missionary Emphasis of Godliness. III. The Rhetoric of Preaching. IV. Conclusion. Cha~terIl: "Preaching Christ Crucified to Country People": Richard Greenham and the Reformation in Dry Drayton. 1. A Cambridge Moderate. II. Greenham on Poverty and Riches. m.The Reformation in Dry Drayton. Chaater III: William Perkins and the Pastoral Ministry. 1. From Astrology to Theology. II. Cambridge Castle and Great St. Andrew's. III. Poverty and Riches. IV. Physical and Spintuai Relief. V. Conclusion. Chaoter IV: The East Anglian Clergy and the Poor. 1. Late Elizabethan East Anglia. II. The Advent of Protestantism in East Anglia. m.The Clergy, The Poor, and the Church of England. IV. Godly Teaching and the Poor. V. Conclusion. Cha~terV: Conciusion. Chanter 1 The Puritan Clergy and the Poor in Elizabethan England: Some Historiographical Refiections According to a recent study by Eamon Duw, "it is well on the way to becoming an axiom [arnong historians] that the poor in early modem EngIand were hostile, or resistant, or at best indifferent to protestant Christianity." In a simijar vein, many histonans have argued that the efforts of Elizabethan and Stuart huitan cIergy to proseIytise these poor were iittle more than attempts at social control.' As harbingers of a new ideotogy based on education and respectabiiity, the Puritan clergy were really socid engineers, atternpting to control the godless behaviour of the "rabble that cannot read-" These efforts at social control began in earnest in the Tudor period, but gradually faltered, as the clergy came to reaiize that this godless "rabble" could not, or would not, embrace their Protestant ideology. But can this assessrnent of Puritan evangelism as a kind of class war reaiiy be maintained? Can we assume that the clergy of this era had tittle genuine interest in the poor, beyond the modification of their conduct, or that the poor failed to heed the message of ' Eamon Duffy, '"Che Godly and the Mulutude in Stuart England." The Seventeenth Century 1 (1986). pp. 31-55. For various interpretations of these arguments, see: Christopher Hill, "William Perkins and the Poor," Puritanism and Revolution (New York, 1964). Sociefy and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England (New York, 1964), The World Turned Upside Down: Radical IhDuring the English Revolution (New York, 1973), "The Many-Headed Monster," Change and Conrinuity in Seventeenth Cenfury EngM (London, 1974). The Collected Essays of Christopher Hill Vols. 1, II. and ID (Amherst, Mas, 1986), and 'The poor and the People in Seventeenth Century England," in Frederick Krantz, ed., Hisrory From Below: Srudies in Populor Protest and Popular Ideology (Oxford, 1988); Keith Thomas, Religion rmd rhe Decline of Magie (New York, 1971); Peter Clark, English Provincial Society from the Reformarion to the Revolution: Religion, Politics and Society in Kent, 1500-1640 (Sussex, 1977). and "The Alehouse and the Alternative Society," D. Pennington and K. Thomas, eds., Puritam ad Revolutionaries (Oxford,1978); Chriçtopher Haigh, Reformarion and Resistance in Tudor Lancmhire (Cambridge, 1975). "Puritan Evangelism in Elizabethan EngIand," English Hisrorical Review XCII (1977). pp. 30-58, and 'me Church of England, the Catholics and the People," in C. Haigh, ed., The Reign of Eiirabeth 1 (AthensGeorgia, 1987); Keith Wnghtson, English Society 1580-1680 (New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1995). and Keith Wnghtson and David Levine. Poverty and Pie9 in an English Village, Terling 1525-1700 (2nd edition, Oxford. 1995); Roger Manning, Religion and Society in Eliroberhan Sussex: A Study of rhe Enforcement of the Religious Settlement (Leicester, 1969); Robert Marchant. The Church Under rhe Lmu 1560-1640 (Cambridge, 1969); M.E. James, Family. Lineage and Civil Society: A Study of Society. Politics and Mentaiiry in the Durham Rcgion, 1500-1640 (Oxford, 1974); William Hunt. The Prrritan Moment: The Coming of the Revolution in an English County (Cambridge, Mass., 1983); Robert Whiting. The Blind Devotion of the People: Popular Religion and the English Refomtion (Cambridge, 1989); David Underdown, Fire From Heaven (Yale, 1992). Contrasting opinions can be found in Margaret Spufford, "Puritanism and Socid Control?" in Anthony Fietcher and John Stevenson, eds., O& and Disorder in Early Modem England (London, 1989, pp. 41-57: Patrick Collinson, The Religion of Protestants: The Church in English Society 1559-1625 (Oxford, 1984), Dum. "Godly and the Multitude". justification by grace through faith? Before these questions can be exarnined properly, two questions of definition must be addressed. Who were "the Puritans"? And who were mepoor"? The term "Puritan" has had a long and varied histoxy2 Although its earliest manifestations can be associated with various perfectionist heresies in the ancient and medieval worlds; the term is most readily associated with the English Reformation period. In that era, 'Turitan" came to be a pejorative reference to devoted adherents of Protestant Christianity, who remained within the broad codines of the reformed Church of England. Initidy, the term "Puritan" was only one of a number of durs4 used by the opponents of these zealous, evangelicdy-minded Protestants, to deride their meticdous attitude toward religious piety. By the late Elizabethan era, however, the tem had emerged fiom this crowded field as a chief form of abuse. To their critics, the careh1 lifestyles, moral conduct and zealous evangelical religion of these clergy and laity seemed to smack of the kind of hypocrisy found in ancient perfectionist heresies? Because of these negative connotations, the "Puritans" of Elizabeth's church rejected the term for self-description.