THE INFLUENCE OF THE ZURICH REFORMED TRADITION

ON THE ELIZABETHAN CHURCH. 1559-1 563

by

KENNETH RICHARD MACMILLAN

A thesis submitted to the Department of History

in conformity with the requirements for

the degree of Master of Arts

Queen's University

Kingston* Ontario. Canada

August, 1997

copyright O Kenneth Richard MacMillan. August 1997 National Library Bibliothèque nationale 191 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada Your & Vomrni~rente

Our Ne Nam refBnmar

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distniute or seU reproduire, prêter, distribuer 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 substantial extracts from it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othemise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Abstract

During the period of Marian exile between 1554 and 1558. a nurnber of important English cler~grnenand statesmen fled to the Continent and took refuge in the CrnigrC; communities of

Strassburg and Zurich. These two communities were imbued with the tradition of Zurich reform. which in cornpanson to "catholic" Lutheranism and "radical" Calvinism espoused moderate Protestant views. The Zurich reformers taught that diversity might exist among

Protestants. that certain rites which were indifferent to salvation might be retained in churches. that parish ornarnents irnpeded the path to salvation, that a clerical hierarchy might exist out of practicality. and that the civil rnagistrate might govem the church. Well versed in these tenets the exiles from Strassburg and Zurich retumed to England in 1559 with hopeç that under Elizabeth 1 the English Church would again embrace the godly reformation that had flourished under her brother Edward VI. Between 1559 and 1563. they took proactive roles in defining the Elizabet han Church. helping to shape its governance. doctrine. liturgy. and discipline. During this time. correspondence continued between the former exiles and the leaders ofthe Zunch church, Heinrich Bullinser, Rudolph Gualter. and Peter Martyr Vermigli. who tried to advise and support their English fiends. These interactions set a precedent to the Zurich reforrners' involvement in controversial events which occurred in the Church of

Ençland in the later- 1 560s and 1 570s.

Because of their close relationship with the Zurich reformers, the former exiles from

Strassburg and Zurich held medial. Erastian Protestant views. Thus. in 1559 they could explicitly support the Queen. her Council. and the House of Cornmons in their intention to re-establish royal suprernacy over the Church and to unite the nation under a unifom order of worship based on the Edwardian prayer book of 1552. These Former exiles included

Francis Russell. earl of Bedford. an important member of Elizabeth's Privy Council. Sir

Anthony Cooke, a Parliamentanan close to the levers of power. and several En~lishdivines. such as Richard Cox, Edmund Gnndal, John Jewel, Robert Home, John Parkhurst, and Edwin

Sandys. Because of their explicit support of the Elizabethan religious settlement and their participation in important religious affairs during the Parliament of 1559. the clergymen within this group received a disproportionate number of episcopal seats. In these powemil positions they participated in the omaments controversy of 1559 to 1560, defences of the English

Church between 1 559 and 1 562. and the Convocation of 1563. crucial events that shaped the

Elizabethan Church in a manner reflectinç late-Edwardian and Zurich models of reform. Acknowledgernents

1 wish to acknowledge my personal debt to Professor Gerald W. Olsen of Nipissing

University. who was a tme mentor to me through several years of my studies. 1 am grateful to Professor Paul C hristianson of Queen's University for enduring numerous sessions of seemingly endless questions and for his careful reading of a drafi version of this thesis. My thanks are also extended to the staff of the Interlibrary Loans and Special Collections departments of Stauffer Library, Queen's University, whose kindness and efficiency helped me to complete this work in a timely rnanner.

This thesis is dedicated to my parents. Table of Contents

Abstract

Acknowledgernents

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Summary and Conclusion

Bibliography

Vi ta Chapter One

Introduction and Literature Review

"Oh Zurich! Zurich! how much oftener do I now think of thee than ever 1 thought of England when 1 was at Zurich!"' These panegyrical words. written in 1559 by the English divine John

Jewel to his long-time mentor Peter Martyr, emphatically showed the persona1 gratitude that one of many English clergymen and statesmen felt toward Zurich. Whether in Zurich,

Strassburg, or other émiRrt; comrnunities sharing the traditionqof~urich reform dunng the

Marian exile between 1554 and 1558, these English Protestants worshipped freely, using with few changes the Book of Comrnorr Prayer established in England during Edward VI's reign.

Upon the accession of Elizabeth I in 1558, they retumed to their native England, with hopes that under the new Queen, the English Church would again embrace the godly refonn which had flourished under Edward, and further the refonnation which had spread so pervasively through the Continent. Many exiles imbued with the traditions of Zurich retumed to take proactive rotes in defining the Elizabethan Settlement of religion. Between 1559 and 1563. they helped to establish and defend the govemance. doctrine. liturgy, and discipline of the newly reconstituted Church of England. Dunng this period. correspondence continued between the former exiles and the leaders of the Zurich church. ~nrisre-?Heinrich Bullinger.

' The Zirrich I,errers. or Ï'he ( 'clrrespnndencrr,l,Seiwrtrl English Iliishop.~and Orhers. irith srme ofthe //elwtirrn Rejirrrrrrs, During the Reign ofC.uren Elitnheth. 2d cd.. cd. Hasiings Robinson. Parkcr Socicty (Cainbridgc: Cainbridgc. U.P.. 1846). p. 33. This cdition contains tlic Icttcrs of \-oluitic 1 (1842) and voliiinc 11 ( 1845) clironologi~~llyamngcd in onc scrics. (Hcraftcr citcd. with narncs of corrcspondcnts and date, ris Zurich l.t.trers). Tlic cccIcsiasiical supcrinicndcni of tlic Zurich cliurclics. his deputy Rudolph Gualter, and the Italian exile Peter Martyr Vermigli (now resident in

Zurich). who tned to advise and support their English fiiends and to influence the direction and shape of the Elizabethan church. This thesis attempts to examine the influence exerted by the leaders of the Zurich church and by those in England imbued with a tradition of Zurich reform on the Church of England between the Parliament of 1559 and the Convocation of

1563. By way of introduction, this chapter provides a survey of the historiography on this topic. As this chapter will show, the impact of the Zurich reforrnen on the early-Elizabethan

Church of England has not been adequately descnbed by historians.

7 ïIe Zurich I&y?)rrn~edTradiimr il) iZzabe/hut1 Drg/atrd

The suggestion that the leaders of the Zurich church influenced the early-Elizabethan

Church is not new. It was made impiicitly by Bishop Gilbert Bumet in his Hisfory of the

Refc)rrnc~fio?)@hr C'hwch of fi~g/a~,d( 1679- 7 14) and by John Strype in his Ai~ilalsojlhe

Rcf«rmnfiotl(1 709-3 1 ). Bot h Bumet and Strype incorporated into t heir text and included in appendices various letten between the former Marian exiles and their friends in Zurich.

While this correspondence was often printed and translated inaccurately. its inclusion made it manifestly clear that at least some influence was exerted by Bullinger, Gualter, and Martyr during the first decade and a half of Elizabeth's reign.-either Bumet nor Strype undenook to analyse in any detail the nature or extent of this influence. Possibly this was because the limited number of letten available for analysis made it appear at best negliçible and restticted to isolated events. In the last century. however, the publication by the Parker Society of the

"Iniroduciion." Zurich l.errer.~.p. v. Zurich I.eflrr.sgreatly irnproved both the number of letters available for analysis and access to these usetLi sources. This collection included over two hundred letters, dating from late-

1 558 to the mid- 1 570s. written mostly by English statesmen and divines and the leaders of the Zurich church.' WhiIe historians have often used the wealth of information contained in this collection to show the opinions of various Englishmen on certain events conceming the early Elizabethan Church, few have directly considered the question of the Zurich reformers' influence upon their friends in England. Those who have made specialized studies, as the following bnef discussion will reveal, have concentrated their efforts on events after 1 563.

The fim historian to specifically consider a Zunch influence on Elizabethan England was Frank Gully. In his thesis "The lnfluence of Heinrich Bullinger and the Tigurine Tradition upon the English Church in the Sixteenth Century" (1 961), Gully concluded that the influence of Bullinger's doctrine during Edward VI's reign, and Archbishop Whitgifi's prescription of

Bullinger's BecnJes in 1586. proved that Bullinger's thought was "normative for the theological position of the established church."' Gully was somewhat too emphatic in assigning such an important role to the Zurich church. A number of other historians have seen the influence of Zunch refonn in Edwardian English liturgieal documents. especially the prayer book of 1552, but these writers also recognized the influence of other Protestant traditions.' Others have seen an impact of Zurich refortn upon the English Church's

' Spclling in tlic Zurich i.errer.v was modcrnizcd by tlic cditor. and tlic New Stylc of datcs was uscd. Tlicsc lôrms will also bc cmplo~cdwlicn rcfcrring to al\ otlicr contcmporary documcnts. Fnnk Gulty. Jr., "Tlic lnflucncc of Hcinricli Bullingcr and tlic Tigurinc Tradition upon tlic Englisli Cliurcii in tlic Sisiccnth Ccntuy." PliD thcsis (Vanderbilt Uni~crsity.I9G 1). p. 267. " Scc: Clairc Cross. "Continental Studcnls and ihc Protestant Rcfomation in England in thc Sistccntli Ccntuc." kforni nntl Ht$mrnticin: Englnnd ancl the C'nnrinent, c. 1500-c. 1750. cd.. Frank Bakcr. .Sm/iC.vin ('hurch iiistor\... Subsida 2 (Osford: Basil Blackwcll. 1979). pp. 35-47: and Diarmaid MacCullocli. 7'hc Imcr Hclfi)rnrarionin /.:n,p/nnc/./547-/fi03 (London: MacMillan. IWO). cspccially di. 2 theological position, but likewise recognized additional forces at work.' While the &cades

became a training mode1 for unlicenced ministers. it did not replace the Church's formal

liturgy. and its impact should not be overestimated. Gully also argued that Builinger contributed to the rise of the Puritan movernent because of his judgements during the vestiarian controversy of 1566. He suggested that this controversy marked the effective end of influence from Zurich, as Bullinger aligneci himself with the English bishops and forced the non-confonnists to look increasingly toward Geneva. causing them to advocate a Caivinist theology. polity. and discipline.while Gully's thesis provides by far the most complete discussion on the subject of a Zurich influence. his concentration on Heinrich Bullinger has caused him to virtually ignore the other leaders of the Zurich church. As Bullinger personally wrote very few letters to English refomers between i 5 59 and 1 563, Gully did not consider a Zurich influence on the Elizabetlian Settlement.

In his doctoral thesis. David Keep also argued that Bullinger's involvement in the vestiarian controversy helped mm some clergymen toward ~eneva.~Unlike Gully. Keep later published his interpretation in a shon article. where he further suggested that Bullinger was

"the father of what was to be called erastianism." a reasonable daim considering that Erastus

and 5. 11 is bcyond rny scopc to csaminc possiblc Zurich i~ucnccsbcforc Mal 1. but it sliould bc notcd tliat thc 1552 prayx book !vas used by many esilcs wliilc on the Continent. and tas gcncrally considcrcd sulficicntly rcformcd to bc uscd in tlic English Cliurch in 1559. Sec bclow. chaptcr 2. Sec: Anthony Milton. (vd~olicmd Refon~ted:The Ronron ont/ Proresrmt ('htrrch in English l'rotc~stnn~Thoirghr. lfi00-1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 19%). cspccially di. 8 and 9: and Paul Cliristianson. "Rcformcrs and tlic Church of England undcr Eliyabctli 1 and ttic Early Stuarts." ./ourntrl of l:'cclpsinsticnl /li.vfclp. 3 1 ( 1980)- pp. 463-8 1, * Gully. "Tiic Influcncc of Hcinricli Bullingcr." p. 282. " David J. Kccp. -Henry BulIingcr and ilic Elimbctlian Cliurcli. A Study of tlic Publication of Iiis 'Dmidcs'. liis Lctier on tlic Ux or Vcstmcnts. and Iiis Rcply to tlic Bull ivliicli Escoininunicitcd Elimbcili." PIiD ilicsis (Unitrcrsityof SlicTfield. 1970). was Bullinger's pupil. '" In another article. Keep argued that Bullinger put into practice his theory of Erastianisrn in England in his confutation of the 1570 Papal buIl Rrgnciirs irr excrlsis, by defending "the power of the godly prince or magistrate" to govem the state church. Despite this. Keep suggested. the defence "had no influence that can be discemed in converting Catholics. nor is there evidence of its being of more than passinç interest to

Protestants."" While he may be accurate in suggesting that there is no evidence of the confùtation's influence, Keep's notation that Bullinger's text was published three times in as many languages within six years suggests that the defence was at least somewhat influential. thouçh to an unknown degree. and perhaps for only a short penod. Nor did Keep adequately consider the Erastian nature of the Elizabethan Settlement, which was generally approved by the Zurich reformers. white not so uniformly accepted by Lutheran and Calvinist divines.

Paul Christianson has argued that long before men like John Field and Thomas

Cartwright imposed Genevan models on England in the later-sixteenth century. Bullinger

"supported the English authorities in the vestments controversy and deputed Rudolp h

Gualter. his successor. to uphold the Anglican hierarchy against the attacks of the English

Presbytenans." Christianson suggested further that a special relationship existed between

Bullinger and the Elizabethan Church; the Queen bestowed a chalice on the A~rtistesin 1 560 and Bullinger defended Elizabeth from the papal buIl of excommunication in 1570 and did his best to help settle disputes that arose among the English reformers. "Even this crucial helping

10 David J. Kccp. "BulIingcr's Intcrvcntion in tlic Vcstiarian Controvcrsy of 1566." 7hc. fi~nngelicnlQunrter/v. 47( 1975). pp. 223-30. " David J. Kcep. "Bullingcr's Dcfcncc of Quccn Elinbcili." in Ulricli Gablcr and Erland Hcrkcnratli. cds.. Ikinrich Bullinger 1504- 157S. Ck~onrnrelte.I t~fidtzezrrrrr 400 'li~tlc~.vrn,q.2 vol. (Zii ricli : Tlicofogischcr Vcrlag- 1975). II. pp. 23 1-4 1. hand." Christianson noted. "did not rnake the Elizabethan settlement into a carbon copy of the Church of Zurich" an assertion fw more conservative in tenor than Gully's conclusions."

Christianson's suggestion that a number of bishops camied the influence of Martin Bucer and

Peter Martyr. two former Regius professors of theology, into the English Church will be considered more completely in this study.

In his analysis of Heinrich Bullinger's influence. Walter Phillips suggested there is a tendency among historians of the English Reformation under Elizabeth to assume that

Calvinism was the only outside influence. Phillips argued that when advising the nonconformists on the issue of vestments in 1566, Bullinger contradicted his previous teachings on the subject. Bullinger did so because the use of vestments, while not strictly speaking odiaph~rn~thingsindifferent to salvation-in the Zunch church. were not a sufficient reason to abandon the Established Church or to risk being deprived of a ministry, especially if such abandonment resulted in less Refomed men preaching the wrong doctrine.

Bullinger's purpose, however, was defeated. as his answer failed to satisfy the more radical nonconformists. and forced them to turn--as Gully and Keep have argued-to the Genevan reformers, who were more supportive of complete. uncompromised refonn. Phillips went hrther by suggesting that the controversy over crosses and copes adjudicated by Peter Martyr in 1560 served as a "soflening of opposition" to vestments by supporters of the ~hurch." But

Phillips neslected to consider adequately in light of the later events that Martyr's advice may

'' Paul Cliristianson. "Rcforrncrs and ilic Cliurcli of England undcr Elizabctli I and tlic Early Stuarts." pp. 469-7 1. " WaItcr Pliillips. "Hcnry Bullingcr and tlic Elizabctlian Vcsiiarian Conirovcrsy: An Analysis of InBucnce." .Iournnl o/Rrligio~t.vIliswrv (..l~wrrnlin).1 1 ( 198 1 ). pp. 363-84. have planted seeds of discontent. of which vestments. having received much attention, were merely closest to the surface.

The question of the extent of Martyr's influence was touched upon briefly by MaMn

Anderson in a chapter of his excellent study: Peler Moriyr: A Rq?wmer in Fxik (1 975).

Martyr had been invited to Christ's College. Oxford as Regius professor of theology and he was in tenure there during "an epoch of huge proportions for English political and reliçious history which Martyr helped to shape from 1547 to 1553."" In 1553. Martyr went to

Strassburg and then to Zurich, where he was warmIy welcomed, and where the church leaders shared his ideas on Protestant reform." Anderson noted that ''Martyr's influence on the subsequent development of English Protestantism has not been thoroughly investigated." a t heme which the present study embraces very specifically.'6 He suggested, like C hristianson. that there were strong ideological connections between the English bishops and Martyr. This link encouraged divines such as Thomas Sampson and John Jewel to employ the reformer as a sounding-board for their hesitations in accepting bishoprics. Martyr's response. Anderson noted. was originally radical, but then Martyr inexplicably became cautious and suggested a more moderate level of opposition. Anderson did not offer a reason for Martyr's moderation, nor did he ultimately establish to any extent whether the reformer was influential during the early controversies in the Elizabethan Church. His work remains particularly useful because

"' Marvin Walter Andcrson. Peter Alar[vr: .-I Refornrer in Ede (1542-1562). (Nicuwkoop: B. Dc Graaf. 1975). pp. i(l0- 1, Scc &O: Phillip M.J. McNair "Petcr Martyr in England." in Peter :\fnr!vr I'rrn~Ïgli md linlinn R

The conclusion of rnost of these writers that Bullinger's primary influence was in turning certain non-conformists toward Geneva, which resulted in a resoundedly Calvinist influence among Puritans in later years. was strongly stated in M.M. Knappen's Tzd'c)r

Pwifnirism ( 1939) and Patrick Collinson's Elizabetha~~Pzrriinr~ Moiwna~t ( 1967)." More recently, Anthony Milton has suggested that "Swiss Reformed theology was the predorninant strain in the religion of the Church of England," with Calvinism gaininç a stronger hold toward the end of the century." Despite the relatively broad and signifiant scholarship considenng a Zurich influecce, this brief histonographical analysis has uncovered two palpable shortcomings. First, while the influence of the Zurich reformers has been considered by a number of historians. none but Anderson have looked specifically at the formative period between 1 559 and 1563 and Anderson's attempt is insufficient. In many of these studies. there is a tendency to think that the Zurich reformers' actions during the vestiarian controversy and the confutation of the papal buIl were isolated events. having little precedent .

Second. most of these writers have almost wholly neglected to consider the influence of

Rcdolph Gualter. Peter Martyr. and those English divines and statesmen who espoused a tradition of Zurich reforrn, consequently giving the impression that Bullinger was the only

Zurich influence on the English Church. It is necessary. then, to consider the extent to which

' - Espccially Patrick Collinson. The E/iznhrthnn Purilon I hiwnient (London: Jonni Ilan Cape. 1967). Pari TWO. ln Milton. (*nrholic nnd Rejwnred p. 396. Sce also C.M.Dcni, Proresrnnr Rt$mrer.~in kïiznherhm Oxfi~rcl(Osford: Oxford U.P., 1983). pp. 88-9. 97-102. wlicrc Dent argucs iliat inuch or this CaIvinist influcncc gained proinincnce at Osford cira 1 590. the influence of the Zurich reformers and their adherents in England was an evolutionary process which began earlier than most historians have supposed. which involved a larger nurnber of participants than just Bullinger. which heiped to fom ecclesiastical polity in the

Church of England. and which provided an historical precedent for the reformers' involvernent in the important cnses facing the Church in the latter half of the 1560s.

The IXzahefha~rSetffrmrrr~- OIJ md New Ir~terprelatio,~~

Historians writing on the Engiish Refomation, or more specifically on the Elizabethan

Settlement. have not adequately considered the influence of Zurich theologians upon English refomers. The interpretations of the Elizabethan Settlement of religion have undergone quite a transformation. from the ubiquitous "traditional" interpretation espoused by John Foxe in the sixteenth century. to a number of new and varied theories beginning with that of J.E.

Neale in 1950. Foxe's interpretation was presented briefly in his well-known Actes md

Mor~rrmer~~.~(1570). He argued that Elizabeth 1 came to the throne in 1558 intent upon regaining royal supremacy over the Church and uniting the nation under a unifonn order of worship based on the 1552 prayer book used under her brother, Edward VI. To achieve this,

Elizabeth dismissed the Catholic members of her sister's Pnvy Council. replacing them with loyal Protestants. who helped the Queen to prepare her programme of religious reform to be presented to Parliament. Foxe maintained that Elizabeth "fixed" the Parliamentary elections and ensured a strong Protestant majority in the House of Commons to balance the powerful

Catholic presence in the House of Lords. In Parliament. there was "much debating about religion. and great study on both parties employed. the one to retain still the other to impugn the doanne and faction which before Queen Mary's time had been e~tablished."'~Aided by

the loyal Protestant Lower House. Elizabeth carefully navigated a vin media, made

compromises such as offeringCatholic bishops positions in her new episcopacy and retaining

omarnents in churches. and ensured the passing of the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity.'"

The former statute named the reigning monarch as the Supreme Govemor (not Supreme

Head) of the Church of Ençland while the latter instituted a liturgy based largely upon the

prayer book of 1552 and proffered disciplinary action for dissenters. The Settlement was

completed in 1563 when Convocation, acting on the Queen's dictum, assembled the Thirty-

Nine Articles, which established doctrinal discipline for the clergy and finalized the middle-

way desired by Elizabeth.

The accuracy of Foxe's overly-sirnplistic interpretation would be highly questionable

were it not for the large canon of important histonans who have accepted it. Even in

seventeenth-century monographs written by William Camden, John Strype. and Gilbert

Bumet. the customary findings were that the zeal of Papists was balanced by Protestant opposition and monarchical intuition." In his 176 1 universal history of England, David Hume

referenced Camden. Strype, and Bumet as his sources regarding the Elizabethan Settlement; it is therefore hardly surprising that Hume found the Queen "detemined in her own rnind." and resolved to "discover such syrnptoms . . . as miçht give encouragement to the

"' Jolin Fosc. .lcrc..v ontl.\fonunrenf.v [15701. 2 vol.. 2d cd. (London. 16 IO). II. p. 1925. Spelling bas bccn modcmizcd. 'O Tlic tcnn ivirrrwlin was Tirsi iiscd in conncction with iIic Englisli Cliurclt by Jolin Hcn? Ncwinan. ï'he I In .\ frclia cqthe. lnglicnn C'ht~rch.2 \*ol.(Ncw York: Longman's. Grccn. and Co.. 190 1 ).

'' W i 1I ia tri Camdcn. .al nndes Reruni .-lngIicnrunr et /./ihernict~rrrnr.Regntrnte E/iznhethn (London: 16 15). p. Ilff; lolin St~pc..-lnnnls of the Refornrnrion. 2 vols. (London: 1725). 1. p. 60ff: Gilbcri Burnct. The I-fistoyv of the Refinnntion of the C'htrrch rfEngInnci (London: T.H.Richard. 1683). p. 3J5ff. Protestants,'' while developing ceremonies that "tended farther to reconcile the catholics to the established religion."" In his history of England under Elizabeth published in 19 10. A. F.

Pollard concluded. as did Foxe three centuries before. that the Queen was supported by a

Protestant Pnvy Council and House of Commons, and made sufficient concessions to the

House of Lords to ensure the enactrnent of supremacy and uniformity legislation." Silence followed Pollard's publication and, until 1950. Foxe's "traditional" interpretation of the

Elizabethan Settlement had chançed very linle.

The first dissenting opinion on the traditional interpretation was presented in an article published in 1950 by the political historian Sir John E. Neaie." His purpose in proposing this new t heory was clearly stated in his monograph l3zabefh l ami Her Pariiatnetifs ( 1 959). the first part of which was based on the 1950 article:

The Elizabethan religious settlement is shrouded in mystery. . . . It is a tnbute to the enduring qualities of the settlement that in looking back it has seemed natural and inevitable: as though from the beginning there could have been no other policy than that of the middle-way -- the media of tradition. But when and how this policy was shaped. or even what happened in Parliament, has been a matter of guesswork. based on the most meagre and baffling evidence. . . . Its scrutiny therefore has to be close . . . if we are to force it, as we can. to yield its dramatic secret.''

Neale Fashioned hirnself a detective amassing clues; he used no new sources, and freely admitted that his theory was no more than an hypothesis to fit and explain al1 known facts.'"

Dismissing the traditional notion that Elizabeth directed the preparation of certain documents

'' Dm-id Hum. 7'he /fis/or~~of Kngfonclfiont fhe himion r,/.lulilr.v ( krsm io 11w Keiwlurron of lfixr3.8 vol. (London: 1 76 1 ), IV. pp. 7- 14. IZ A.F. Pollard. The Ifisrorv c$Englmc//rm the .lccrssion cfEc/rwrd I7to the Decirh rf I

House, by arçuing instead that the conservative Queen and the more radical Protestant Lower

House were regularly in oppositioh and that Elizabeth used the Upper House to balance this overt radicali~rn.'~The Lower House contained a number of members who had accepted exile dunng Mary's reign and in combination with the retumed divines who acted as a

"pressure group," this "puritan choir" was a formidable group who wanted reform more complete than Elizabeth initially intended. When the supremacy bill initiated by the govemment was first introduced into the Lower House. it included provision for communion in two kinds", a doctrinal matter which, Neale argued, more appropriately belonged in a uni formity bill. Relying heavily upon this evidence, Neale suggested that Elizabeth had planned to dismiss Parliament at Easter, having secured her supremacy; her religious reformation was to be one of "little by littlè', and the issue of communion was the only doctrinal matter which could not wait until the next session of Parliament. Neale offered two

'- Ncalc. Eiimherh 1 and lkr Pnr1in111ent.v.p. 5 1. Tlic short "Dcvicc" ivas wittcn in 1558 and prcscnicd to (Iic Pri\-y Council as a proposal for tlic new religion; as well as advocating a strong Protestant rcfonii. ii naincd a nu~nbcrof divincs and statcsmcn bcst cquippcd 10 facilitatc sucli cliangc. For a copy of i hc docuincni, sec: Burnet. "A Collection of Rccords. &c.." in JJisfori~qf fhr Rej~rnrntion.pp. 327-3 1. Scc also bclow. diaptcr 2. Ncalc. l:'li;nheth i nnci Ifer IJorlionrents.pp. 39-67. " Tliat is, communion in brcad and winc. the body and blood of Christ. in accordancc witli the Protcstant tradition. Tlic Catliolic tradition sincc the middlc agcs Iiad kncommunion in onc kind (brcad). reasons for this staggered reformation. First, the war between France and England still raged. and a dramatic change in liturgy could have increased tensions in the foreign xene. Second.

Neale proposed that Elizabeth hoped to appease the Protestants while not violently offendinç

Catholics, saving her fiom too great a dependence on the "radical" former exiles. When the

Lower House. feanng Parliament would end without the enactment of a formal Ençlish liturçy, appended ont0 the supremacy bill a provision for the revival of the 1552 Edwardian

Prayer book. the Catholic bishops in the Upper House removed this provision with the blessing of the Queen.

Two situations, Neale believed, precipitated the final shape of the settlement of religion. First, peace occurred with France at Câteau Cambrésis on March 19, and thus the foreign situation was relieveà. Second, on Mar& 22, the Queen had committed herself to the

WestminsterDisputation to be held at the end of March. in which eight Protestants and eight

Catholics debated various points of doctrine and liturgyJOThree propositions provided the matenal for discussion: that public prayer should be in English: that each provincial church should have the power to establish, change, or abrogate ceremonies; and that the propitiary sacrifice of the mass could not be proven in scripture." The Disputation proved abortive:

Catholic obstinacy and quarrels over procedure proved destructive and afler two days the session broke up without even the first proposition fully debated." Angered by the Catholic opposition. Elizabeth impnsoned two of the Catholic bishops who were participants in the

Disputation. which served the multivalent purpose of removing their votes from the Upper

vi Ncalc. Kliznheth I ml[fer Pnrlinr~renls- pp. 70-2. '' Scc: John Jewcl to Pcter Martyr. 20 March 1559. firich Leuers. p. 23: and bclow. chaptcr 2. '' Scc: Jc~vclto Martyr. 6 April 1559, Zurich Leuers. pp. 25-7: and bclow. chaptcr 2 House. angering the remaining Catholic bishops. and forcing Elizabeth to rely more heavily upon the Protestants, both dunng and afker Parliament. Thus resolution in the foreign scene enabled and Catholic obstinacy in the domestic scene forced Elizabeth to recall Parliament afier Easter to pass new Acts of supremacy and uniformity. Neale arçued that the Queen wanted a retum of the conservative 1549 Edwardian prayer book, while the "puritan choir" in the commons, who had used a simplified liturgy while in exile, wanted something more radical than the 1552 book." In the end. Elizabeth was forced by her new dependency on the Manan exiles, who would have to enforce the settlement and lead the newly reconstituted church, to compromise on a version of the 1552 book, revised in accordance with her more conservative desires? Elizabeth held as her tmrnp card the "ornaments proviso". which allowed her to rnodiQ parish ornaments and clerical dress in consultation with her ministers but without the sanction of ~arliament.~'

Neale's argument was cogent and carehlly developed. but he placed too rnuch emphasis on his unproven hypothesis that the "communion in two kinds" provision which tumed up in the supremacy statute had been placed in the original supremacy bill (which is not extant). Even if it was, it is just as likely that Elizabeth wanted Parliarnentary approval of communion in both kinds so that it could be used by Easter. Despite the fact that the bill

'' NcaIc, Eliznbeth !nnd/-/er Pnrlinmenrs. pp. 39-67. Ncalc unconvincingfy bascd Iiis cvidencc on iwo obscurc coinincnis Elimbctli allcgcdly inadc to forcign ambassadors ihat slic wislicd for a rcturn of tlic Augsburg Confcssion "or soinctliing clse likc it." (ihid. p. 79). Tlic Augsburg Confcssion. as opposcd to tlic Hchrtic Confcssion of ilic Zuricli cliurchcs. \vas Lutlicmn and apparcntly sen-cdas ilic modcl for tlic 1549 book. Thc 1552 book \\as scctningly bascd inorc on t hc Zuricli inodcl. For inorc on ~lic Confcssions. scc bclow. chaptcr 2. '' Tlic main rcvision rcgardcd the cucharist: tlic 15-49 book rccognizcd a rdprcscncc of Christ. closcr 10 tlic Catliolic and Lutlicnn cliurclics. wl~ilcilic 1552 book strcsscd a qinbolic prcscncc. as in tlic Swiss cliurclics. Tlic tcst in thc 1559 book incorporatcd thc two concepts. " Ncale. Elhbefh I nnd fier Pnrlinnients. pp. 76-8 1. was not yet enacted. this did take place in many churches. Also. Neale did not sufficiently account for the strong Catholic opposition present in the House of Lords, made manifestly clear in St~-ype.~"(n addition. he considered the influence of the retumed exiles substantial enough for the Queen to tum to the Upper House for moderation, but included a very limited discussion. While Neale recognized some minor differences among the former exiles. he concluded that they generally pooled their resources in the quest for further reformation, which contradicts some extant contemporary evidence." Despite the rather flimsy evidence

Neale used to present his revisionist hypothesis, his interpretation quickly became the reiçninç orthodoxy, used. for example. in A.G. Dickens's discussion of the Settlement in his 1964 history of the English ~eforrnation.'~As Philip Hughes exclaimed: "Rarely have we had such a chance to see how swiftly leamed hypothesis can become a 'fact' of popular kn~wled~e!"~~

General support for Neale's thesis came from William Haugaard.

In I!,Xzahrrhami /hr fi~gfishRrfomafioo,~ ( 1 968), William Haugaard argued t hat a more complex via inmeJin position was involved in the Settlement than Neale had envisaged.

Before Easter "Elizabeth and her conservative advisors had forced their policy through

Parliament." Haugaard argued. suggesting, contrary to Neale. that the Queen and her councillors planned the extent of refonn before Parliament began."' But Haugaard agreed

3" Stqpc. .-lnnnf.~offhe Rcj~wrrntion. 1, pp. 7-36. Bot Ii tlic Arcfibishop of York and tlic Bisliop of Ciiiclicsicr spokc ~.iolcntlyagainsi tlic suprcmacy and tlicir supporters wcrc many. including al1 ilic bisliops and a nuinbcr of lay pccrs. " Ncalc. Efiznhefh / oncf /irr i.'nrlictnren~s,pp. 55-8. Tlic conicmporary cvidcncc are lcttcrs writicn by tlic csilcs csplicitly rcfusing io put asidc tlicir diffcrcnccs and forin a part?; scc bclotv. ctiapicr 2. 1R A.G. Dickcns. ï'he knglish Itcfirnrntion (London: B.T. Batsford. Ltd.. 1964). pp. 297-303. '" Pltilip E. Huglics. 'l'he Refirnrnfion in England (London. 1963). p. 2711. Wii liam P. Haugnard. I

Protestant protest group existed in the House of Cornmons; that the liturçical addition to the

Supremacy Bill was "sheared off' by the Upper House at the Queen's request; that the

Westminster Disputation and the radiais' refusal to accept a via media, forced the Queen to proceed with the liturçicai leçislation; and that Elizabeth had hoped to use the 1549 Prayer

Book, but was forced to use with rninor revision the 1552 Book, the minimum that the

Marian exiles would accept." Haugaard more succinctly than Neale proposed a chief problem facing Elizabeth: "If she dismissed Parliament only to discover that few important clencal leaders From either side would support her ecclesiastical policies, she could lose ail possibility of religious ~tability."~'Ultimately. he argued, this was the reason Elizabeth tumed away from the intransigent Catholics and began to negotiate with the "militant" protestants."

Even then, when Elizabeth selected bishops for her new church. most were from "the moderate cornmunities of Strassburg and Zurich." This enabled her to "pursue a moderate religious policy without the counterbalance of the Manan bishops," and to protect the church

Eom "the more extreme reformer^."^ Still, a nurnber of "issues and conflicts" emerged in the ensuing few years, such as the omaments controversy. in which a number of bishops and clergy were concemed with the crucifixes and vestments still too pervasive in the ~hurch."

" /hic/., pp. 8 1 - 1 19. " Ihid.. p. 100. " Unlikc Nalc. Haugaard [endcd to equatc "radical'. and "militant" Proicstants witli llicir zeal. raiiicr iIian ihcir dcsircd Icvcl of rcfonn. inaking a numbcr of 11is proposiiions about tlic csilcs qucsiionablc: scc. for csainplc. ihid.. p. 5 1 n, wIierc Iic cstirnatcd frir bondal1 otkr scliolars tlic nuinbcr of "rniliiants" who rciurncd from csiIc. IJ Ihitl.. pp. 27. 30.13. " Ihid.. pp. 185-200. Hauçaard noted that these problems were drawn into proposals and debates during the

Convocation of 1563 and that any discussion of the Elizabethan Settlement need to look at

the Convocation and its remlution of these issues. He suggested fùrther that the Convocation

was as much a compromise as was the 1559 Parliament. a compromise between conflicting

groups of Protestants--the moderate refomers and the radical "precisians". On the whole.

Haugaard believed that the 1563 Convocation propelled the Church of England in the

direction desired by the Queen, instead of that desired by the "precisians.""

While Haugaard both irnplicitly and explicitly supported a number of elernents in

Neale's interpretation. other historians duting the past two decades have subjected it to strong

criticism. In Thr Càmhr~&e Cuis~ectzo~~and the E/izabetharr Srtflrmwf of 1559 ( 1 980),

Winthrop S. Hudson dismissed the traditional notion that Elizabeth acted largely without

advice and argued that she surrounded herself with a group of "trained civil servants and

ecclesiastics" who while in university belonged to the Cambridge Athenians (a group of

scholars who began gathering at Cambridge in 1535 to promote the Erasmian pronunciation

of Greek). The Athenians became prominent at Oxford as we11." Seven Athenians were

members of the Privy Council (such as William Cecil. Secretary of State, and Nicholas Bacon.

Lord Keeper); six held major posts outside the council (such as Walter Mildmay. Chancellor

of the Exchequer, Walter Haddon and Thomas Seckford, masters of the Court of Requests.

and Gilbert Gerard. Attorney General); ten were of some political importance during the first

In Ibicl.. pp. vii-is, Thc tcrm "prccisian" was uscd by Arclibisliop of Canicrbun Mattlicw Parkcr aftcr 1563 10 rcfcr 10 the ndicals of Convocation's Lowcr Housc (ihicl.. p. 50.) 4- Winllirop S. Hiidson. The Cnnrhridge (i~nnecrionnnti rhr Eliznhelhnn S'erilrnrenf nf 1.W (Durham. N.C.:Dukc U.P.. 1980). pp. 34. Parliament (such as Thomas Smith and Richard Goodnch, men involved in determining religious refonn); and another six later held episcopal positions (such as Matthew Parker.

Archbishop of Canterbury. and Edmund Grindai, Bishop of b on don).^' Hudson suggested that many of these Athenians had a strong hand in Forming the official royal position on religion. including the "Device." and that other members of the Cambridge connection were consulted "at almost every step."" Also, whereas most scholars. including Neale (whose work Hudson called "sleight ofhand"). had seen the Marian exiles as a united group opposing the Upper House in the Parliamentary debates of 1559. Hudson argued that the Athenians who went into exile shared more allegiance with other members of their Cambridge connection than with their feilow exiles, whom he characterized as "a divided, not a unified gro~p."~The result of this close-kit group of &ends and their wide-reaching influence was

"more consensus than conflict between the Queen, her Council, the Cornons, and the chosen leaders of the reconstituted church t han has commonly been supposed."" As the traditional historians argued. opposition to the position of the Queen and her councillors came predorninantly from the Upper House.

There are some problems in Hudson's argument. If. as he suggested. the Athenians came to dominate at Cambridge and became influentid at Odord, Elizabeth might have found it difficult to select Protestant secular or religious leaders who were not. in at least some minor way, associated with the Athenian ideology, especially since the Cat holics had shown

JII Ihicl.. pp. 3940. A coinplcte list of namcs tnay bc found licrc. $0 Ihid.. pp. 9-1 1, 1 10-3. Ihitl.. p. 5. '' Ibid. themselves unwilling to compromise- By November 1558, Elizabeth had dismissed al1

obdurate Catholics from her Pnvy Council and by April 1559. she could no longer rely upon

keeping Catholic bishops in their sees. Short of re1ying on poorly educated gentry and clergy,

there was nowhere else to tum except to those scholars and divines from the universities,

many of whom were Athenians under Hudson's definition. With al1 of its insights, then. there

seems to be more than a little self selection in Hudson's interpretation.

The rnost comprehensive and sustained rebuttal against Neale was offered in Norman

L. Jones, Faith by Sfafufe (1982). Juxtaposing the traditional interpretation and that of

Neale's and considering the documents on which they lean, Jones concluded that while the traditionai interpretation was more plausible, both were too ~irnplistic.~'Jones believed that

Elizabeth's councillors were carefùlly chosen to provide a balance between State experience, political support, and Protestant sympathies. "A reform of religion," Jones wrote, "was the

purpose of the Queen of England and her intimate counsellors." beginning with the

"De~ice."~' Contrary to Neale's theory. Jones argued that the "Device" showed the

predilection by the Queen and her councillors for the 1552 prayer book; at no point did

Elizabeth consider using the 1549 book, nor was Neale correct in interpreting that the

Westminster Disputants vigorously sought a more reformed book.Y Aiso, according to

Jones, Elizabeth had never intended to dismiss Parliament before instituting a uniform liturgy; rather she had expected the Settlement to be cumpleted by aster." The conflict with France

'' Norman L. Joncs. hith bu Stature: Purliament and the Sertlenrent ofReligion IS59 (London: RoyaI Historical Socicty. 1982). pp. 24. 53 lbid.. pp. 3 1 4. Ihicl.. pp. 24-5. 5s /hic/.. p. 113. would not have escalated so long as Spain recognized a persona1 threat of a France- dominateci England. so this was not a determining factor in either the length of Parliament or the extent of settlernent? The inability of Parliament to complete the settlement by Easter was caused-as the traditional interpretation had held--by the intransigence of the Upper

House. where the bishops and a number of conservative lay peers opposed any Protestant settlement. This situation was partly relieved by the Disputation and the following imprisonment of two bishops. lmplicitly agreeing with Hudson, Jones argued that the presence of exiles in influencing Parliament was weaker than historians had traditionally supposed. Most of the exiles had not retumed by March when the supremacy bill was passed and those who were present were not sufficiently united or numerous enough to be heard.

For the most part, the Commons was not heavily imbued with a spint of religious reform. although it understood Parliament's task to undertake such modifications.

Finally. Christopher Haigh in his 1993 work D~giishReforrnntioris offered implicit confirmation of Jones's and Hudson's interpretations. Haigh suggested that Elizabeth came to the throne resolute to "break with the past." and that the "Device" was the direct result of advice sought from Protestant supporters. The Queen "immediately and obviously" threw her lot in with the Protestants, determinecf to "sack Mary's councillors and Mary's bishopsW-- contrary to Neale, no attempt was made to keep Marian bishops in their sees. Rather, the

Queen wanted to fil1 the episcopacy with "ex-Edwardians" and to retum the liturgy, as Jones argued, to the Edwardian prayer book of 1552. Few returned exiles sat in the Parliament. but their united support was not necessary anyway. as Elizabeth's plans for reform met with their

/hic/.. pp. 50-2. approval. Drawing heavily upon Jones. Haigh suggested the Westminster Disputation was

"rigged" to make the bishops appear extremely recalcitrant, allowing the Queen to

legitimately minimize their opposition." But amendments to the 1552 book were necessary;

the Catholics remained powefii in the Lords, and to gain their assent to the uniforrnity bill, changes were required. Specifically, these changes included removing charges of the Pope's

heresy from prayers. changing the words of the Eucharkt to allow for an understanding of the

real presence of Christ. providing for the use of vestments and ornaments. and directing the

rninister to stand "in the accustomed place" where Catholic priests had stood while

conducting the liturgy.

Thus where Neale argued the prayer book changes represented the Queen's compromise to the "puritan choir" in the Commons and her proclivity toward using the

Augsburg Confession, Haigh argued that the Queen wanted thorough-going reform and that the changes to the prayer book of 1552 were accepted solely to win the Lords' assent to the uniformity bill, a narrow victory which was won by only three votes. Indeed, Haiçh denounced Neale's central arguments more explicitly than had Jones by aquing that Elizabeth had always intended to formalize a liturgy at her first Parliament. that she desired the 1552 and not the 1549 prayer book. that no organized Protestant faction existed, and that

"EIizabeth's battle was not with a Protestant House of Commons; it was with a Catholic

House of ~ords."'~As well. Haigh noted that Elizabeth's compromises with the Catholics bore the seeds of future discontent among Protestants. This was manifested in the 1559

57 Christoplier Haigli. Engiish Reforntotions: Religion. Pu/itics. nnd Socie(v under the Tudurs (O-dord: Clarendon Prcsç. 1993). pp. 238-1 1. Ibid.. p. 2.1 1. Visitations, in which senior clergy travelled throughout England, cailing al1 clergy to subscnbe to the supremacy, the Book of Cornmot>Prayer. and the Queen's religious Injunctions. Less willing to compromise than their monarch, the Visitation commissioners, including a nurnber of fùture bishops, destroyed many of the images they f~und.'~The visitations and other issues of discontent arnong the episcopacy and clergy. will be discussed at length later in this study.

Haigh's insightful interpretation of contemporary documents. coupled with his reliance on

Jones's persuasive work made his brief yet thorough version of the Elizabethan Settlement arguably the most authoritative interpretation published on the subject. an interpretation that has fundamentaily-perhaps surprisingly--retumed to aspects of the traditional interpretation, although with new and significant cornplexities added.

When looking at the role of the exiles during the settlement, recent historians have generally argued that too much discordance exiaed among the irni@, or t hat too few exiles had retumed to marshal an effective opposition. Other recent historians have helped to strengthen this interpretation. In his examination of the role of the exiles on the Elizabethan

Settlement, Kenneth Bartlett noted that because the writs for the election were issued on

November 18. 1558. only nineteen exiles had returned and managed to secure seats in the

Commons. and they did not constitute "a coherent faction which mixed Parliamentary experience with a cornmitment to some pre-formulated p~licy."~Indeed. the majority had spend their time abroad in Italy. In addition. Andrew Pettegree has argued that since a complete policy for refom came "From the heart of govemment" (the Queen and her chief

" Ihid. pp. 232-5. Sec below. chapter 3. "O Kcnneili Bartlctt. "The Rolc of tlic Marian Esilcs." in P.W.Haslcr. ed.. The House oJ ( 'ontnrons; 1.558- 1603. 3 vol. (London: History of Parliament Trust. 1% 1 ). 1. pp. 102-8. ministers). an organized Protestant pressure group was "hardly necessary" since their wishes

and aspirations were being met." Despite the relative significance of these well-proven

conclusions, neither histonan sub-divided the group of higris, or systematically looked at

the retumed exiles from Strassburg and Zurich.

Building upon recent interpretations, this thesis will examine the programme of

religious reform devised by the Queen, her councillors, and Protestant divines who supported

the Elizabethan Seulement to trace some of the influences of divines who lived in Zurich upon

the theology, worship, doctrine. and practices of the early-Elizabethan Church of England.

A thorough examination of the Ztuich Letters, a number of additional contemporary primary sources, and the events which occurred between 1559 and 1563. will reveal that the influence specifically of those espousing the tradition of Zurich refom was not as minimal as historians have hitherto believed. Rather. on an individuai and sometimes a group level, a number of important people in Zurich and in England attempted to mould the Church of England to fit into the principles and traditions of Zurich reform. This influence began earlier than most recent historians have supposeci. involved more participants than Heinrich Bullinger, provided an historical precedent to the reformers' involvement in the important crises facing the Church in the latter half of the 1560s. and, perhaps most importantly, helped give shape and a

"' Andrcw Pettegrce. !\for~clnProiesîantisnr: SixStüdies(Aldershot: ScoIar. 1996). p. 140. 1 Iiave purposcIy oinitted a discussion of C.H. Garrctt's scrninal study The ;\fnrinn Exiles, l.553-1559 (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.. 1938). Garrett argued that "As a political faction. a group of disaffected countn; gcntlcmcn . . . left England in 1554: as a political parp they returned to it again in 1558." (p. 59). Hcr concIusions providcd a foundation for the argumcnt of Neaic. but Garrett has been cliallenged by a numbcr of historians ovcr the pus. including Pettegrce and Bartlctt. and even a cursory esamination of conicmporary documents shows the great dissension among the esiles on thc Continent (see below, chaptcr 2.) Garrctt's work rcmains indispensable. howcvcr. bccausc of the expansive and comprelicnsivc "Ccnsus" included in Iicr book. This drcw upon a large number of sources and provided statistics. measure of stability to the new English Church. Moreover, the influence of Lutheran and

Calvinist forces during this period was considerably less than that of Zurich, because few exiles spent time in Lutheran states, and because the Calvinist exiles amved back in England too late and were considered too radical to assist in the new Church of England. In order to demonstrate this interpretation, four events involving consultation or people involved with the Zurich reformers will be exarnined: the Parliament of 1559, the ornaments controversy of

1559 and 1560, the defences of the Church published by Bishop John Jewel between 1559 and 1562, and the Convocation of 1 563. Chapter Two

Zurich Reform and the Religious Settlement of 1559

The reform of religion appears to have been the pnmary goal of the Queen, Privy Council. and many members of the House of Cornons in 1559. Shortly before Mary 1's death,

Elizabeth reportedy told her sister's advisors that the "foundation and nile" of her religion would be only what "cm be proved by the word of God," a probable indication of her intention to re-introduce Protestantisrn in England!' This was borne out by several events early in the reign. By the end of November 1558, Elizabeth had dismissed al1 Catholics from the Privy Council, replacing them with "good Christians." who defined the govemment's programme of reform." In December, Elizabeth had imprisoned a Marian bishop for preaching a sermon against the "new religion" of Protestantisrn, had left her Chape1 Royal in mid-service when the presiding bishop refised her instructions not to elevate the host. and had issued a royal proclamation forbidding al1 preaching until consultation was made "by

Parlament, by her Majesty, and her Three Estates of this Realm."" Finally. Nicholas Bacon. the Lord Keeper. declareci at the opening of Parliament in January 1559 that the Queen's chief reason for cailing Parliament was the "well making of laws. for the according, and uniting of these people of the Realm into a uniform order of religi~n."'~Before and during Parliament,

Edwin Sandys to Hcinrich Bullingcr. 20 Deceinber 1558. Zurich Lerrers. p. 4. "'Sandys to Bullinger. 20 Dccembcr 1558. Zurich Lerters. pp. 5-6. "' Ib id., p. 5; W.H. Frere. The English C'hurch in rhe Reigns oJI:'/izaheth cm/Jmies i (1558- 1625) (London: MacMillan- 1904). pp. 7-8: Strype. .4nnds oJthe Refarninrion. 1. Appcndis. p. 3. Strypc. -4nnnls ofrhe Rrfir~~ration.1. p. 54. the leaders of the Zurich church and their adherents in England through a number of letters and documents presented their recommendations regarding religious refonn to the Queen and to ceriain members of the Privy Council and Parliament. This chapter attempts to discover. describe. and assess the impact of this activity on the Elizabethan Settlement of 1559.

To some extent, al1 of those writing these letters and documents saw themselves as carrying on the doctrine and practices of the Zurich church, which had been presented in its confession of faith. When Catholics first began attacking religious reformers as "Protestants" in 1529, it became necessary for their opponents to defend thernselves by writing down and following confessions offaith? Ail Protestant confessions treated generally the same themes

--doctrine. cerernony, discipline, ecclesiastical structure, and govemance--and to varying degrees they were grounded in scripture, emphasizing these apostolic teachings as the only foundation for religious tmths and attempting to show the chief errors of Catholicism and a number of emerging sects. The first Protestant confession was the Augsburg Confession. drafted by Philipp Melanchthon from matenal provided by Martin Luther and presented to

Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Augsburg in 1 530. The Augsburg Confession. endorsed by a nurnber of German princes and divines, consisted of twenty-eight "Articles" designed to cleariv and succinctly outline the pnnciples of Protestantism." Yet despite its "protesting"

" George Huntston Williams. The Rndicnl ReJarnintian. 3d cd,. (Kirksillc. MO: Sisteentli- Ccntury Journal. 1992). p. 57. "'Philipp Melanchthon. "Augsburg Confession." in The Book oJCwoncord:The C'on/e.c.rians of rhe Evnngelicnl Lufhernn Church. cd. and trans. Tlicdorc G. Tappert. (Philadelpliia: Mulilenbcrg Press.

1 959). pp. 23-96. (Hcrcaftcr citcd as .ml ugvburg Con/ession. wit h original article number). nature, the Augsburg Confession was, for reasons to be exarnined later, as George Williams

noted. "the most Catholic of any Protestant Confession," and did not suit the designs of

reformers such as John Calvin and Heinrich Builinger.'

In 1535, Calvin wrote his multi-volumed Imfitzrtesof the Chrisian Religim, a lengthy

treatise on what would become the Calvinist Reforrned tradition!' The testament of Zurich

Refonn, the First Helvetic Confession, was prepared by Bullinger in 1536, but it is likely that

the leaders of the Zurich church were by 1559 developing and espousing the tenets of the

Second Helvetic Confession. Bullinger began working on the second confession in 1 56 1,

&er the exiles had retumed to Engiand and after the majority of the Elizabethan Settlement

was completed, but he, Gualter, and Martyr had been teaching its tenets for a number of

years. By the 1550s. the first confession had already become dated in a number of areas."

We must enter, then, into a minor anachronism by using the Second Helvetic Confession and

its thirty "Chapters" when considering the tenets of late-1 550 Zurich reform." Regardless,

both of Bullinger's confessions were concordant on issues of ceremony, imagery,

ecclesiasticai hierarchy. and church govemance, the four issues which fùndamentally divided

the Lutheran, Calvinist, and Zurich churches?

"R Williams. Radical Refarnintion. p. 57. "" Benjamin W. Warficld. "Introduction on the Literan History of CaIvin's Insrirures." in John Calvin. Insriruie.~ofthe C'hrisrinn Religion. 2 vols.. trans. Jolin Allen (Philadelpliia: Presbyterian Board of Christian Religion. 1936). pp. v-lii. (Hcraer citai as Instirufzs. witli tlic original book and chaptcr numbcrs.) 'O I. Wayne Baker. Ifeinrich Bul/inper and the Covennnt: The Oiher Refirnred Trndirion (Athens. OH: Ohio U.P.. 1980). pp. 44-6. -' Second flehperic Confession in Arthur C. Cochranc. Rejwnied (on/é.~sionsofthe Sirteenth- (ènruty (London: Westminster Press. 1966). (Hereafter cited as Second Helveric Confession. with original cliaptcrs numbers. ) Tliese Protestant confcssions of faith werc of course not the only works defining Protcstant traditions: most also liad wtcchisms, and used a number of ancicnt crceds and additional articles. But The division between Lutherans, Calvinists, and Zurich divines was not generally about doctrine. Broadly. al1 three faiths agreed on many points of theology: for example, on the nature of God and the Tnnity. the existence of original sin. the performance of good works. and the reliance upon scnpture alone for doctrine. Some differences existed in interpretation of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Al1 Protestants believed in communion in two kinds. giving bread and wine to lay people, in opposition to the Catholic tradition of offenng ody bread to communicants, but the nature of Christ in the Supper was contended.

The Swiss tradition held that the presence of Christ was symbolic. not reaLT3 Lutherans believed in consubstantiation, that the body and blood of Christ are really present under the bread and wine." Calvinists rejected this physical "devouring" of Christ. and believed instead that by eating the bread and drinking the wine, the communicant was united with the real spirit of Christ." In order to bring the Reformed positions doser together on this issue.

Calvin and Bullinger in 1549 signed a common doctrinal statement. the Con~setimsfigzrrit~zrs. in which most of the twenty-sii articles dealt with the Lord's Supper. Here, Bullinger in the interest of compromise significantly shified his position toward the Calvinist and Lutheran perspectives. and agreed to a "real spiritual presence" of Chri~t.'~

tlicy wre the original and most complete testaments. showing al1 major areas of agreement and disagrcement. " Second Hehetic Confission. cliapter XXI. ',' .-I ugsbtrrg Confision. article X. " Institutes. book III. chapter XVII. '' Williams. Rndicol ReJornrntion. p. 934. The C'onsen.ws Tigurinw was first ptintcd in England in 1552. aiter the second prayer book was in use. Thus Neale's argument tliat the acccptancc of a "rcal spiritual prcsence" represented the Queen's predilection for the Augsburg Confession and the Lutlieran-oriented 1549 Prayer Book is ~vcakened:perhaps Elizabeth. aware of the changed position of Bullingcr and Calvin on the eucharist, made tlic appropriate corrective. (Cf. Ncale. Elizabeth / and Her Pnr1icmrrnt.v. p. 79:and Pcttcgrcc. !\inrian Prorestmtisnt. p. 136.) Despite their general doctrinal unity, the three Protestant traditions widely diverged on matters of ceremony, ornamentation, clerical hierarchy. and church govemance. It was on t hese issues t hat t heir principles wouid become most noticeable during the Elizabet han

Settlement. In the Augsburg Confession, the Lutherans denied the charges of their Catholic critics that they abolished the Mass and ceremonies in their churches." They recognized the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharia and retained as rites practices which were adiaphora, or matten indifferent to salvation, including confirmation, marriage, ordination, burial, and the Catholic tradition of private confession and private absolution. They also approved of the use of images and traditions "which conduce to good order in the Church," so long as men knew that "such observances do not justie before God, and that it should not be made sin if they be omitted without ~ffense."'~Luther himself approved of the use of altars. vestments. and liturgical seniices, although each church was free to choose for itself In sharp contrast to conternporary Lutherans, Calvin disapproved entirely of the mass "and simiiar inventions," such as confession, which "suppresses and conceals the cross and passion of Christ ."79 Such ceremony insuited Christ to the point where the true sacraments of baptism and the Lord's

Supper could not bring about salvation when practised in the midst of false ceremony and false sacraments. The "faise sacraments" of confirmation. penance, ext reme unction, ordination of ministers, and matrimony were not adiaphora, they were anathema.80 Imagery, idolatry. and omamentation were also forbidden, because they too insulted God and Christ.

- .4 ugsburg Confe.ssion, article XXIV. -R Ibid.. article XXVI. Insrirutrs. book IV. cliaptcrs XWII and XlX. 'O Ihid.. book IV. chaptcrs XVIII and XIX. In the first chapter of his hs~itt~~es,Calvin questioned how "chembim" such as Job and

Abraham felt they must veil their faces when beholding the glory of God, yet mere men of

"dust and ashes" hitherto worshipped before images and tried to emulate God's splendour among themselves." Certainly. Calvin was one of the more radical refomers.

Bullinger's position on ceremony and omamentation was somewhat between Luther's

quasi-Catholic position and Calvin's radical refonnist Mews. He, like Calvin, denied the

sacredness of Mass and similar ceremonies designed by man, proclairning that the prirnary duty of the minister was to teach the Gospel of Christ. Bullinger agreed that baptism and the

Lord's Supper were the only tme sacraments, but repentance. ordination of rninisters, and matrimony were "profitable ordinances." adiaphoru, kept out of practicality and tradition, though he dispensed with the human invented rites of confirmation and extreme unction."

Confession was performed silently by each congregant while they heard the preaching of the

Word; it was "between God and the sinner" and no man could give absol~tion.~~As with

Calvin. Bullinger found images and omamentation to impede the path to salvation; they were not adiaphorn:

Since God as Spirit is in essence invisible and immense, he cannot really be expressed by any art or image. For this reason we have no feu pronouncing with Scripture that images of God are mere lies. . . . Although Christ assumed human nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide a mode1 for carvers and painters. . . . [Tlhe Lord comrnanded the preaching of the Gospel--not to paint and to teach the laity by rneans of pictures. Moreover, he instituted sacraments. but nowhere did he set up images."

" Ibid.. book 1. chapter 1. Second ffeli~ericConfission. cliaptcr XIX. *"hid, cllaptcrs XVlII and XIV RJ ihid. cllaptcr IV. Images were forbidden, for "undoubtedly no religion exists where there is an image."" Thus,

Buliinger took a more moderate position on cerernonies than Calvin, but both Swiss reformers rejected the Lutheran belief that imagery and ornamentation were indifferent to salvation.

The other major areas of disagreement arnong the Protestant traditions were the existence of clerical hierarchy and the role of the civil magistrate in the Church. Lutherans believed in parity. clencal equality in al1 theological matters. The power of the bishops was a "commandment of God. to preach the Gospel. to remit and retain sins, and to administer

Sacraments." and the Apostle Peter "forbids bishops to be lords, and to rule over the churches." especially their creation of cerernonies or their right to "decree anything against the G~spel."'~Church government was placed in the hands of a consistory, which also elected and ordained priests, though in some Lutheran countnes supe~sorswere retained to maintain order in the church. However, the magistracy had no authority in the Church:

"the power of the Church and the civil power must not be confounded."" Calvin also disapproved of clerical hierarchy. "Bishop" was synonymous with "pastor" and "rninister," whose sole duty was to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments; they were elected by the "votes of the people." by the congregation. Calvin agreed that the ancient custom of choosing one bishop to oversee a presbyter should be maintained, but this bishop was not to be "supenor in honour and dignity, as to have any dominion over his colleagues" and performed largeiy administrative functions. The govemment of the each church was delegated to "elders," lay persons "of advanced years" selected from the people, and almsgiving was delegated to "deacons" in two classes. the first to serve as stewards and

treasuren, and the second-which could include women--to actually take care of the poor."

The role of the magistracy was "to chensh and support the extemal worship of God, to

preserve the pure doctrine of religion." As such, the govemment must be subordinated to the

church and the duty of the civil govemment was to interpret and presewe the orderly world

which God has ordainedan According to Ronald Wallace, Calvin was largely successful in

implementing his plan for a Christian society in Geneva?

The Zurich churches generally agreed with the Lutherans and Calvinists that "the

power of ministen is one and the same, and equal," but admitted that in early Christendom.

"some one of the ministers called [an] assembly together, proposed matters to be laid before

it, [and] gathered opinions of the others." Thus, one priest should rise above the rest, if only

adminiçtratively, to conduct synods and supervise the Ch~rches.~'Bullinger, of course, was

mlristes (chief minister) of the Zunch churches, a position which, as Wayne Baker noted.

made him "superintendent over the other ministers of Z~rich."~'Gualter was Bullinger's

deputy. showing the existence of a clerical hierarchy . Moreover, the Zunch church, like that

in Geneva, believed in a covenanted Christian Commonwealth--a contract between God and

man-but Bullinger's comrnonwealth was to be under the complete authonty of the Christian

magistracy :

Institutes. book IV. chapters III and IV. Ihid.. book IV. chapter XX. Ronald S. Wallace, Colvin. Geneva,rrnd the Reformarian: .4 Sticcv of ïolvin m- Social Rexirn~er,Churchnim. Pastor and Theulogion (Edinburgh: Scottish Acadcrnic Press. 1988). especially part 1. "' Second Helveric Confission. c hapter XX. "' Baker. teinrich Bullinger and the Covenant. p. 2 19. n. 19. Magistracy of every kind is instituted by God himself for the peace and tranquility of the human race, and thus it should have the chief place in the world. If the magistrate . . . is a friend and even a member of the Church, he is a most useful and excellent member of it, who is able to benefit it greatly, and to assist it best of all. . . . [H]e promotes the preaching of the tmth and sincere faith roots out lies and al1 superstition, together with al1 impiety and idoiatry, and defends the Church of God. . . . Let him, therefore, hold the Word of God in his hands, and take care lest anything contrary to it is taught. . . . &]et him draw his sword of God against al1 malefactors, seditious persons, thieves, murderers. oppresson, blasphemers, pejured persons, and al1 those God has commanded him to punish and even to e~ecute.'~

The magistrate had the power of punishment, ordination, and excommunication, powers which could be delegated to eccIesiastics if the magistrate so chose. As atitistes, Bullinger received instructions from the magistracy and ensured that they were followed. This did not rnean, though, that the magistrate had an autocratie control of the Church; dong with the correct exposition of Scripture. the minister was charged with opposition to error and evil deeds in the Commonwealth and with the guardianship of the wealth of the churches against misuse by the magistracy." Bullinger's Christian society was one of cooperation between church and state. but the state reigned supreme and church was consequently national rather than congregational.

The Zurich tradition has been descnbed by Karl Barth as one of moderation between the two extremes of "Catholic" Lutheranism and "radical reformed" CaI~inisrn.~~As evidenced by the C'otsrrisus Tigrrrimis and a number of other attempts at compromise made especially with the Calvinists. Bullinger was looking for cooperation and was willing to make

" Second Hel\~eticConfissiun. chapter XXX. "' Bakcr. /leinrich Bullinger and the Covennnr. p. 1 1 1. Bakcr offcrcd a complctc and csccllcnt discussion of Bullingcr's covenant theotogy in his book. "'Cf. Kari Barth, The Theoiogv ofJohn Calvin (1922). trans. Gcofftcy W. Bromilcy. (Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans, 1995). ch. 2. concessions for peace among the Reformed churches? In Edward VI's time, the chief centres for such medial views were Zurich, where Bullinger and Gualter taught, and

Strassburg, which Martin Buce?' had made into a Reformed centre before he went to

England. In combination, it was these men and their English supporters who most directly influenceci the late-Edwardian reformation, notably the 1552 prayer book.98 No wonder then that English Protestant exiles first established communities at Zurich and Strassburg when they fled Marian England. The English community in Zurich was approved of by the magistracy and by Bullinger, largely because the émigré divines were desirous of emulating the Zurich reformed m0de1.~The chief theological link between the English community at

Strassburg and the leaden in Zurich was Peter Martyr, who had recently arrived in

Strassburg, where he had received permission from the magistracy to establish the English community which has been described by A.G. Dickens as "peaceful and m~derate."'~The

"" Bruce Gordon. "Calvin and the Swiss Reformed Churches.- in Andrcw Pettegrec. er al. eds.. (hlwnisnr in Europe, 1540-1620 (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.. 1994). pp. 64-8 1. "'Bucer. like Bullinger and his predeccssor Huldrich Zwingli, bclievcd tliat beyond the primary bclicfs. differcnce las inevitable and tolerable. Bucer wrote: "Wliile al1 faitli is placeci in Christ. the thing is safc. It is not given for al1 to sec the same thing at tlie samc tinie." (Quoted in Dickens, The English Refornrarion. p. 233.) '* This is no longer a question to be argued. Sec: Dickens. The English Refornrarinn. pp. 198. 232-54: Original Lerters Relntive to the English Refornrafion. 2 vol.. ed. Hastings Robinson. Parker Society (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.. 1846). (Hereafter cited as Original Leifers). w Garrctt. .\ laricm Exiles. pp. 7-13: and Original Letters. pmsinr. 'O0 Dickens. The Enp/ish Refornratinn. pp. 286-7. Martyr returncd to Strassburg to discover that it \vas no longcr Buccr's city- Upon Bucer's dcath. thc pastor's collegium was Iieaded by lohann Marbacii. a Lutheran. The Englisli community tas given the cliurcli of St. André as its place of worship by thc Strassburg Senate and was aflowed to worship freely. unaffcctcd by the city's Lutlieranism. Martyr. lio~vcvcr.was discouraged by thc strong Lutheran hold in Strassburg and Iic cited theological differences as his cliicf rcason for acccpting Bullinger's invitation to Zurich. The English community. headed by Edmund Grindaf and Edwin Sandys. continued to worship free of Luthcran inliucnccs and remained in close contact witli Maqr and Bullinger in Zurich. See: Loma Jane Abray. The People '.F Reforn~ation: Afagisfrrrtes,Clergp. and CTonznlonsin Strdourg, 1500-1598 (New York: Corne11 University Press. 1985). cspccially ch. 5; Anderson. Perer ,\/nrfyr. pp. 175-85. 21 1-12: Garrett. i\lnrian ririles. p. 20 n. 5. correspondence between Martyr and Bullinger make manifestly clear their shared refomed views and in 1556 the Anfistes invited Martyr to Zurich, where he stayed until his death six years later. having assisted Bullinger with a number of important theological statements.

Martyr may not have been strictly speaking a "Zurich reformer", but by the Iate-1550s his teachings were in accord with and supported the tradition of Zurich reform.lO' The two

English émigré communities of Strassburg and Zurich were thus theologically concordant. where men were content to reproduce their religion as close as their new conditions permitted to what they had known in Engiand in 1553, including using the Bwk of Cornmon Prayer of

1552 slightly modified to reduce ceremony and imagery according to the Zunch m~del.'~'

Although some historians have implicitly suggested that the English exiles were a homogeneous, united group sharing the same beliefs, this clearly was not the case.i0' Yet neither were they-as Jones and Hudson would sometimes seem to have us believe--a wholly divisive group, quarrelling among themselves and holding a plethora of different Protestant ide~logies.'~Those exiles who initially sought shelter in Strassburg and Zurich considered themselves to be members of a specific Refonned camp: they referred to each other as

"friends". rallied together in opposition to Calvinism, and regularly corresponded with leading

'O1 Andcrson. Peler Alarwr. pp. 2 1 1-69. 'Oz Haugaard. Elimbeth and the Engiish Refirnration. p. 27. Tlic rcligious esiles in al1 émigre coininunitics did not represcnt a large group. Garrett lias calcuIated that 788 persons fled. of whom 472 wcrc men, including 166 gentry. 67 ordained clergy. (Garrett. hfaricm Exiles. pp. 32.40-2). Pcttcgrcc quarrelled with Garrett's figures. suggcsting that shc included as "religious esiles" a number of people on t lie Con t inent for traditional rasons. such as young noblemen attcnding foreign univcrsities. (Pcttegrcc. .\ Inrion f~rotesrnntisrrr.pp. 34. 159) If wc accept t his. the nurnber of rcligious csiIcs among t hc gentry and clcrgy in a11 communities likcly fcll beiow 200. a small minorie of the scveral thousands of gentry and cIcrgy in England. 'O3 Including Garrett. Jforian Erik. p. 59: Neak. Eiizubeth 2 and Her Pnrlianien&, pp. 55-8. 'O' Joncs. [*hith hv Stotuir. pp. 12- 14: Hudson. rcln~bridgefinnecrion. p. 5. clergy in Zurich before, during, and after the exile.'05 It was these friends from Strassburg and

Zurich who converged upon the English community at Frankfort in 1 555 and led the 1552 prayer book supporters to victory when John Knox attempted to drastically revise the English liturgy toward a Calvinist reformed style. Knox was banished fiom Frankfort and departed to Geneva with forty-seven of his supponers.'O6 In 15 57, David Whitehead. a former pastor at Frankfort and a number of his followers established a "New Discipline," an order of doctrine and polity which provided for the use of Calvin's catechism and congregational election of rninisters.'*' Thus Geneva. pan of the Frankfort congregation, and a subsequent offshoot, Basel became Caivinist, having been established by those disillusioned by the other communities.'Og

Who among the exiles espoused an English variation on the Zurich tradition? Despite the general inadequacy of the extant evidence, a nurnber of useful sources inform us with some certainty which of the exiles displayed an affinity toward the Zurich rnodel. These were:

1) those persons who sought refuge in Strassburg and Zurich (and Frankfort before 1557);

2) those who routinely correspondeci with the leaders of the Zurich church before, during, and afier their exile; and 3) those who defended the 1552 Book of (T~mm~~rPrrryer and fought against the "New Discipline". with its encroaching Calvinist traditions. bot h before and afier

'O5 See numerous esamples in the Original Letters. Zurich Leuers. and below. 'O" Dickens. The English Refornmrion, pp. 287-8. Io' Cf. William Wliittingharn. -4 Brief Discourse of the Trouhles Begun ofFr~nkfort (London. 1574). STC 25442. Modern research has persuasively shown the work was written by Whittingharn's inseparable cornpanion, Thomas Wood. (Dickens. English Refornrafim. p. 289.) Cf. Garrett. Marian Exilex pp. 47-52: Haugaard, Elizabeth and fhe English Refirn~ntion.p. 28: Pcttcgree. d2fnriclnProtestnntisni. pp. 18-19. The only Lutheran community was Wesel. but fearing political compiications, the German authorities proved inhospitable and this community soon migrated en ninsse to Aarau where th- lived autonomously: as such, Lutheran contact during the esilc was alrnosi non-csistcnt (Dickens. Engfish Rejiorntation. pp. 286-8). 1559. Among the gentry and nobility, these included Sir Anthony Cooke and Francis Russell, second Earl of Bedford, staunch Protestants who travelled respectively to Strassburg and

Zurich. The list of clergy reads like a roll cal1 of great Edwardian scholars and leading

Elizabethan ecclesiastics: John Aylmer, Thomas Bentham. Richard Cox, Edmund Grindai,

Robert Home, John Jewel, John Parkhurst, James Pilkington, Thomas Sampson, and Edwin

Sandys. These were not ordinary men. They held senior university positions under Edward. helped to design the 1552 liturgy, and would make up a sizeable portion of the episcopal bench. Yet even here we must proceed cautiously; many of these men were transient during their exile and while they generally remaineci in contact with Bullinger and Martyr and fought against the radical nature of CalWUsm, their theological links with Zurich are ofien little more than hypothesi~.'~~Sorne, such as Cox, Grindal, Home, Jewel, and Parkhurst, had little to do with Geneva, while others, such as Aylmer, Bentham, Pilkington, and Sampson. travelled more extensively and spent bief periods in Geneva and Frankfort before retuming to

Strassburg and Zurich."' Generally, though al1 of these men shrank fiom the rigours of

Calvinist beliefs on church organization, govemance, and ceremony: back in England, they were prepared to accept the episcopacy, a considerable measure of state controi, and a prayer book much like that of 1552, especially after they were convinced that the doctrine was, in

John Jewel's words, "every where most pure.""' It is these men, then, holding positions in

tao Somc support for my treating of these divincs as a coliercnt group cornes from Haugaard. who bascd Iiis opinion on whicli men stayed in Strassburg and Zurich for much of tlieir esiIe. He did not includc Aylmcr and Sampson, because he was conccrncd only witli those men who becamc early- Elizabcthan bishops. (Haugaard Elizabeth nnd the English Refornrntion. pp. 27-8.) "O Dickens. The Enp(ish Refirniation. p. 293: Haugaard. EIimhefh nnd ihe English Refornintion. pp. 27-8: Garrett. illarian fiiles. alphabclical in Ccnsus. 'Il Jcwcl to Martyr. 16 Novernber 15 59. Zurich Letters. p. 69. the Privy Councii. Parliament. and church. ever guided by the leaders of the Zurich church. who to a yet undetemineci degree may have influenced the Elizabethan Settlement of religion.

The Ztrrich Reforrners and the Eitzabetha~~Setiiernet~~

Between Elizabeth 1's accession in November 1 5 5 8 and the end of Parliament in May

1559. a number of private and public letters were sent from Zurich to the Queen, and to important members of the Privy Council and Parliarnent. In contrast, alrnost no letters are known to have been sent fiom the Calvinist and Lutheran churches."' Shortly after

Parliament was dissolved in May 1559, John lewel wrote to Bullinger that "religion is again placed on the sarne footing on which it stood in king Edward's tirne; to which event, 1 doubt not that your own letten and exhortations, and those of your republic. have powerfùliy

~onttibuted.""~Did the leaders of the Zurich church as Jewel supposed, influence the

Elizabethan Settlement by their letters to the Queen, Prïvy Council. and members of

Parliarnent? This question has remained largely unanswered by historians. for none have systematically analysed the correspondence sent from Zurich during the Settlernent. nor the significant roles played by the English recipients of these letters. While recognizing the limitations of the extant evidence. the following discussion attempts to provide such an

'12 The evidcnce remains incomplete. No letters arc estant from the Lutheran churches and the Zurich Lefrers contains onIy one letter from Calvin to William Cecil. wvritten in 1560. It attcmptcd to back pcdal on vicws cxprcssed in John Knos, TheJrst blmt agninst the monsfruus regintent and empire ï!/wonren. and Cliristoplicr Goodman. How superior powers uught to he oheved. both printed during the Marian csilc in Geneva. Knos rejected the authority of female monarchs and Goodman supported the rcgicide of Quecn Mary as tlic onty wvay to "rcmedy" the miscry in England. Both works wre intended to MIIY support against Mary. but Elizabeth !vas offendcd by their sesist and radical messages. Calvin's Icitcr to Ceci1 was a Iialf-liarted attempt to show his support for Elizabeth. Sec: Zurich Letfers. pp. 76-8: S~~QC..-lnnnls of the Refornrntion. 1. p. 177ff. "' John Jcwcl to Bullingcr. 22 May 1559. Zurich Lr~ters.p. J 1. Given the Queen's strong control over her Pnvy Council and the fact that she had to give her assent to al1 bills passed by the Comrnons and the Lords. Elizabeth became the prime target for al1 who wished to influence the settlement of religion. Three letters are known to have been wntten by the leaders in Zurich to the Queen. Our knowledge of the first two letters has remained somewhat sketchy, the main evidence for their existence coming in letters by Sir Anthony Cooke. During Edward's reign? Cooke had befnended Peter Martyr dunng his tenure at Mord and during Mary's reign, he made his way into exile at Strassburg, where he attended Martyr's le~tures."~Early in 1559, Cooke reported to Martyr that he had delivered to the Queen a letter from Bullinger and one fiom Martyr himselt?"' Bullinger's letter is not extant, but Cooke in another letter has provided some small evidence of its contents. "Your advice," he wrote to the At~fisfes,"is most prudent and affectionate, and you point out to us those very things from which we have to fear." Bullinger apparently suggested to the Queen that "the disposal of kingdorns is in the hand of God." and exhorted her to be "rnindful of the great mercy she has received," and to "place her confidence in God."

In this way, "the counsels of her enemies will be defeated, their swords blunted, and the horse with his rider will fall to the gr~und.""~Of course, without the original letter one must remain sceptical of Cooke's interpretation, yet it is signifiant that Bullinger likely anticipated the opposition which would face the Queen, encouraged her to remain resolute in her goal,

Il.' Garrett. :\lorion fiiles. pp. 124-5; and Haugaard. Efiznbethmd rhe Englrsh Reformaticm. p. 27. Scc more on Cookc below. tliis ciiapter. ' " Sir Aniliony Cooke io Peter Martyr. 12 Fcbruay 1559, Zurich Letrerx p. 18. "" Cookc to Bullingcr. 8 December 1558. Zurich Letfers. pp. 1-2. and assured her that God would help her toward fùrther reformation.

Cooke's mention of Martyr's ietter to Elizabeth likely refers to one dated December

22, 1558. In this letter, Martyr rejoiced at Elizabeth's coronation, prayed for the restoration of the "pure gospel" in England, and provided a detailed explanation of those biblical passages that discuss a godly ruler. Martyr's prose style was powerful; he compared England's recent expenences both to the death and resurrection of Christ and to the wandering of the Israelites after fleeing from ~gypt."~Allegorically, the role Martyr assigned the Queen was that of

Jesus and Moses respectively. High praise indeed! Martyr clearly supported the power of the Godly magistrate to nile over the church and understood. like Bullinger, that the Queen could effect such changes as were necessary to further the refomation.

Apparently. Elizabeth was pleased with the content of these letters. for Cooke wrote:

"Eow exceedingly she was affected by the perusal of thern, Cecil can bear witness. for he saw tears arise as she was reading them.""' Certainly, bot h Bullinger and Martyr were high in the

Queen's esteem. In 1562, Elizabeth bestowed a chalice upon Bullinger, likely for his keeping safe a number of exiles in Z~rich."~Thomas Sampson, a former exile who would later gain inhyfor his role in the vestiarian controversy, suggested that Bullinger's authority "has very great weight with the Queen."'" Peter Martyr was even more highly praised by Elizabeth.

John Jewel. a close tiend of Martyr's at Oxford and his amanuensis during the exile at

Strassburg and zunch,I2' reported that the Queen "eagerly perused" Martyr's book (probably

Il' Martyr to Queen Elizabetli. 22 Deccmber 1558. in Anderson. Peter dfclrp. pp. 224.480. ""cmkc to Martyr. 12 February 1559. Zurich Letters. p. 18. 'lu Cliristianson. "Reformes and the Church of England." p. 470. "O Thomas Sampson to Martyr. 6 bnuary 1560. Zurich Letfers. p. 80. '" Garrett. ;\ larian Exiles. pp. 198-9. on vows1") and went on to commend both his leaming and his character.'" In another letter,

Jewel wrote to Martyr that: "The Queen both speaks and thinks most honourably of you:

she was desirous of inviting you to ~ngland.""' a report that Cooke also made to

~artyr.'" The Queen wished Martyr to retum as the Regius Professor of Theology at

Oxford; given the importance of the university as a training ground for ministers, Elizabeth clearly approved of Martyr's beliefs regarding Protestant reform, by now much closer to the

Zurich tradition than to Calvinism or Lutheranism. Martyr, although officially invited, did not renim to Mord. Jewel had recommended against it in early 1559 because religion was not yet refomed to his satisfaction and suggested that Martyr was better employed in Zurich than at Oxford, where "ignorance and obstinacy" ab0~nded.l~~Martyr clairned he was otherwise engageci, and in too poor health, to lave Zurich, but the Queen's confidence in hirn made an impression.ln In a recently discovered letter dated Aupst 1559. Martyr praised the Queen to Richard Cox, who had been the leader of the prayer book supponers in Frankfort:

For she recalls religion to the purity of the gospel, abolishes superstition more and more each day, and commands the word of God. the foundation of al1 good things to be preached and taught everywhere throughout the realm. . . . She is endowed with both wisdom and grace and has councillors who excel in zeal and true doctrine."'

Martyr was high in the Queen's esteem and vice versa. In a letter to an unidentified "English nobleman" written in 1560. Martyr's continued admiration for England was manifest: "Anglia

12' Sec Jewel to Marly. 2 November 1559. Zurich Lerrers. p. 62. '" Jewel to Martyr. 5 November 1559, Zurich Letfers.p. 67. 12' 12' Jcwel to Martyr. 28 April 1559. Zurich Letrers. p. 3 1. '" Cooke to Martyr. 12 February 1559. Zurich Lerrers. p. 18. Jcwel to Martyr. 20 March and 28 ApriI 1559. Zurich Letfers.pp. 23. 3 1. 12' 12' Martyr to A Nobleman in England, 22 July 156 1. Zurich Lerrers. pp. 12 1-2. Martyr to Richard Cos. 22 August 1559. in Anderson. Perer .\hr[vr, p. 503. uero, quae mihi est altera patria."'"

While the Queen was thus likely welldisposed to Bullinger and Martyr, neither divine had received any intelligence of the Queen's intentions regarding religion when they wrote.

This possibly accounts for their moderate and unpresumptuous recommendations for further reform, which contained few specifics. On December 20, 1558, Edwin Sandys. who had spent most of his exile in Strassburg and Zurich. sent a letter to Bullinger from Strassburg.

In this letter, Sandys wrote that he had recently leamed of the Queen's intention to have as the "only foundation and rule" of her religion that which could be "proved by the word of

God." He also reported on Elizabeth's replacement of the papist pnvy counsellors, the imprisonment of a Maria..bishop, and the 'great hope of her promoting the gospel, and advancing the kingdom of Christ to the utmost of her power."13* This letter was quite possibly the fim intelligence the Zunch church had regarding religious affairs during the new reign in England and its content made clear the Queen's desire for fùrther refonnation. It is unknown when Bullinger received this letter, or whether he imparted its contents to the other ministers in Zurich, but on January 16, 1559, Rudolph Gudter sent a letter to Elizabeth which seemed to indicate that Gualter was aware of Sandys's letter: "And now many good men are every where proclaiming, that your majesty is senously thinking of purifjmg the church and restoring religion." No longer did the Zurich church remain circumspect about Elizabeth's plans, and Gualter now felt he could "deliver the sentiments of [his] mind respecting the restoration of religion" to a greater extent than Bullinger and Martyr had."'

''' Martyr 10 an English nobleman. 9 November 1560. in Anderson. Pwr :\/nr{vr. p. 255 n. 40. 'YJ Edwin Sandys to Bullingcr. 20 Decembcr 1558. Zurich Letters. p. 6. '" Gualtcr to Qucxn Elizabeth. 16 Januay 1559. Zurich Lerters. p. 7. Gualter's letter arnply reflected the Zurich confession of faith. He implored From the

Queen "a spirit of fortitude and wisdom," that she might continue the reformation already started in England. He hoped that "by the activity and zeal of your majesty might be happily completed what the most godly king your brother had piously and successfully began" and asked the Queen to remain steadfast amidst "dangers of every kind." Gualter asked of

Elizabeth two things: first, that the refomation be conducted "agreeably to the word of God" and second, that the counsellors working toward that object not be hindered in their work, presumably by papists. He reminded the Queen of Christ's warning not to put "new wine" into "old leathern bottles," a metaphoncal emphasis on the need for a total abolition of popery and a Protestant reformation complete in dl respects: "we know it to be impossible ever to consult the peace of the churches, or the purity of religion, as long as any relics of superstition are retained." Gualter made explicit reference to the problems such mediocnty caused among

Lutherans in Germany. showing his disagreement with the Augsburg Confession. Gualter ended the letter by comrnending John Parkhum, a retumed exile fkom Zurich. and sent along his book of homilies, which was dedicated to "king Edward of pious mern~ry."'~'Whatever its effectiveness in influencing the Queen, the importance of Gualter7sletter should not be underestimated as it outlined the Zurich church7sstrategy for reform in England; it approved of the reforrnation under Edward VI, but wished that it would be hrthered; it wamed explicitly against a vin rnedkr settlement. which would retain some of the relics of popery; it supported the Queen's and her councillors' nght to govern the church; it supported certain rninisters who favoured the Edwardian prayer book of 1552 and the traditions of Zurich

Ihitf.. pp. 7-1 1. reform; and it provided a potential set of homilies. The Queen left no recorded response to this letter nor did any other correspondent refer to it, which may suggest that she did not receive it. But as Guaiter sent two other letters into England on that day, both of which were acknowledged as having been received, it is likely that the Queen received Gualter's letter as

~ell.'~~In 1560, Peter Martyr cornplaineci that the Queen did not respond to the public letter of the Zurich church, although it is unclear to which letter he was refemng.'"

Despite the Queen's stated admiration for Bullinger and Martyr. the letters from the reforrners in Zunch probably exerted little influence upon Elizabeth dunng the making of the

Settlement. As reported by Cooke, Elizabeth likely did not receive any of this correspondence until at least mid-Febmary 1559, by which time the Privy Council was fully aware of the Queen's wishes and the suprernacy bill was being considered in Parliament. But, as evidenced by those important early moves in Elizabeth's reign-reported, as we have seen, by Sandys-which showed her clear preference for a swifk reformation, the Queen was generally meeting the expectations of the Zunch reformers. 135 Her achievement of suprernacy and retention of episcopacy were well in accord with the Zunch teachings on the role of the rnagistracy and national govemance. Also. with the exception of Neale and Haugaard, most historians believe that the Queen and her Council were predisposed to restoring the religion

''' A lettcr to Francis Russell. Earl of Bedford. will be disnissed belowv. Anothcr lcttcr was scnt to Ricliard Masters. a long-lime correspondent of Gualtcr's. which inatched almost csactly thc advicc givcn to EIizabcth regarding tlic reformation. including the problems medi~rihIiad caused in [lie German cliurclics and another commcndation of John Parkhurst. Upon her accession. Elizabeth I appointcd Masters as lier personal physician. althougli it is exceedingly diffrcult to dctcrminc lioiv inîlucntial hc was to the Quccn. (Gualter to Richard Masters. 16 January 1558. Zcrrich Lerters. pp. 14- 15.) Petcr Martyr to Thomas Sampson. 20 March 1560. Zurrch Lerrers. p. 96. '" Joncs and Pcttegree havc also made this argument regarding the influcncc of tlic Marian csilcs. Scc: Jones. fiirh bv Sttctture. pp. 25-6; and Pettegrce. Mnrinn Proresrnnrism. pp. 13940. of Edward's reign. including the 1552 prayer book, which was heavily influenced by the

Zurich tradition.'" Elizabeth told the Spanish ambassador that her confession of faith "would not be the Augustanean [sic] confession, but something else like it." which Neale used to suggest that the Queen desired the 1549 prayer book."' This qualified statement was made by the Queen on Apri128, 1559, the same day that the uniformity bill passed in the House of

Lords. This bill oficially instituted the 1552 prayer book with its revisions. which perhaps

Elizabeth or the Spanish ambassador (not without reason) equated with Lutheranism. The retention of ornaments was against the Zurich tradition, but as Jones and Haigh have argued.

Elizabeth may have retained these "papisticaï' relics in the hopes that those with Catholic sympathies might be reconciled to the new ~rder."~Regardless, she was exercising the vagaries of personal rule; the English church was hers to govem and while we know little of the Queen's personal religious views, she rnay well have not consciously considered what constituted adiaphora or what Continental models her church resembled. so much as what was required to keep peace in the c~untry."~Thus, since it was likely Elizabeth's plan to return to the Edwardian religion--rnodified, as necessary, to get Iegislation through

Parliament-the Zurich reformen' recommendations were hardly necessary. Yet they offered explicit support to the Queen, which neither the Lutheran nor Calvinist churches did, and the

Queen was ill-disposeci to the latter because of the radical behaviour displayed by John Knox and Chnstopher Goodman during their exile. These letters also set an important precedent.

'" See discussion in previous section. '" Nealc. Efizlbeth I and Her Parlimients. p. 79. IM Jones. Faith h-v Statute. p. 158. '-'" Sec discussion on thc "Dcvicc" beiow. this chapter. and on ornamcnts. ciiapter 3. They established a relationship between the Zurich church and the Queen which would result

in the refoimers fiom Zurich being called upon to adjudicate controversies over the next few years and during the vestiarian controversy of 1566 and the dispute over the papal bu11 of excommunication of 1570.'~

To say that the Zurich reforrners had little persona1 influence on the Queen is not to say that their influence was not felt in the Privy Council and Parliament. The power of both bodies in the Settlement should not be underestimated; they were not puppets of the Queen.

John Jewel wrote to Martyr that "notwithstanding [the Queen] desired a thorough change as early as possible, [she] cannot however be induced to effect such change without the sanction of law.""' This was confirmed by the Queen herself. In her December 1558 proclamation to forûid preaching, Elizabeth stated that the reiigious settlement would involve Parliament, the Queen, and her "Three Estates" (here she probably meant the clergy, nobility, and

~omrnons).'~'The Privy Council was responsible for establishing the measures of reform in religion. It considerd at least three proposals, two by Armigil Waad and Richard Goodrich respectively, which generally advised caution, refomation "Me by little", and the

"Device9, . 143 Since the council drafted and introduced into Parliament the bills for suprernacy and uniformity, any influence on the council may have directly affected the outcome of the

Settlement."" The Parliament. of course. was required to sanction the govemment's

''O Sce bclow. chapter 3. '"' Jcwel to Martyr. 14 ApriI 1559. Zurich Letters. p. 29 142 Strype. .4nna/s ofthe Re@rmation. 1, p. 54. ''' Jones. kifhbv S'mate. pp. 19-22. '"" Ncale. Elizoberh I und fler Pnrliantents. pp. 59. 79: and Haigh. The Enplish Reformarion. pp. 2394 1. proposed legislation and various Zurich influences may have been effective there as well.

Many historians have addressed the question of whether the Council's programme of

reform was set out in the anonymously-written "Device." Neale argued that the Queen

probably did not approve of the document and a number of more recent historians following

Hudson and Jones argued that the document showed how the Queen and council worked

closely together to form a plan for reconstituting a Protestant Church of England. The

"Device" contained the substance of the Elizabethan Settlement. suggesting that the Queen

"at the next Parliament" should attempt to "reduce the Church of Engiand again to theformer parity," the religion of Edward. "for the sooner that Religion is restored, God is the more

glorified." It anticipated problems from such an immediate Settlement such as: that the

"French King will be enmuragecl more to war." that the Catholic bishops and clergy will "see

their own min" and attempt to stop innovation through preaching, and t hat radical Protestants

will object to ceremonies and ornaments, fearing a "cloaked papistry." a "mingle-mangle."

As rernedies to these problems, the "Device" recoinmendeci achieving peace with France, that

the Queen employ her clemency and accept the Marian ecclesiastics if they "confess their

fault", and that the Protestants should be made to suffer some inexpediencies rather than that

the cornmonwealth "should shake or be in danger." The new church should be administered

by moderate men, who through "gentle and dulce" handling could effect the change in

religion."' Each of these problems did indeed occur and each of the solutions was

implemented, including filling the episcopacy with moderates. Given the similarities between

"" Sec: Gilbert Bumet "A Collection of Records. &c." in Hisron, ofthe Refonnarion. pp. 327- 3 1. Emphasis added. the "Device" and what actuaily happened, it seems probable that it provided at least a rough guideline of the Privy Council's plan for reform. Did the "Device" convince the Queen to return to the Edwardian religion or was this already her desire? Given the extant evidence, we shall never know for certain; yet, if the former was the case. the role of the Council and particularly those within it who designed the programme of reform, was doubly important.

We are now confronted with another question lefi largely unanswered among historians, and which may well remain so unless additional evidence is discovered: which

Privy Councillors would suppon the implementation of the "Device's" agenda of a swift. carefully executed reformation? Elizabeth, as we have seen, dismissed al1 but eleven of

Mary's Privy Councillors, and added eight more who were known supporters of

~rotestantism.'~It was Iikely this vital core of eight who addressed the reform of religion.

These men included William Cecil and Nicholas Bacon. respectively created Secretary of

State and Lord Keeper, and three staunch Protestants, the only members of the Pnvy Council who had been persecuted during Mary's reign and had gone into exile: Sir Edward Rogers, who was released fiom the Tower and escaped to France, where he led a life of seclusion; Sir

Francis ffiollys. who travelled to Geneva, Basle, and Frankfort, but because of his late retum was not appointed to the Council until January 14, 1559; and Francis Russell. the Earl

Bedford, who escaped to Zurich, where he spent a winter before travelling to Italy. and retumed to becorne a counsellor in December 1558."' The only one of these three men who could have taken part in the opening moves toward refonn was the Earl of Bedford. who was

'& Zurich Lerters. p. 5. n. 5 and 6. '"' Garrett. Jfnrictn Exiles. pp. 210-213. 272-3. 275-7. also the only one of the eight new counsellors mentioned specifically in the "Device" to belong to a religious committee (or, as Christina Garrett so provocatively put it, a "secret cabinet")."* This cornmittee was to discuss and drafi the legislation for the alteration of religion before it was put to the whole Co~nciI.'~~Unfortunately. the paucity of evidence keeps us ffom knowing whether this or any other committee ever met, although it seems probable that a cornmittee drafted the supremacy and uniformity legislation before the Council as a body was allowed to discuss it. lm

While in Zurich, according to Rudolph Gualter, Bedford "made such diligent inquiry into al1 things which make for the wse of the church and of religion." a cause which Gualter noted was "far more dear" to Bedford "than ail other things whatever."'" Bedford did not forget the kindness he received in Zurich. He sent a letter to Bullinger from Italy in 1557, in which he noted his "constant esteem" held toward Zurich "for the sake of religion."

"Wherefore," Bedford wrote. "should 1 ever have it in my power to do you any service . . . it shall be altogether yours."'*' Gualter's memory was apparently sound and Bedford's appointment did not go unnoticed in Zurich. Perhaps Bedford was the counsellor Gualter was thinking of when he asked Elizabeth to afford al1 opportunity to those of her counsellors who were endeavouring toward a change in religion, for on the sarne day in January that the Zurich deputy sent his letter to the Queen, he also sent one to Bedford?' Gualter congratulated

'" ibid.. pp. 166 and 275-7. IJP Burnet. Histow ofthe Re/ornmtion. p. 33 1. Iw Evcn the most complete ehqant records compiled by Dasent offcr no information about tlic rcfonnation of religion. (Cf. lohn Roche da sen^ Acrs ofthe Priyv Council ofEngland. New Scrics. VII: AD 1558- 1570 (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode. 1893)). 'Y Gualter to Francis Russell. Eatl of Bedford 16 January 1559. Zurich Lerters. p. 12. "* Bedford to Bullinger. 26 April 1557. ûriginal Letters. 1. p. 138. "3 Gualtcr to Queen Elizabeth, 16 January 1559. Zurich Letters, p. 8. Bedford on his advancement "to the highest dignity," where he could 'give public evidence of [his] godliness." To be the "counsellors of kings" was a "glorious and incomparable honour7'conferred ody upon those whom "Gocl, of his special grace. has chosen to be vesseis of his glory." Guaiter's chief purpose in writing soon became evident. He rerninded Bedford that God entrusted the management of religious fiairs and advancement of the church to counsellors, a task which Bedford must accomplish "in the tnie fear of the Lord." Gualter entreated Bedford to remember what he had been taught in Zurich and to remind his fellow counsellors that "those things which relate to the church and to religion are no where to be sought for but From the fountains of holy scnpture." Finaily, Gualter implored Bedford--as he did the Queen-not to be "affnghted by any danger," but rather to continuaily strive for "a most happy issue7' of religion."' Unlike the letter to Elizabeth, in which Gualter proposed specific measures of reform, Gualter's letter to Bedford was much less explicit. He was apparently convinced that Bedford understood and supported a programme of reform compatible with that in Zurich.

Bedford responded to Gualter's letter a full year later, apologizing for his tardiness.

He informed Gualter that like al1 "nascent affairs," al1 was not fully accomplished in matters of religion, but he promised that the new religion "will strike its roots yet deeper and deeper."15' Perhaps Bedford was thinking of the ornaments which remained in the Queen's chapel. an infelicity that he hoped would be solved in time, or perhaps he knew that

Protestants formed only a minority in the countryside. Bedford promised that he was exerting

Gualtcr to Bedford. lG Januav 1559. Zurich Letters. pp. 1 1- 13. ' " Bedford to Gualtcr. 20 lanuary 1560. Zurich Letters. pp. 82-3. himself to the utmoa of his abilities and asked Gualter for his assistance and his prayers. John

Jewel was certainly pleased with Bedford's efforts toward reform. In a letter to Buliinger,

Jewel wote that Bedford considered himself indebted to the Zurich reformers, and wished to show his appreciation by obliging them "in what way he could." Speaking for the reformers, Jewel related to Bedford that he should "studiously and boldly" promote the religion ofthe gospel and repress the papists. "This he promised he would do," Jewel wrote,

"and he certainly does, as far as lies in his po~er."'~

How influentid Bedford was to the senlement of religion is difficult to detemine. His role in the Council was conceivably substantial; with W~lliamCecil who had held office during the reign of Edward VI. he likely participated in drawing up the supremacy and uniformity legislation. most of which followed Edwardian precedents. The administration of the sacraments, the liturgy, the Queen's govemance of the church. and the episcopal stmcture al1 conformed with Bullinger's teachings. But clearly, a number of additional influences were at work, including the still-unknown agenda of the Queen, the Catholic opposition in the

Upper House, and conflicting Continental Protestant ideologies. Significantly, Hudson linked

Bedford with the "Cambridge connection". and to William Cecil, with whom Bedford's wife and family stayed while the earl was on the Continent."' Cecil was a Privy Councillor. close to the Queen, and a sitting rnember of Parliament. When, in 1559, Elizabeth named royal commissioners to receive the oath of supremacy, Bedford was one of those chosen, possibly because of his role in the settlement and clearly because of his Protestant convictions and

'% Jcwel to Bullingcr. 22 May 1559. Zurich Letfers, p. 43. 'Y Hudson. The C'anihridge Connecrion. pp. 27. 55n. loyalty to the Queen."' As well, Bedford's possible influence on Parliament must not be overlooked. Patrick Collinson termed Bedford the c'aristocratic leader of the refomed partyll' and noted that an "impressivel' number of men in the Lower House of Parliament in 1559 owed their patronage to him.'" P.W.Hasler has estimated that Bedford's patronage extended to 38 of the 405 members of the Cornrnons. which likely helped to get the Council's plan for reform through the ~ommons.'" Conyers Read noted that a few men of long experience and ability, supponed by the Queen, could do much to direct the 1559 House of

Cornrnons, two-thirds of which had never sat bef~re.'~'Bedford was in a11 probability one of these few men and he supponed the sort of reformation that he had seen in Zurich.

Like the Pnvy Council. the House of Commons had a small number of former exiles.

Of the 405 members, only 19 were returned exiles. 13 of whom had spent the penod of

Mary's reign as political exiles in France and My, and 6 of whom were conceivably religious exiles who would have been staunch Protestants in Parliament: John Bateman, from Geneva,

Francis Knollys and Thomas Crawley fkom Frankfort, Thomas Wroth and Richard Cooke from Strassburg, and Anthony Cooke from Strassburg and Ital~.'~~Bartlett suggested that the lack of Genevan members reflected both the Queen's general dislike for the radicalism she

Sir Leslie Stcphcns and Sir Sidney Lee. entry for '*Russell. Francis." Dic~ionqvo/lVntionnl Biogruph-v, 26 vol. (Odord: Oflord U.P.. 1968). XVII. p. 432. '-CO Collinson. Elizabethnn Puritan Movement. pp. 52. 3 1. lm P.W.Hasler. ed.. The House of Cornmons, 1558-1603. 3 VOL.(London: History of ParIiamentary Trust. 198 1). 1. pp. 61-2.67. 582-3. Three of these men. John Chichester. Thomas Fitnvilliam. and Edrnund Trcmayne travelled abroad with Bedford. Their activity in Parliament is unknown. as is. as Hasler identifid. the activity of 93% of members in thc 1559 Comrnons. including what cornmittees they rnay have sat on. (Ibid.. p. 68) 16' Conyers Read. M. Secremy Cecil and Queen Elizabeth mew York: Scribners. 1963). p. 130; and HasIer. House oJContntons. p. 68. 16* Bartlett "The Role of the Marian Esiles." pp. 102-9. associated with Geneva and the high percentage oflower class émigrés in that congregation; in any case, few Genevans had returned Born exile by the tirne Parliament sat.I6-' The

Parliamentary activity of only two exiles is known, Sir Francis Knollys, a Privy Councillor who spent much of his exile in FranMort where he signed Whitehead's Calvinist "New

Discipline," and Sir Anthony Cooke, who represented a position closer to Zurich than to

Geneva.

Cooke's importance is difficult to assess. He had access to the Queen, sufficient at least to place letters from Martyr and Bullinger into her hands, and was father-in-law to both

Nicholas Bacon and to William ~ecil.'~'B.W. Beckingsale suggested that Cooke's deeply-

Protestant piety was one of Cecil's chief reasons for aggressively seeking a Protestant settlement which would be acceptable to the retuming exiles, and that he sought out advice fi-om Cooke and his fnends to accomplish thi~.'~~Beckingsale may have somewhat overstated the case: we have already seen that Cecil gathered advice and direction from a number of sources. including the Queen. council, and other retumed exiles. Certainly, though, Cooke was close to the levers of power, enough so to be considered by the Queen for the post of

Lord ChanceIIor, a position which went to his son-in-law.

Cooke was also elected as the member of Parliament for Essex while he was still abroad, an election Jones assumed was arranged by Ce~il,'~'and he retumed to England to

'O3 Ibin.. p. 103. A close reading of Garrett's Census rcveals tliat most exiles from Geneva did not return until 1560 and 156 1. possibly because Knox their leader. had been forbidden to return. (Garrett. illaricln hiles. Census). '"J Garrett. A lurion EXiles. pp. 2 10- 13. 'O5 Cooke to Martyr. 12 February 1559. Zurich Letfers.p. 18.

'00 B. W. Beckingsale. Burghley: Tudor Statesrnan. 1520-1598 (London: MacMillan. 1967). p. 7 1.

'O7 Jones. Frrifh bv Sfatufe,p. 62. take his seat.'" In Parliament. Cooke was clearly disappointed with the slow progress of the

refom of the church. Writing to Peter Martyr on February 12, three days after the first

reading of the supremacy bill, he lamented:

We are now busy in Parliament about expelling the tyranny of the pope, and restoring the royal authority, and re-establishing the true religion. But we are moving Far too slowly; nor are there wanting at this time Sanballats and Tobiases to hinder and obstmct the building of our walls. . . . The zeal of the Queen is very great, the activity of the nobility and people is also great; but still the work is hit herto too much at a stand. '69

The main opposition, according to Cooke, were the "Sanballats and Tobiases," an allegorical

reference to Catholic resistance to the attempt to build the "new Jerusalem." At the time of

his writing this letter, Cooke was persondly in possession of the supremacy bill, which he had

been entmsted to article in preparation for the second reading on February 13. On February

15, the bill was committed to Cooke and Knollys, a cornmitment which Haugaard believed

was "itself an indication of the sentiment of the house" for "good results in ~arliarnent."l"

Neale supposed that it was these two men who added the articles of uniformity ont0 the

supremacy bill, which resulted in its emergence as a new bill on February 2 1 ."' This seems

unlikely. Cooke was probably aware of the government's plans for refom, including the uniformity bill; his note to Martyr that Parliament was "restoring the royal authority, and re- establishing the true religion" and that he supported the Queen, suggest that neither Cooke nor bollys--who as a Pri y Councillor was certainly aware of the official programme--had reason to alter the supremacy bill. Jones suggested that a uniformity bill was introduced after

Hasler. The House of Conrnrons, 1558- 1603. p. 645. '* Cooke to Martyr. 12 February 1559, Zurich Letters, p. 19. lm Haugaard Elizaberh und the English Refirnrution. p. 85. "' Nealc. Elizabeth I and Her Parliments. pp. 58-9. Febmary 15 by the government and that Cooke and Knollys fused the two together to form a "complete reform package"; when the House of Lords removed the uniformity articles, the

Council had to introduce another bill with concessions made for the Catholics in the Upper

ou se."' As a Calvinist, Knollys may not have wholly supported the supremacy bill or the uniformity bill; the former provided for state control and the latter for ceremonies and the episcopacy, al1 of which were against Calvinist teachings. The appointment of Cooke to the cornmittee on religion may have been a tactic to ensure the Pnvy Council's bill went through without radical revisions and Knollys may well have supported this as the best way to repeal the restoration of England to Rome. Cooke likely had the support of his son, Richard Cooke. and of Thomas Wroth, both recently returned from Strassburg, but beyond that it is difficult to assess Cooke's influence in the House. Staunch Protestants were clearly in the minonty and we must not assume that ail members of the Lower House were deeply concemed with religious matters. If they collected their efforts, the combination of those close to Bedford.

Cecil, and Cooke would have forrned a formidable party in the Commons, a party which would have seen the supremacy and uniformity bills as a substantial-though by no means complete--step toward reformation in the Zurich tradition.

How influentid. then, were the Zurich reformers and sorne of their English adherents on the Queen, Pnvy Council. and Parliament? Was Iewel accurate in his assessrnent that letters and exhortations fiom Zurich "powerfully contnbuted" to the re-establishment of religion?'" Yes and no. The Queen appeared resolute in her intentions to return the church

IR Jones. Faith by Statute. pp. 9 1-1 03. ln Jcwel to Martyr. 22 May 1559. Zurich Letters. p. 4 1. to Edward's religion, possibly at the prodding of the Council, but she still appreciated the support of the Zunch leaders; indeed, they were the only Continental reformers to congratulate the Queen and offer their advice on matters conceming religion. As well, they supported her authority in the church, in keeping with the Zurich confession, which neither the Lutherans nor the Calvinists could do as easily and sincerely. In the govemment and

Parliament. Bedford and Cooke had close ties to Secretary Cecil, took proactive roles in the passage of the religious settlement, and acted as patrons to a clearly existent group of

Parliamentarians. Both also remained in contact with the Continental reformers with whom they had lived and leamed about the Zurich confession of faith. In al1 probability. they helped to shape and to enact the revival of reformed religion in England.

The Re f wmd C/ergy orid the Eiizabeihm Set tiemet if

While the Queen, Privy Council, and Parliament busied themselves with the

Elizabethan Settlement of religion, the divines recently retumed from Strassburg and Zurich were not ide. We have already observed their continued correspondence with the leaders of the official church in Zurich, which provided the reformers with useful intelligence regarding the state of religion in England and the plans for refomation.'" Yet it is unlikely that these clergy had any direct influence on the Privy Council or Parliament. Unlike men such as

Bedford, Cooke, and others who retumed to England in tirne to take council or Parliarnentary seats the exiled clergy fiom Zurich and Strassburg did not generally return until early- 1 5 5 9.

The first group included Edwin Sandys and Robert Home (and perhaps Edmund Grindal and

'" Se: Sandys to Bullinger. 20 Dccember 1558. Zurich Letters. pp. 34. 56 Thomas Sampson), who departed Strassburg for England on December 2 1. 1558."' John

Jewel did not arrive in England until around March 20, 1559.'" The "Device" recommended

that a group of divines be gathered to devise a new prayer book, among whom were named

Richard Cox, Edmund Grindal, and James Pilkington, but it is unknown whether this group

ever met, or whether these three men had amived back in England in time tu meet with it .ln

Jones suggested that this group may have deterrnined that the 1552 prayer book was largely

satisfactory which made their meeting unnece~sary.'~'

The influence of divines upon the Elizabethan Settlement has provoked some

controversy among historians. Neale postulated that the returned exiles represented a

"pressure group" forming part of the "Puritan choir". 17' Hudson disagreed, arguing t hat the

discordance which existed among the émigrés would not have allowed them to operate as a

pressure group and Jones and Haigh argued that too few exiles had retumed to marshal an

effective opposition.Ig0 Curiously, al1 of these historians presumed that the retuming exiles

would have opposed the revivai of the Edwardian reformation. The extant evidence suggests

otherwise. Shortly after Mary's death, Knox sent a letter from Geneva to al1 the other English

"' Sandys. Iike Jewel. followed Peter Martyr to Strassôurg and Zurich: Home became leader of the Frankfort congregation afîer assisting Cox in defeating Knox. but he went to Strassburg after Whitehead's "New Disciplinewwon favour. Grindal also took part in the Frankfort "troubtes." and was in Strassburg on 19 December 1558; Sampson, one of the most itinerant esiles. spent most of his csilc in Zurich and Si.rassburg. king in the latter on 17 December 1558. (See: Garrett. Ahrian Exiles. alpliabetically in Census and lewel to Martyr, 26 January 1559. Zurich Letters. p. 15.) lewel noted that somc "othcr fnends" lefi for England on 2 1 December. possibly Grindal and Sampson (Zurich trtters, pp. 2-3). "" Jewcl to Martyr. 20 March 1559, Zurich Letters. p. 2 1. ln Burnet. flism~of the Re/ormation. p. 330. Only one of four exiles named to this corninittee. David Whitehead \vas Calvinist. lm Jones. Faith 6-v Sinrute. pp. 24-5. '" Neale. Elizabeth I anci Her Parliamenrs. pp. 57-8. lm Hudson. The Cambridge Connection. p. 5: Jones. Fnirh hi; Statue. p. 12: Haigh. English Refirnia~ions.p. 23 9. communities which suggested that ifthey al1 "hold fast together, it is certain that the enemies shall have less power; offences shall sooner be taken away; and religion best proceed and flo~nsh."'~'Perhaps not surprisingly, Knox had a hidden agenda: a collective anti-ceremonial. anti-magisterial cmsade which would result in a Calvinist order of prayer and church organization. Pilkington's response to the letter was highly reflective of the magisterial tradition of Edwardian and Zurich reform:

[I]t shall lie neither in your hands or ours to appoint what [ceremonies or structure] shall be but in such mens wisdoms as shall be appointed to the devising of the same which shaII be received by cornmon consent of the Parliament. . . . (W]e tmst that both true religion will be restored, and that we shall not be burthened with unprofitable ceremonies. And therefore as we purpose to submit ourselves to such orders as shall be established by authority. being not of themselves wicked, so we would wish you willingly to do the ~arne.'~'

Pilkington respected the authority of the magistrate and Parliament to settle religious matters and trusted in their ability to introduce cerernonies which would not be offensive. Similar replies were sent by Grindal, Home. and ~ewe1.I~~Likely, there was a general expectation among these divines that the new religion would be at least as Protestant as what existed in

England in 1553 and, therefore, they believed that they should support the settlement of religion and work within the newly-established church. And support the Queen they did: during the Parliament of 1559, they played a number of important roles that explicitly helped to forward the settlement of religion which in combination may have been the reasons why they were appointed to senior ecclesiastical positions in 1559 and 1560.

IR' Quoted in M.M. Knappen. Tudor Purifmisnr. (Chicago: 1965). p. 164: see ahDickens. The English Refornrarion. p. 293. Quoted in Jones. Faih b-v Sraiute. pp. 1 1- 12. Dickens. The Enplish Refimarion. p. 293. One important reason for the early success of those who favoured the Edwardian and

Zunch reformation--and one generally rnissed by historians--may be that the more radical divines from Geneva and Frankfort, who met with the Queen's disapproval, did not return to

England until after 1 560. The only notable exception was David Whitehead, who amved kom FranlGon sometirne before March 1559.18' Most of the reiatively few clencal exiles who returned to England in time to have sorne impact upon the passage of the Elizabethan

Settlement of 1559 had ties with Zurich and, therefore, they represented the strongest

Continental Protestant voice. As well, the Queen approved of the divines who returned from

Strassburg and Zunch. Jewel reported to Martyr that their amval was "very acceptable to the Queen" who "openly declared her sati~faction."'~~Many of these men were experienced scholars and ecclesiastics. In King Edward's tirne, Cox was dean of Christ Church, Mce- chancellor of Oxford. tutor to Edward VI, and a leading member of the 1552 prayer book cornmittee; Sandys was vice-chancellor of Cambridge; Grindal was a canon of Westminster; and Pilkington, Bentham, Sarnpson, Jewel, and Parkhurst were Fellows at Oxford and cambridge.18' Royal approval of their views was proven by numerous invitations for them to preach at Paul's Cross, a public pulpit in the cathedra1 yard in London. Thomas Carlyle called Paul's Cross an "important entity", "a kind of Times newspaper, but edited partly by

'*' Bartlett. "The Role of the Marian Esiles." p. 103: also see Garrett. ,\laricm Exiles. Census cntrics; for esample: William Whittingharn (left Geneva May 1560: pp. 327-30). Anthony Gilby (not known in England until 1572: pp. 161-2). Chnstopher Goodman (amved in England in 1565: pp. 1624). and William Kethe (left Geneva in 1561: pp. 204-5); John Knos was forbidden from returning to England (p. 214) 18' Garrett. Marian Exiles. pp. 325-7. '* Jewcl to Martyr. 26 Janua~1559. Zurich Letfers. p. 15 18' Garrett. ,\lurian Exiles. pp. 86. 134. 167. 198. 244. 250. 279. 283. heaven it~elf.""~In November 1558, Cecil noted the need to give carehl attention to selecting the preachers at Paul's Cross, that "no occasion be given by him to stir any dispute touching the governance of the realm."'" Thus. the invitation extended to these divines to speak, especially in light of the royal proclamation against preaching, is significant.

On Febmary 8, the day before the first supremacy bill was introduced in the

Cornmons, Richard Cox-the leader of the prayer book supporters in Frankfort-spoke before the Queen, council, and Parliament. The text of Cox's semon is not extant, but the ltalian reporter II Schifanoya lamented that this sermon made it clear that Catholicism in England was doomed:

Of this 1 am more convince-by the semon preached yesterday at court . . . [in which was] said so rnuch evil . . . of the [Roman Catholic] Church, of the mass, and finally of our entire faith, in the presence of the Queen and of her Council, the rest of the congregation consisting of more than 5,000 persons, that 1 was much scandalized. . . . Consequently everything will go from bad to worse. and religion and the religious wilI be aboli~hed.'~

Though the evidence remains incomplete, Millar MacLure has recorded that between

February and August 1559, Paul's Cross preachers also included Home, Jewel, Grindal.

Parkhurst, Sampson, and Sandys, some of whom spoke on several occasions, while the remainder were generally men who had remained in seclusion in England during the exile, mch as Matthew Parker and William Bill.19' Unfortunately, the text of these semons are not extant, but the very occurrence of the sermons suggests the approval of the Queen and

'" Quoted in Margaret Comîord Paul 's Cross: A Histoty. (London: Longman's. 19 10). p. 72. Quoted in Hudson. Cmtbridge Conneciion. p. 1 1. '* Calendar of State Papers and bfunuscripts, Relaiing fo English Aflairs, Eristing in the .-irchives (md Collections of I énice. ed. Rawson Brown. (London: Longman. Brown. 1832). WI, pp. 30-1. "' MilIar MacLure. Regjster of Sermons Precrched at Paul '.Y Cross, 1.534-1542, rcvised by Petcr Pauls and Jackson Campbell BosweIl (Ottawa: Dovehouse. 1989). pp. 40-2: sec also Stnrpc. .lnnnls of fhe Refornr~tion.1. pp. 133. 200-1. council .

Another important role undertaken by these divines was their participation in the

Westminster disputation and--as a result of its failure--their Protestant declaration of faith

presented to the Queen. According to lewel, the disputation was arranged to prove to the

Catholic bishops the emors of their Church, so that they "may have no ground of cornplaint

that they are put dom only by power and authonty of la^."'^' Of greater interest here t han

the disputation itself are those Protestants chosen to participate in it: John Scory, who was

the leader of the English congregation at the moderate community of Emden,'93 Christopher

Guest, who had remained in England during Mary's reign, David Whitehead. and five

returned exiles from Zurich and Strassburg. Aylmer, Cox. Home, lewel. and Grindal.'"

Given the predorninant voice of these exiles, it was mal1 wonder that the disputation's three

propositions al1 confomed to Protestant principles, and more specifically, principles reflective of the Zurich tradition: that prayers and administration of the sacrarnents should be done in the vemacular; that the leader of each Church (in this case. the monarch) has the right to

"establish, or change, or abrogate ceremonies and ecclesiastical rites" without approval of a general council; and that the Mass cannot be proven by scnpture.lg5 The second proposition,

'92 Jewel to Martyr. 20 March 1559. Zurich Letters. p. 23. '"qntwo letters to Martyr. Jcwel considerai Scory one of tlieir flock. In the first. he listed Scory among the group of capable returned esiles who remained in London to help hrther the reformation; in the second. Jewel termed Scory onc of their "friends" and was pleased at Scoq's nomination to the episcopacy. As Scory apparently did not correspond with or travel to Strassburg or Zurich. 1 have chosen not to include Iiim among the cohcrent group of retumed exiles. but Jewl cIcariy beiiwed him to be propcrly reformed. See: Zurich Lefters. pp. 29 and 33. Iq4 JewI to Martyr. 20 Marcli 1559. Zurich Letfers. p. 23. Jcwel also namcd Sandys. but the disputation was to have eight on each side. and Sandys [vas Iikely not one of them (Stnpc. .-lnnnls ofthe ReJormntion. 1. p. 129.)

'O' Jewcl to Martyr. 20 March 1559. Zurich Letfers. p. 23. of course, could not be conceded by Calvinists, who saw the state as subordinate to the church and forbade ceremonial innovation. Although the disputation broke down and the

Protestants were precluded from reading their prepared declaration of faith. they presented it to the Queen instead.'%

This declaration took a strongly confessional stance: "Although in Our late protestation made before the honourable auditory at Westminster, we sufficiently set forth in few words the sum of our faith. . . . we shall more at large set forth the chief and most necessary articles of the doctrine which we beiieve and t~ach."'~' Strype convincingly reponed that the original manuscript was written by Grindal, and it seems likely that Jewel took a leading role in the document's preparation as ~e11.'~~As Jewel reponed to Martyr on

April 28, 1559, the declaration followed closely the Zurich confession of faith: "we have exhibited to the Queen al1 our articles of religion and doctrine, and have not departed in the slightest degree fiom the confession of Zurich."'" Most of the articles exposed the erron of

Cat holicism and espoused the doctrine fundamental to al1 Protestant faiths. Yet three statements stand out as reflecting the Zurich tradition and giving support to the Queen. First, t hese divines supporteci a Eucharistic doctrine reflecbng the Cometms Tigtiri~nis,no t ing t hat

"with al1 reverence and humbleness of heart," they join "in one spirit" with Christ dunng the

19o The document may be found in: Strype. .ilnnals of the Refirmation. 1. Appendis, pp. 42-52.

19' 19' Strype. -4nnnls of the Reformaton, 1. p. 1 14. Ibid.. p. 1 1G. The evidence for Jewel's leading rolc cornes from the sirnilaril in wording bctwcen the dedaration and Jewel's Epistoia and Apologv written some time Iater (se bclow. chapter 3.) This rncans either that kwel used the dedaration as a guideline whcn preparing his later works or that hc took an active part in preparing the declaration: since Jewel was so involveci in the disputation. and so disappointeci by its failure 1 perceive the latter to have been the case. '" JcwI to Martyr. 28 April 1559. Zurich Letters. pp. 3 1-2. S~pper.~Here, they implicitly provided a justification for the Queen's desire to change the

wording of the sacrament which contradicts Neale's argument that the exiles fought against

the Lutheran idea of a "more spintual presence.""' Second, they admitted that their wording

somewhat differed from the Forty-Two Articles prepared by Archbishop Cranmer dunng

Edward's reign, but they also noted that they were willing to accept these earlier statements

as adequateiy reflecting their beliefs:

And although in this our Dedaration and Confession, we do not precisely observe the words, sentences. and orders of certain Godly Articles by authority set forth in the time of King Edward of most farnous memory, . . . yet in altering, augmenting, or diminishing, adding or omitting, we do neither improve [ie. disapprove], nor yet recede from any of the said Articles, but fblly consent unto the whole, as to a most tnie and sound Doctrine, grounded upon God's w~rd.'~~

Third, they expresseci their loyaity to magistrates in general and to the Queen in particular and

explicitly condernned the works of Knox and Goodman."-' Their willingness to compromise

on the Eucharist, their acceptance of the Edwardian articles, and their support of the

magistrate's right to rule over the church, combined a reverence for the Edwardian

reformation with respect for Zurich reform. As John Booty has pointed out, this declaration

later formed the basis for the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563.2

the exiles helped to shape the official doctrinal expression of the Church of England.

As the 1552 liturgy conformed largely to the Edwardian and Zurich traditions, it is no t

200 Strype. .-Znnals of the Refornration. 1, p. 1 16. 'O' Neale. Eiiznherh I and Fier Pnrliaments. p. 79. 'O2 St W.ilnnals ofthe Refirnrntion. 1. p. L 15. Becausc of Edward's sudden death. the Co-- two Articles were never subscnbed to. 'O3 Ibid-. p. 117. 'O' John E. Booty. John Jewel os.4pologisi ojthe Church ofEngland (London: SPCK. 1963). pp. 20- 1. Sce bclow. chaptcr 3. surprising that the exiles from Strassburg and Zurich, who had used the prayer book of 15 52 while on the Continent, would deem it an acceptable settlement. Neale contended that the retumed exiles maliciously used the Westminster disputation and the declaration to convince the Queen that the standard of 1552 was the minimum that they would accept.'05 There is little reason to believe that such coercion took place, especially given the Privy Council's initial preference for the 1552 liturgy. As well, according to lewel's correspondence with

Martyr, the declaration was probably presented to the Queen on or about 28 April, the same day the uniformity bill passed in the Lower ous se.'^ If so, the declaration could hardly have indu& the Queen to accept the 1552 prayer book. Rather, the exiles supponed the Queen and her Council at al1 phases of the religious settlement. Despite the retention of omaments that appeared in the uniformity act, the exiles from Strassburg and Zurich displayed a strong willingness to undertake whatever tasks the Queen or Pnvy Council assigned them, as seen in their preaching at Paul's Cross, their participation in the Westminster disputation, and their explicit support of the Queen in her poiicy of reform in the declaration--al1 of which occurred in les than four months. That they continued to respect Elizabeth 1 afier the dissolution of the Parliament of 1559 appeared in lewel's report to Martyr in late-May 1559. that "we have a wise and religious Queen, and one too who is favourably and propitiously disposed towards

Other letters would suggest that this was the consensus opinion among the former

'O5 Neale. Ehbeih / and Her Parfiaments. p. 78: Haugaard EIizaberh and the Engfish Re/orniation. pp. 106-8. '" Jewel often told Martyr of mrks in progress. but in a letter dated 14 April he made no mention of the declaration: in a letter dated 28 April. Javel mentioncd it had been given to the Queen and it sccms unlikely rliat it was presentd much before this date given the time needed to put it together. (See: Zurich Letters. pp. 28-32.) 'O7 Jewel to Martyr. 22 May 1559. Zurich Letters. p. 4 1 exiles fiom Strassburg and Z~rich.~''

The feeling was reciprocal. A number of these former exiles were commissioned to undertake visitations fiom June to October 1559. Separate commissioners were sent to each of six districts in England, to administer the supremacy oath. enforce the usage of the prayer book, and enforce the royal religious injunctions. The six chiefclerical visitors (one for each district) included Bentham, Cox, lewel, and Sandys. al1 of whom had connections with

Zurich. The other two visitors had also retumed From exile: Thomas Becon, who resided in

Strassburg and Frankfort, and Richard Davies, who resided in Frankfort where he supported

Home and refùsed to sign the "New ~iscipline."~"~In late- 1559, Cox and Grinda1 were also appointed with Archbishop Parker to the first Ecclesiastical Commission, which was tasked to enforce the injunctions during visitations in subsequent years, and Grindal was made dean of the province of Canterbury, making him Parker's nght band."'

Apparently because their view of the reformation was more than acceptable to the

Queen and her advisors on religion, the exiles from Strassburg and Zunch also received a disproportionate number of episcopal preferments. By the end of December 1559, Gnndal had been consecrated to the important and wealthy see of London, Cox to Eiy, and Sandys to Worcester, and before the end of 1560, Bentham to Litchfield and Coventry, Jewel to

Salisbury. Parkhurst to Norwich, Home to Winchester, and Pilkington to Durham. In dl, the

'O8 Sce. for esamplc: Richard Cos to W. Weidner. 20 May 1559. Zurich Letters. p. 36: and Sandys's sermon al York after Parliament. in Strype. Annals oJthe Reformafion. 1, p. 149. Jewel to Martyr. [May-June?] 1559. Zurich LeMers. p. 31; Joseph Stevenson. ed.. Caienciar of Sinie Pnpers. Foreign Series. of the Reign of Elizabeth, 1558-1559 (Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint. 1966). p. 287: Garrett. niarian Exiles. pp. 84-5 and 141; Edmund Grincial. The Rentains ofEdnwnd Grindul, D.B.. cd. William Nicholson. Parker Society (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.. 1843). p. v-vi. ''O Haugaard. Elimherh and the English Refirniation. p. 13 1. former exiles who had sojoumed in Strassburg and Zurich held eight of the twenty bishoprics; the remairing twelve were heid by eight men who had remained in England dunng the exile. including Maîthew Parker. and four who were exiled in Frankfort and Emden.'" Two of the latter group, William Badow and John Scory, had been bishops under Edward. and had spent their exiles leading the moderate community of Emden. Jewel writing to Martyr considered

Barlow, Scory. and Parker part of their "fnends." and. including Grindal and Cox among the episcopal nominees, Jewel happily reported that "from this flowering 1 can easily guess beforehand, as you do of wine, what kind of a vintage it will be.""' Jewel was apparently convinced that these men were properly reformed. Thus, those with ties to the Zurich theologians represented 40 percent (8 of 20) of the episcopacy. a figure which nses to 55 percent (1 I of 20) if we count among them Parker, Barlow, and Scory, and to 65 percent ( I I of 17) if we discount the three bishops from Wales, whom Elizabeth insisted be of Welsh

rig gin."^ Perhaps more important was the fact that only two of the leading members of the group from Strassburg and Zurich were not appointed, Thomas Sampson and John Aylmer. whose membership in this group was arnbiguous and whom Haugaard surmised were too radical for the Queen.'I4 Also denied bishoprics were another twelve fully qualified people,

"' E.B. Fryde. et al. Hondbook of British Chronologv. (London: Royal Historical Society. 1986). pp. 227-84 pc~ssinr;and Strype. .4nnals of the Refirniation. 1. pp. 154-5. By the end of 1562. an additional tlircc bishoprics were filled- whicli initially remaincd unoccupied: al1 three were filled by men who had bccn in England during the exile. II2 Garrett. Afarim fiiIe.5. pp. 80 and 285-6: and Jewl to Martyr. [May-Junc?] 1559. Zurich Letrers. p. 33. ''' By counting Barlow. Scory. and Parker and discounting the Welsh bisliops. the onty othcr bishop [O have been in exile was Gilbert Berktq. who went to Frankfort but refiised to sign the "New Discipline." (Garrett. Afcrrinn fiiles. p. 87.) "" Haugaard. Elizabeth nnd the Engiish Refirmation. pp. 48-9. Aylrner rather condescendingly supportcd rlic Quccn over Knos's and Goodman's trcatises. and Sarnpson was probabty already becoming cmbroilcd in tlic ornamcnts controversy (see below. chaptcr 3 .) including "militant" Protestants such as Whitehead, some of his "New Discipline" supponers at FranlGort. and a nurnber of men who had held office in the Genevan congregation."* The

Queen wanted a moderate, educated episcopacy, that much is certain, but it must not be supposed that she chose the divines with Zurich connections because of limited clerical resources: thousands of clergy had rernained in England during Mary's reign. including more than enough senior clerics like Matthew Parker, who remained loyal to Protestantism by accepting seclusion to fil1 the episcopacy. Rather, Elizabeth clearly approved of these clerçy who espoused the traditions of the Edwardian and Zurich churches. men who had proven themselves over the preceding months, and who had explicitly supported her nght to govem the English Church. Over the next few years. the newly reconstituted Church of England would experience controversy and criticism and these bishops would play crucial roles in t hese events.

21% Ihiri., p. 49: and Strype. ..lnnals ofthe Reforrnalion. 1. p. 154.

67 Chapter Three

The Shaping of the Elizabethan Church, 1559-1563

Like al1 forced compromises, the Elizabethan Settlement bore seeds of Future discontent. The

bishops kom the émi@ cornmunities in Strassburg and Zurich were highly supportive of the

Queen, Council. and Commons and their plan to return the English Church to its former

purity, as witnessed in the reign of Edward VI, but they had not anticipated the need to

compromise with the Catholics and the inclusion of the omaments proviso in the uniformity

bill which this involved. That proviso had temporanly lulled the House of Lords into

submission. but it soon became clear to Catholics both within and without the country.

especially afler the imprisonment of the Marian bishops and election of the new episcopacy.

that their religion was doomed in England. Finally, the divines from Calvinist L'migrk

cornmunities who amived too late to affect the settlernent and who were deemed too radical

to join the episcopacy did not willingly accept the "half forrned" Elizabethan Church,

assembled without their assistance or approbation. No wonder, then, that al1 three groups-

the Protestant bishops, the obstinate Catholics, and the disgruntled clergy-would become

embroiled in controversies between 1559 and 1563, major events whose chief protagonists included divines who had spent their exiles in Strassburg and Zurich. Crucial to the definition

of the Church of England between 1559 and 1563 were the omaments controversy of 1559 and 1560, Bishop John Jewel's defences of the Church between 1559 and 1562. and the

Convocation of 1563, events which need sustained examination. Too few histonans of the Elizabethan Church have given adequate attention to the controversy sparked by the hated omaments proviso and the Queen's retention of a crucifix and use of Mass vestments in her Chapel Royal. Most have been content to overlook this controversy or to cite it as a minor precedent to the vestiarian controversy of 1566, which is generally perceived to have been more significant for the Engiish Church. Yet the importance of the ornaments controversy should not be underestirnated: it was the first major issue of dissension in the newly reconstituted Church of England and had it not been resolved with another compromise between clergy and Queen, the face of the episcopacy and, therefore, of the Church, might have been radically different. The most complete discussions of this controversy have been offered by William Haugaard and Margaret Aston. both of whom captured the nature and importance of the situation very well? Neither author, though, considered the partisanship of the bishops embroiled in the contlict and the significant role played by the Zurich church in its resolution.

The omaments proviso appended to the unifomity act authorized "that such omaments of the Church and of the rninisters thereof shall be retained and be in use as . . . in the second year ofthe reign of King Edward the Sixth, until other order shall be therein taken by the Queen's Majesty. . . ."*" Parliament rneant in fact the omaments listed in the 1549 prayer book, instituted in Edward's third year, which provided for the employrnent of crosses.

Haugaard. Elizoheth ml the Engfish Refor~mion.pp. 183-200: and Margaret Aston. Englrnd 's Iconoclasts, ijolunre 1: Laws Against Iniages. (O'bord: Clarendon Press, 1988). pp. 297-3 1 2. ''' Gcrald Bray. ed.- DocunienfsMthe English Refomiation (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co. Ltd.. 1994). p. 334. candles, and vestments in the church, omaments which were later discarded in the 1552 book.

The proviso also empowered the Queen to ordain fiirther ornarnentation at her discretion without the approval of Parliament. Even though ornarnentation of any kind was forbidden in the Helvetic Confession and those allowed in the proviso were not considered adiaphoru in the Zurich church, the proviso was not a first considered a threat. Two days after the uniformity bill had been passed by the House of Lords. Edwin Sandys wrote to Matthew

Parker about the omarnents proviso: "Our gloss upon this text is, that we shall not be forced to use them but that others in the meantirne shall not convey them away, but they may remain for the Queen.""' Sandys was wnting on behalf of some undefined group of like-minded divines. This group probably recognized a political purpose in the use of omaments, believing that the proviso was forced upon the Queen by Catholics and apparently was not concemed so long as individual bishops could decide upon the ornamentation in their dioceses. Since the majority of the new bishops would be exiles or ex-Edwardians, they would likely forbid the use of omaments outnght and their flocks would not be in danger. Jewel writing to

Martyr in May or June 1559 gave a sornewhat different reason for at least ternporarily accepting the proviso:

The scenic apparatus of divine worship is now under agitation; and those very things which you and 1 have so ofien laughed at, are now senously and solemnly entertained by certain persons, (for we are not consulted,) as if the christian religion could not exist without something tawdry. Our minds indeed are not sufficiently disengaged to make these fooleries of much irnp~rtance.''~

AI1 was not yet reformed regarding religion, and Jewel was willing to put up with a few

'IR S1qyc. .4nn~/.vof the f?e/ornrc?rion.I. pp. 80-3 and appendis. 59. 210 Jcwel to Martyr. [May-lune?] 1559, Zurich Lerters, p. 33. "fooleriesl'--especially if he as a bishop could abolish them in his diocese--in order that

Protestantism could flourish again in England. His cornplaint that "we are not consulted

partly confirms the theory that the proviso was a compromise between the Queen and

traditionaiists or Catholics, not the Queen and "radical" Protestants, as Neale and Haugaard

supposed.""

Ostensibly, then, Sandys. Jewel. and the group they spoke for accepted the ornaments.

generally believing that they would not be forced to use them and hoping that the "scenic

apparatus" would soon be abolished by the Queen. However. it quickly became clear they

were not wiiling to sit idly by, knowing that images and vestments existed. The visitation

commissioners in 1559 inciuded the Earl of Bedford, Sir Anthony Cooke, Bentham, Cox,

Grindal, Jewel, and Sandys."' They travelled on six circuits, calling al1 clergy before them

to subscribe to the acts of supremacy and uniformity, to the new Book of Commorl Prayer.

and to the religious ~njunctions." The injunction regarding images required the clergy to

"preach in their churches" that "works devised by men's fantasies . . . as wandering to

pilgrimages, offering of money, candles or tapers to relics, or images, or kissing and licking

of the same. praying upon beads, or such kesuperstition" are "maledictions of God, for that

they be things tending to idolatry and superstiti~n."~This is a clear modification fiom the

parallel Edwardian injunction established in 1547, which called for commissioners to "take

220 Neale. Elizabeth I and ller Parlianienfs. p. 77-8: Haugaard. EIirabefh and ~heEnglish ReJornrnrion. pp. 108- 10. "' Ibid.. p. 34: and Stevenson. Calendur ofstate Papers. Foreign Series. ISSR-15.59. p. 287: Grindal. The Renmins of Ednlund Grindd. pp. v-vi. 22' Haigh. English Refirnrnfions. p. 243. '" Bray. Docunients of the English Reformation. p. 3 36. down or cause to be taken down, and destroy" ornaments such as torches, candles, and altars

that have been "abused with pilgrimage or oEerings.""' The Eiizabethan injunction seems

to have been intended to subvert the spiritual significance placed on ornaments by Catholics,

not to order their destruction or removai fiom the church as the Edwardian injunction

demanded. Jewel wrote to Martyr in November 1559 regarding the images found during the

visitations: "We found in al1 places votive relics of saints, nails with which the infatuated

people dreamed that Christ had been pierced, and I know not what small fragments of the

sacred cross."" This was apparently more than the reformed Protestants could bear, for as

Sandys reported to Martyr in 1560, "al1 images of every kind were at our last visitation not

only taken down, but also burnt. and that too by public a~thority.""~ Indeed, the

Commissioners made great public showings of widespread iconoclasm, ordenng images and

altan to be thrown into huge bonfires."' IF the commissionen were aware of the change in

wording between the Edwardian and Elizabethan injunctions, which is probable given their

long ecclesiastical expenence, then despite Sandys's claims to the contrary, their actions were

in conflict with the omaments proviso and the injunction.

The visitors of London even removed the cross and candles fiom the Chapel Royal while the Queen was travelling the country. When Elizabeth retumed to find her Chapel bare of omaments, she was outraged, ordered the return of the cross and candles, and demanded that the presiding clergy Wear vestment~."~Sandys reported to Martyr that "the Queen's

Ibid.. p. 249. Jewel to Martyr. 2 November 1559, Zurich Letters. p. 60. Sandys to Martyr. 1 April 1560. Zurich Letters. p. 98. Aston. England S /cnnoclnsts. pp. 302-3. Ibid.. pp. 306-7. majesty considered it not contrary to the word of Gd"for the image of Christ to be displayed in the church; clearly, to Elizabeth, images and vestments unattended by superstition were adiaphora and as things indifferent to salvation they might be t~lerated.~~When Jewel leamed of the "enorrnities" still in the Queen's chapel, he complained to Martyr that "the slow-paced horses retard the chariot"

That little silver cross, of ill-omened origin, still maintains its place in the Queen's chapel. Wretched me! This thing will soon be drawn into a precedent. There was at one time some hope of its being removed; and we al1 of us diligently exened ourselves, and ai11 continue to do, but it might be so. But as far as I can perceive. it is now a hopeless case. Such is the obstinacy of some minds."'

What if, as Jewel feared, the Chape1 Royal was setting a precedent? What if. as Jewel noted in another letter, "the exarnple of princes" was "of such importance" that the people will want to imitate the omamentation present in their Queen's chapel?*' These were not hypothetical questions posed by a paranoid divine; before the year's end, the Queen issued a "proclamation against breaking or defacing of monuments" which declared that tombs were "set up in

Churches or other public places for mernory, and not for superstition," and commanded "al1 such breaking of monuments hereafter to be forbom, and forbad [sic]." The proclamation ordered the bishops to "enjoin [Churchwardens] under pain of excommunication" to repair and replace such tombs "such as be already spoi~ed."~~Although the proclamation referred only to tombs, it caused problems for committed Protestants, who like Jewel foresaw the possibility of being forced to preach wearing vestments in the presence of the crucifix. No

'" Sandys io Martyr. 1 Apd 1560. Zurich Letters. p. 98. 2M Jewel to Martyr. 16 November 1559. Zurich Letters. p. 69. Iewel to Martyr. 14 April 1559. Zurich Letters. p. 29. '" Quoted in Strypc. .4nnoI.~of the Refirn~ation.1. p. 187. longer were there hopes that the Queen would cany away omarnents at the earliest opportunity. The oniaments proviso rnay have been a ploy to get the uniformity bill through

Parliament, but Elizabeth seemingly intended to follow through on her promises to the

Catholics, in order to move them slowly toward the new faith.

By Febmaty 1560, shortly afler the consecration of the first wave of Elizabethan bishops, the omaments proviso no longer seemed just a hindrance in the reformation.

Knowing that a cross. candles, and vestments were used regularly in the Chape1 Royal was one thing: being forced to preach and administer sacraments in their presence was quite another. This was anathema to al1 reformed Protestants. Jewel described the senousness of the situation to Martyr:

This controversy about the crucifix is now at its height. A disputation upon this subject will take place tomorrow. . . . The disputants on the one side are [Parker] and Cox; and on the other, Gnndal . . . and myself . . . Whatever may be the resuIt I will write to you more at length when the disputation is over; for the controversy is as yet undecided; yet, as far as I can conjecture, I shall not again write to you as a bishop. For matters are corne to that pass, that either the crosses of silver and tin, which we have every where broken in pieces, rnust be restored, or our bishoprics relinqui~hed.~~

The controversy had reached a critical stage: Jewel refused to consider the cmcifix as adiaphora and refused to administer the sacrarnents before it, prefemng instead to resign his see; probably so did Grindal, based on his participation in this disputation. Sandys was apparently also of this opinion, for he later wrote to Martyr: "1 was very near being deposed from my office, and incuning the displeasure of the Q~een."~'On the other hand, Cox's position was more ambiguous. He was one of three bishops--the other two remain unknown

kwel to Martyr. 4 Febmary 1560. Zurich Lefters. p. 86. Sandys to Martyr. 1 April 1560. Zurich Leriers, p. 98. --appointed to administer the sacraments in the Chape1 Royal."' He wrote to the Queen humbly infomiing her "in the trernbling fear of God" that he dared not minister in her chape1 with "the Lights and Cross remaining" and provided substantial scriptural reasons for his retùsaLa6 Shortly thereafler, Cox was inexplicably encouraged to undertake this duty with a "trembling conscience," possibly. as Hudson has argued. because the Queen was angered by the bishop's letter and asserted her authority?' Despite his misgivings. Cox appears to have accepted holding services in the presence of the cross, but he continued to pray for its removal. He wrote to Martyr that "we are only constrained. to our great distress of mind, to tolerate in our churches the image of the cross and him who was crucified: the Lord must be entreated that this stumbling-block may at length be rem~ved."~'Unlike Grindal. Jewel, and

Sandys, Cox was apparently willing to toIerate the cross in churches; he seems never to have considered resigning his bishopric and even began correspondence with the Lutheran George

Cassander, asking for his opinion on the cross. As Cox undoubtedly expected, Cassander replied in defence of using the cr~cifix."~Was Cox leaning toward Lutheranism? His correspondence with Cassander and defence of the cross at the disputation leaned in that direction. but he also continued to hope that the "stumbling-block might be removed. As an experienced scholar and a member of the Ecclesiastical Cornmittee, perhaps Cox was persuaded by Parker to participate in the disputation on academic grounds--this would help

235 Sampson to Martyr. G January 1560. Zurich Leriers. p. 79. rb Stw..4nntr/s of rhe Refornration. 1. pp. 80-3, appendis 59-60. "' Ibid.. pp. 80-3: and Hudson. The Cunrbridge Conneciion. p. 140. COSto Martyr. [Jan-Feb?] 1 560. Zurich Letfers. p. 8 1. L'Q Cos to Cassandcr. 4 Mardi 1560, Zurich Leuers. pp. 88-9: and Cassandcr to Cos. [?] 1560. Zurich Letters. pp. 9 1-5. to explain his correspondence with Cassander. Or perhaps he was not willing to forsake the episcopacy, but chose instead to work within the church to change it and treat the ornaments as what Jewel temed "tawdry . . . foolenes." The latter would better explain his letter to

Martyr and was somewhat in accord with Martyr's own opinion on the issue.

The ornaments disputation was called because of an undated and unsigned letter addressed to the Queen, likely written sometime in early 1560 by, as Haugaard argued and as the content of the letter makes clear, "the party of Jewel, Grindal, and Sandys.""" The authors did recognize the Queen's nght as magistrate to ordain images, but complained that this represented a back-sliding in the reformation: "The establishing of images by your authority shall not only utterly discredit our ministries . . . but also blemish the fame of your most godly brother . . . who by public law rernoved al1 images.""' The keeping of images put

English souls in grave peril; proceeding cautiously in their argument, the authors concluded that images were forbidden, de jure divim:

The profit of images is uncertain, the ped by experience of al1 ages and States of the church . . . is most certain. The benefit to be taken of them (if there be any) is very small. The danger ensuing of them, which is the danger of idolatry. is the greatest of al1 other. . . . Ifby virtue of the second commandment images were not lawful in the temple of the Jews, then . . . they are not lawful in the churches of the Christian~."~

"God's scripture," the letter went on, "doth in no place commend the use of images, but in a great nurnber of places doth disallow and condemn them."'" From these and other scriptural references, Elizabeth was likely expected to realize her belief that images were "not

Haugaarci. Elizabeth and the English Reformarion- p. 192. Matthew Parker. Correspandence o/A fdthew Parker, D.D., .-lrchbishop of ('nnterbu. cd. John Bruce and Thornason Perowne. (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.. 1853). pp. 89-90. IJ2Ibid.. pp. 80-1. 84-5. fbid.. pp. 89-90. contrary to the word of God" was in error."' Not surprisingly, the only church image

specifically mentioned in the letter was the image of Christ--the crucifix or cross: the

iconoclast Epiphanius "spareth not the image of Christ. for no doubt that image is most

pilous in the church of al1 ~ther."~"Significantly, there was no mention of vestments, either

because they were not foremost in the dispute or because the bishops were giving some hint

that they could compromise on the use of omaments.

The authors asked Elizabeth to "refer the discussment and deciding" of these matters

to "a synod of your bishops and other godly leamed men," who would have the authority to

retain or abolish images. One cornplicated sentence in the letter is particularly notewonhy,

as the authors distinguished two groups among the bishops, and the two sides who should

participate in the ornaments disputation:

We have at this time put in writing . . . those authonties of the Scriptures, reasons and pithy persuasions, which as they have rnoved al1 such Our brethren, as now bear the office of bishops, to think and affirm images not expedient for the church of Christ, so will they not suffer us, without the great offending of God. and grievous wounding of our own consciences, . . . to consent to the erecting or retaining of the same in the place of w~rshipping*'~

One group of bishops ("'us") could not consent to images, among them most of the bishops

fiom Strassburg and Zurich, lewel, Sandys, and Gnndal, and probably Home and

Parkh~rst.'~~Another group ("they") considered images inexpedient, but not forbidden de

'" Sandys to Martyr. 1 April 1560. Zurich Lerters. p. 98. 2J5 Parkcr. Correspondence ofA4attheiv Parker. p. 83.

'j" Ibid.. pp. 96-7. '" Parkhurst's dislike of the cross and rood images was made clcar in two Ictters sent to Bullinger in 1562: in the first. the bishop rejoiced that "the cmcifix and candlesticks in the Queen's chape1 are broken in pieces." and in the second, tic lamenteci that "they were shortly after brought back again. to the grcat grkf of the godly." (Parkhurst to Bullingcr. 20 August 1562 and 26 April 1563. Zurich Leiters. pp. 16 1 and 1 73. ) jure Jivim, and tolerable if the Queen so ordered; probably Parker and perhaps Cox and those who had stayed in England dunng the exile and were less imbued with Continental disciplinary models made up this group. The authon of the letter clearly hoped that the latter group would rather eliminate images than grievously wound and even lose from the episcopacy those who opposed the crucifix and candles. The very fact that Elizabeth approved of the disputation shows she was not about to rnake an arbitrary mling that would rend her new ecclesiastical administration, especially if the situation could be solved by a meeting of her bishops.

No records are extant from the omaments disputatioa nor is it necessary to conjecture on its content, for other evidence informs us of how the omaments controversy was resolved.

Sandys wrote to Martyr in April. after the disputation, that "God, in whose hands are the hearts of kings. gave us tranquility instead of a tempest . . . only the popish vestments remain in our ch~rch."'~~Here, Sandys provided a clue about the resolution of the controversy.

Probably because of the Ietter and the intentions of several leading bishops to resign their sees, Elizabeth and the bishops on Parker's side of the disputation backed down on the use of images, accepting as a compromise the kingdom-wide use of vestments. The Queen chose to continue to use images in her own chapel. but did not force their placement in other churches. The end of this potentidy divisive issued was underscored by Jewel's tantalizingly short reference to the controversy's conclusion in a March 1560 letter to Martyr: "religion is now somewhat more established than it as.""^

?" Sandys io Martyr. 1 April 1560. Zurich Letrem p. 98. "" Jcwel to Martyr. 5 March 1560. Zurich Letfers. p. 90. The resolution of the omarnents controversy was highly significant. as it helped shape and determine the future development of the English Church. The abrogation of images caused the Church to be fiirther distanced fiom Lutheran and Catholic models, while the retention of vestments provided ammunition for nascent Puritans and resulted in their eventual himing toward the les-tolerant Calvinism, a watershed event for the newly-reformed

Church. Some years after the omaments controversy, Grindal wrote to Bullinger, about the compromtse:

We, who are now bishops, . . . judged it best. after a consultation on the subject. not to desert our churches for the sake of a few ceremonies, . . . especially since the pure doctrine of the gospel remained in al1 its integrity and freedom. . . . And we do not regret Our resolution; for. . . Our churches are enlarged and established. which under other circumstances would have become a prey to the Ecebolians, Lutherans, and semi-papi~ts."~

This letter was written in the heat of the 1 566 controversy and, taken in its proper context,

Grinda1 was clearly writing about the retention of vestments. a resolution not regretted.

Unlike images which were forbidden dejwe divino. vestments were merely inexpedient if no superstitious significance was attached to them. The compromise allowed Gnndal, Jewel,

Sandys, and others favourable toward the traditions of Zurich to continue working within the church under terms generally acceptable to them rather than have--as Cox and Grindal recognized-4ess reformed men take over their bishoprics. It is beyond the scope of the historian to speculate on what might have happened had these bishops and other former exiles frorn Strassburg and Zurich fett forced to relinquish their sees. Yet the temptation is great, especially when we consider the roles played by a number in the future: Jewel the chief

'O Grindal to Builingcr. 27 August 1566. Zurich Letters. pp. 2434. 79 apologist for the Church of England, Sandys the Archbishop of York, and Grindal the

Archbishop of Canterbury.

Another striking point about this controversy was the advice offered by the leaders

in the Zurich church, which matched independently the action taken by the English bishops

who corresponded with them. Our knowledge of the links between England and Zurich during the omarnents controversy cornes fiom the letters of Thomas Sampson, who spent

much of his exile in Strassburg, and Peter Martyr. Sampson first wrote about the controversy

to Martyr in 1559, but in his lengthy letter dated January 1 560, he succinctly described the present unsettling state of the Church in England and despairingly asked for the Italian's advice:

Oh my father! what can 1 hope for, when the ministry of Christ is banished from court? while the ctucifix is allowed, with lights burning before it? The altars indeed are removed, and images also throughout the kingdom; the crucifix and candles are retained at court alone. And the wretched multitude are not only rejoicing at this. but will imitate it of their own accord.'''

Clearly, Sampson also feared that the as yet largely unreformed populace would wish to follow the Queen's example. Knowing fidi well the answer he would receive. Sampson asked

Marîyr "whether the image of the crucifix, placed on the table of the Lord with Iighted candles, is to be regarded as a thing indifferent?" If indeed it was an "unlawful and wicked practice," Sampson continued, "suppose the Queen should enjoin al1 the bishops and clergy, either to admit this image, together with the candles, into their churches, or to retire from the ministry of the word. what should be our conduct in this case?" Like Jewel and Sandys,

Sampson feared the images would soon becorne mandatory. To prevent this, Sampson asked

Sampson to Martyr. 6 January 1560. Zurich Lefiers. pp. 79-80.

80 Martyr to confer aiso with Bullinger, whose "authority has very great weight with the Queen" and suggested that the Antistes wnte to Elizabeth "to exhort her to persevere with al1 diligence in the cause of Chn~t."~~Sampson's letter breathed an air of chronic cornplaint. sornewhat justifjkg Bullinger's later remark that the Englishman possessed an "exceedingly restless disposition," but it did succinctly and completely present the controversy over ornaments to the Zurich church, and showed how Martyr and the other leaders could help in the struggle. L53

Vestments and images were of course not adiaphora in the Zurich tradition and

Martyr's initial answer to Sampson amply reflected that. "Will any one," Martyr asked.

"when he sees you . . . arrayed in these vestments, praying at an altar before the image of the crucifix repeating holy words, and distributing the sacraments,--dl any one, 1 Say. not think that these rites are not only tolerated, but also approved by you?" He implored Sampson to

"retain the fùnction of preacchinng" but not to adrninister the sacraments "until these intolerable blemishes be rernoved." He ended the letter stating that this was also the opinion of

Bullinger, the only su~vingevidence we have of the Anfistes ' opinion on the contr~versy.'~'

As a Continental reformer who taught theology in Zurich, Martyr's opinion was hardly surpnsing; nor, in some ways, was his dramatic change in this opinion.

Martyr later wrote that he was "the slower" in advising Sampson to refuse a bishopric rather than accept vestments, recognizing the "present danger" that Sampson might be

'" Ibid. pp. 79-80. "' Quoted from entry for "Sampson. Thomas." in DIVB. XWI. p. 72 1. Martyr to Sampson. 15 Iuly 1559. Zurich Letters. pp. 52-3. forbidden from preaching as well?' In another letter, Maqr exhorted Sampson not to decline the bishopric over vestments, offering a more persuasive reason: "for if you, who are as it were pillas, shall decline taking upon yourselves the performance of ecclesiastical office

. . . you wi11 give place to wolves and antichrists . . . and hardly retain what is now conceded."

Martyr-independent of Grindal-was concemecl that unless the bishops conformed to the use of vestrnents, the episcopacy might be filled with Lutherans, who would not only see the vestments and images as indifferent to salvation, but might also encourage their use. As well, he conceded that there might be a political reason for the use of vestments and that, while they were not expedient they might be tolerated; if "unattended by superstition," vestments might be adiaph~ra.'~Yet "to have the image of the crucifix upon the holy table," Martyr wrote, "1 do not count among things indifferent. . . . The sum of the matter is, that the worshipping of images rnust in no wise be tolerated." Here, Martyr was immutable: "Neither master Bullinger nor myself count such things as matters of indifference, but we reject them as forbidden."" Only if dnven to this arait, that one had to adrninister the sacrarnents in the presence of the crucifix, should Sampson refuse a bishopric.

Martyr thus recommended compromise. He and the Zurich church in general believed in the magistrate's authority to govem the church and they recognized the variety which might exist among Protestant faiths. For those very reasons they would not write additional letters. Counsel rnust be taken "on the field of contest itself" in England and compromise was a perfectly acceptable solution, a position not unusual for a church which

'" Martyr to Sampson. 4 November 1559. Zurich Letfers. p. 66. 2 %I Martyr to Sampson. 1 February 1560. Zurich Letfers. p. 85. '" Martyr to Sampson. 20 March 1560. Zurich Lefters. pp. 95-6. had considerably shified its eucharhic position in the Carrsetms Tigz~ririirs.'~~While

vestments might be acceptesi. the crucifix could not. This allowed some room to manoeuver.

As we have seen, this was essentially the same conclusion that the English bishops who had

spent their exile in Strassburg and Zurich came to. Were the bishops farniliar with Martyr's

advice to Sampson? Probably not, since Martyr's recommendation for compromise was given

in a letter dated February 1560, which likely did not reach England until March or Apd, by

which time the disputation was over and the compromise made. As weil, Martyr's advice was

clearly not what Sarnpson had hoped for. He wanted a bishopric; that much is suggested fiom

a poascript to his letter of January 1560, in which he reminded Martyr that if he should think

of writing to the Queen, "it must not seem as if you had been urged by any one to do ~0."'~~

Sarnpson knew that he could not be linked with an extemal intervention if he hoped to secure

a see. but he wanted the office on tems that Martyr and Bullinger could help him secure.

When the Zurich refonners recommended compromise and when Sampson was passed over

for a bishopric, he and others began to pursue an aggressively anti-vestment campaign. In

later years (as Frank Gully and David Keep have argued), Sampson turned toward Geneva,

where the beliefs on imagery and clencal dress were Iess open to cornpr~mise.~~Given his

dissatisfaction with the advice from Zurich, it seems even iess likely Sampson would have

show Martyr's letten to Grindal, lewel, or Sandys, especially since he had by this time fallen

'% Ibid., p. 96. '" Sampson to Martyr. 6 January 1560. Zurich Lelters. p. 80. '* Sec Gully. "The Influence of Heinnch Bullinger and the Tigurine Tradition" and Keep. "Henry Bullinger and the Elizabethan Church." Garrett wrongly suggested that Sampson Iiad turned down a bishopric: in fact. he was never offered one. (Garrett. Marion Exiles. p. 281). out with most other former exiles frorn Strassburg and Z~rich.'~'Given the extant evidence.

it also seems highly unlikely that English divines helped to formulate Martyr's advice; while

Martyr was kept fully apprised of the ornarnents controveny by Jewel and Sandys. he was not

aware of their intention to resign their bishroprics until afler the Febmary letter to Sampson.

The similar yet independently amved at positions of the Zurich reformers and their English

colleagues probably came from their adherence to the same Protestant tradition, which

allowed for compromise and moderation over matters which did not endanger salvation and

which placed power for ordering the church in the hands of the magistrate.

Rirhop John Jewel: Apolog~sffor rhe Chnrch of Et~giai~J

The first and most capable defender of the Elizabethan Church was John Jewel.

Bishop of Salisbury. Having escaped the controversy over omarnents. Jewei became an

important apologist when the Church needed one most, when it was charged with illegitimacy

by Catholic powers. Certainly, Jewel was eminently qualified for such a task as a scholar and

a theologian, owing especially to his close relationship with Peter Martyr. Jewel graduated

a Master of Arts at Oxford in 1544, and worked there as a tutor until 1547, when Peter

Martyr amved in England to becorne Regius Professor of Theology at Oxford. Jewel and

Martyr quickly developed a lasting friendship and under Martyr's tutelage Jewel was ordained

in 1 55 1. and graduated Bachelor of Divinity the following year. Jewel recorded in shorthand a disputation between Martyr and othen about the Eucharist, and it is likely that Jewel

20' Sampson to Martyr. 13 May 1560. Zurich Letiers. p. 100. Sampson told Martyr that he no longer considered the former esilcs as his fiiends. probably because of tlieir compromise in the coniroversy. followed eagerly his mentor's discussions of the 1549 Book of Commot~Prayrr that contributeci heavily to the more reformed 1552 book. Martyr apparently thought enough of

Jewel to invite him to lecture once in his absence. Upon the accession of Mary in 1554,

Martyr was confineci in his house but escaped to Strassburg. and Jewel was forced to put his signature to Mary's Roman articles before finally fleeing to Frankfort and confessing his error there. In 1555. Martyr invited Jewel to Strassburg, where the latter attended his mentor's lectures and lived in his house and the two travelled to Zurich together in 1556. Jewel stayed in Zurich throughout the remainder of his exile, returning to England in March 1559. As John

Booty noted, "the significance of Jewel's association with Zurich dunng the exile was that contacts were then made which were broken only by death."'62 This statement is certainly borne out by the amount of correspondence between Jewel and Martyr between 1559 and late- 1 562 (when Martyr died). which far exceeded that of the other exiles. Jewel was thus a well trained adherent to the Zurich confession, which we have seen through his many proact ive efforts duriiig the Elizabethan religious settlement.263

Between November 15 59 and January 1562, Jewel wrote t hree important treatises, which had as their basic purpose defending the Church of England against daims by Roman

Catholics that it was doctrinally and authoritatively illegitimate and that great variety of doctrinal beliefs existed among the outwardly conforming English clergy. The first of these three treatises was likely sparked by the visitation of 1559. During the visitation, Jewel was clearly disappointed by how much of the old religion, Catholicism, rernained throughout

" Booty. John Jewel as -4pologisfof the Church of Enplnnrl. pp. 8-14: and entq for "Jewel. John," in DNB. X. pp. 8 15-19, lewl to Martyr. 28 April 1559. Zurich Letters. pp. 7 1-2. England. His conceni was not so much with the populace; writing to Martyr in November

1 5 59. JeweI rernarked that the cornmissioners "found every where the people sufficiently disposed towards religioq and even in those quarters where we expected most diffic~lty."'~

Rather. Jewel was concerned with certain ecclesiastics. who espoused Catholicism out of pure obstinacy :

If inveterate obstinacy rnay be found any where. it was altogether among the priests, those especially who had once been on our side. They are now throwing al1 things into confusion, in order. I suppose. that they may not seem to have changed their opinions without due consideration. . . . The ranks of the papists have fallen almost of their own accord. Oh! Ifwe were not wanting in our exertions, there might yet be good hopes of religion. But it is no easy matter to drag the chariot without horses. especially up hi11.26s

Jewel believed that while the number of papists was greatly reduced, considerable opposition still existed, opposition which rnight be eliminated if someone among the Protestants would accept the difficult "up hill" challenge of exposing the errors of Catholicism so that the recalcitrant opinions might be changed through "due consideration."

It was probably with this belief that Jewel on Novernber 26, 1559, not yet consecrated a bishop, preached a fiery sermon at Paul's Cross. In this wholly doctrinal sermon, Jewel dropped a heavy gauntlet. setting forth a challenge to papists everywhere:

If any learned man of al1 Our adversaries, or if& the learned men that be alive, be able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old catholic doctor, or father. or out of any old general council, or out of the holy scnptures of God, or any one example of the primitive church, whereby it may be clearly and plainly proved that there was any private mass in the whole world at that time. for the space of six hundred years afler Christ . . . [1 will] give over and subscribe unto him.2fi

kwel io Martyr. 2 November 1559. Zurich Lefters. p. 60.

'O' Ibid.. pp. 60- 1. '" John Jcwel. The iVorrCir owhnJewel. 3 vol.. ed. John Ayre. Parker Society (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.. 1845). 1. pp. 20- 1. Besides the private mass, Jewel added to his challenge fourteen more Catholic "errors"

including: communion under one kind, prayers in a strange tongue, the universality of the

pope, transubstantiation, the ubiquity of Christ, and the worshipping of images.'" This

sermon was given when the omaments controversy was at its height and thus Jewel's opinion

on images was not shared by the Queen. At this early stage, Jewel still believed that the use

of images was not mandatory throughout England and his later threat to give up his bishopric

served only to strengthen his conviction that Catholics were in error on this issue.

Apparently, Jewel wished to prove in his sermon that the Elizabethan Settlement was fully

Protestant, that it was correct according to the scriptures and the primitive church, and that

it was not a haif-refomed religion in which Catholics could hope to gain some ground. Jewel

was so certain of his position that he claimed that he would respond to any criticisms of his

position made by any Catholic. lewel's challenge was quickly accepted by Henry Cole. a

papist participant in the Westminster Disputation; his numerous letters, however, did not

persuade Jewel to modi@ his challenge or to "give over and sub~cribe."'~~Certainly, the

Queen's actions appeared to confim the position preached in this sermon. It was preached by Jewel at court on March 17. 1560, and repeated at Paul's Cross on March 3 1, where the original fifieen articles were expanded to twenty-seven and shortly thereafter the ornaments controversy was res~lved.*~~

By 156 1, Jewel had become a trusted defender of the Church of England. In Apiil, he was asked by Secretary Cecil to "feign an epistle" to send into France, a letter whose

16' Ibid., 1. pp. 20- 1. '* For the test of this debate, see ibid., 1. 200 Ibid.. 1, p. 3 n. 1 descriptive title explains its purpose: Epistola czrirrsdam Attgli. qua msertzir corisetms vet-ue

religro,lis doctrit~ae

qnibtcs ea~tdemmis ad ple bendam contionibus impt [grlare conanttfr. Ceci 1 commissioned

Jewel to write the document in response to allegations from French Catholics that there was

great variety among the English clergy regarding doctrine and ceremony, but he was

concerned that its message would be discarded if it was known to have been propaganda

written by a senior official of the Church. Rather, as Booty noted, Cecil "wished the readers

of it to believe that the letter was written by an ordinary Englishman in answer to the

questions of a foreigner, a Frenchman who had it printed because he found its argument

convincing and its message important."270 Indeed, the Epis~uluis convincing; unlike the challenge sermon and the Apology (to be discussed shonly), which most people probably found prolix and pedantic, the power of the Epis~olalay in its relative brevity and clarity, as

Jewel addressed it to an audience of lay readers.

The unidentified czirtcsdnm Angh understood that the Catholic pnests in France had been teaching "that nothing among us is certain; that there is agreement neither of bishops among themselves, nor preachers, nor ministers of the Church, nor individual men, either about doctrine or about ceremonies. . . .,3271 Conceming doctrine, Jewel wrote that the clergy agreed "about God, about Christ, about the justification of man, the Scnptures, the Church. the sacraments, the magistrates, and ecclesiastical p01ity."~'~This assertion of doctrinal unity

Booty. John Jewel as Apologist. pp. 42-5. 1 have indicated earlier that when the Epistola 1s compared witli the dcclaration presented to the Queen by the Westminster disputants. there cm be IittIe doubt that Jewel was a chief author of the latter document. "' John Jewel. Epistola in Booty. John Jewel ns Apologisc. p. 2 1 1. The document. long thought lost by historians. %vasdiscovercd and printed in transfation by Booty in 1963. lhid.. p. 2 17. was characteristic of Protestants in the late sixteenth century and was largely true. However,

as to the magistracy and church polity, Jewel probably spoke for the bishops more than the

clergy eli maw. Cecil chose his apologist well, for Jewel had previously show his support

for the form of Church govemance being used in England. kwel noted that those who had

returned fiom "outside areas" were also agreed on doctrine, though they "would make a case

against us about ceremonies7':

It appears that al1 the talk and contention of parties cornes back finally to this. Among a few people there is some difference in some vestments and skull-caps. - . . However, t his matter is not in and of itself of such great importance. For we know t hat neither the apostles nor the prophets were that rnuch concemed about garments, nor do we to-day place any religion or holiness in them. Our bishops. indeed, without exception one and al1 use garments sirnilar to one another. . . . I know, however, that there are some others a little afiaid of this kind of vestments which [some] men have contaminated with their idolatnes and superstitions. put] [elverybody is enough convinceci, even the Prince who commanded these t hings, that clothing is nothing so far as religion is concemed, that there is in clothing neither any holiness nor any contagion.'"

Jewel did not deny that variety existed, but where it did occur, in vestments, these were not

attended by Catholic "superstition," but were merely used for outward conformity and as t hings indifferent to salvation (adiaphora) diversity might be allowed. No t coincident al1y, t his argument matched exactly Martyr's advice to Sarnpson during the omaments controversy and the opinion of those who were formerly exiles in Strassburg and Zurich and who compromiseci on the vestments. Jewel's continua1 mistrust of the Catholics was also manifest in the Episto/a; he accuseci his opponents of great variety stretching throughout a millennium, and thus suggested their criticism of the English church was hypo~ritical.~'~

ln Ibid.. pp. 2 19-2 1. 17' Ihid.. pp. 223-5. While individually meritorious, the challenge sermon and Episfoia also sewed as important working papers, where Jewel thought out his position and arguments on a number of theological issues. These issues would eventually be presented in detail in the highly significant Apdugia Ecclesiae Anglicarzae (Apology). published in 1562 as the unofficial confession of faith of the Elizabethan Church. Recent scholarship by John Booty has show that the Apoloa was commissioned by Cecil as a group work, which explains Jewel's note to Martyr on Febmary 1562 that "we have recently wntten an apology for the change of religion among us. and our departure from the church of Rome. . . ."275 But its chef author and the man who defended the treatise fiom Catholic and Calvinist criticisrn was certainly

Jewel. Cecil wrote to Nicholas Throckmorton, the English ambassador in Pans, that he

''causeci an apology to be written . . . in the name of the whole clergy" and he intirnated that the Bishop of Salisbury, Jewel. was its a~thor."~This was confimed by Matthew Parker. who called Jewel the "chief author" of the work."' Thus while Jewel may not be credited with sole authorship, his role in the writing of the Apoiogy was substantial. It should corne as no surprise that the traditions of Zurich were amply reflected in the treatise. much to the deep disappointment of Calvinists and Catholics.

The ApIogy was occasioned by the accusations of Catholics, who "cry out upon us at this present everywhere, that we are heretics, and have forsaken the tnith.''27g Its purpose was to "shew it plain, that God's holy gospel, the ancient bishops, and the primitive church

'" Jewl to Martyr. 7 February 1562. Zurich Letters. p. 124. *" Rad. dlr. Secreray Cecil and Queen Elizabeth. p. 262. 277 Jewel. I.Vorks. III. p. 5 1. 2'8 Ibid.. III. p. 56. do make on our side," and therefore that the English are nghtfùlly retuming to the "apostles and old catholic fathers." In a series of well-formulated chapters, it presented in detail the theology of the Church of Engiand as conceived by its authors and found justification for each issue by looking back at the primitive church. A number of chapters exposed fundamental

Protestant theology; they affimed the existence of God; that there was one church of Gad which was not ruled by one all-powerfbl pnest; that rnatrimony of pnests was dlowed; that mass could not be scripturally proven; that the only tme sacraments were those of baptism and the Lord's Supper; that prayers should be in the vemacular; and that preachers had the power "to bind, to loose, to open, to shut" by "preaching of the gospel the merits of chSt-1'179 Several other chapters indicate the partisanship of the authors and some of their debts to the traditions of Zurich. The authors affimed the "divers degrees" of ministers, a hierarchical clencal stmcture headed by the episcopacy. in opposition to Lutheran and

Calvinist views. They also argued that ministers had no nght to hear pnvate confession, opposing both Lutherans and Catholics. The presence of Christ in the Eucharist was seen as spiritual, as defined by the Consensus Tigirims. They also upheld that some ceremonies might exist as rites, "without hurt to the church of God," in opposition to the form favoured by Calvini~ts.'~~Significantly, they stated that "every sou1 . . . ought to be subject to kings and magistrates," that "we ought so to obey princes, as men sent of God; and that whoso withstandeth them withstandeth God' s ordinance," which Calvinists especially questioned ?'

Broadly speaking, of course, these were al1 theological positions established in the Elizabet han

Jewel. firh. III, pp. 58-65. Ibid.. III. pp. 59-65. Ibjd., III. p. 76. religious settlernent and a number of Edwardian documents, but the Apohw was the first formal statement of the Elizabethan Church which fùlly expressed these matters, helping to

shape the early Elizabethan Church. Given the leading role taken by Jewel, the Church of

England was portrayai in the Apoiogy as sharing many of the characteristics of the Edwardian church and that in Zurich.

These affinities were confimed by the reception which the Apologv received in

Zurich, apecially £tomPeter Martyr. Ln addition to a short note fiom Parkhurst to Bullinger about the publication of the Apologv. the Zwich Letfers contain a lengthy response from

~artyr.~Three rnonths before his death, Martyr wrote to Jewel. addressing him as a "most worthy prelate," and his "ever-honoured lord." Martyr reported that the AyoIogy not only in al1 respects satisfied hirnself. but "it also appeared to Bullinger, and his sons and sons-in- law, and also to Gualter and Wolfius, so wise, admirable. and eloquent, that they can make no end of commending it, and think that nothing these days hath been set forth more perfectly." He asked Jewel to continue in his defence not only of the English Church, but also of the Zunch church, for "in cornparison to the number of our enemies there are but few who defend it." Martyr was assured thai while Jewel was dive "the truth of the gospel will not be attacked by its enernies with impunity," and he rejoiced that Jewel was the "parent of so noble and elegant an ~ffspring."~'~Martyr not only recognized Jewel as the author of the

Apologv, but also gave explicit and unqualified support for the work, approved of al1 aspects of its theology, and saw Jewel as a capable and worthy defender of the Zurich reformed

" Parkhurst

While generally difficult to quanti% the influence of the Apology can be partly determined by the criticism and acclaim it received. Throckmorton wrote to Cecil that:

Albeit the papias were very well answered . . . for [our] changing any thing that was before retained in the church of Rome: yet the Calvinists as such as think they do, be neither answered not [sic] satisfied by the said apology, which be offended for retaining of too many of the . . . ceremonies, and for some policies remaining in the church of ~ngland.~'~

Although the Calvinists did not choose to publicly refute the treatise. their predictable reaction [ends additional support to the argument that the Apolom represented a heavily

Zurich-inspired theology. The ApoIow did spark great debate between Iewel and the

Catholics. most notably the Romanist Thomas Harding, a heated discussion which continued for several years. and which like JeweI's debate with Henry Cole. did not convince the

Bishop of Salisbury to alter any of his arguments. In 1567, Jewel published this entire debate in his Defetzce of the Apologie of the Chrcrche of Et~glande,a treatise several times the size of the original Apoiogy. In the preface to the Defewe, Iewel noted that the Apology had been printed in six languages, had been sent abroad to "France, Flaunders, Germanie, Spaine,

Poole, Hungarie, Denmarke, Sveveland, Scotland, Italie, Naples, and Rome," and was

"sharply considered" at the interminable Council of Trent.286There was even some thought of appending the Apology to the Thirty-Nine Articles, the official confession drafted in the

Convocation of 1563, but this was ultimately deemed unnecessary, because both documents

Jewel. Korks. III. p. 3. n. 1 285 Quoted in Booty .John Jewel as Apologist. p. 50. For the test of this entire debate. see lewel, Works. III. were considered so c~ncordant.'~'Given the lengthy debate and wide distribution of the

Apology, there can be Iittle question that it was an influentid, if unofficiai, confession of faith.

Together, the challenge sermon, EpistoIa, and Apoiogy served a number of significant purposes in and for the English Church. Jewd publicly proved himself a willing and able controversialist who would defend Queen and Church against charges of illegitimacy. He likely helped to strengthen the position and authority of the Engiish C hurch wit hin the country and in parts of Continental Europe and to strengthen as well-at least according to Martyr- the cause of Zurichian Protestantism. Perhaps what is most important, Jewel explicitly supported the entire settlement of religion, a position not unusual for friends of the Zurich reformed tradition. He did not mount the puissant pulpit of Paul's Cross to condemn the

Established Church, but to support it in the face of adversity. Through his actions, Jewel made it clear that, unlike Sampson and his coadjutors. he would not reject the Elizabethan

Church pending a "fuller" reforrnation, nor would he passively and quietly work within his own bishopric to subvert aspects with which he felt uncornfortable, trying to bring about further reform. Instead. having escaped the controversy over the cross, the only aspect he found highly unacceptable. Jewel accepted, applauded, and defended the reform that had occurred. recognizing, as did the Zurich church, the diversity which may be allowed in the

Christian religion. This position seerns to have gathered a Iike-minded clencal and govemmental elite: certainly Grindal, Sandys, Home, and the other former exiles from

Strassburg and Zurich who compriseci forty percent of the episcopacy, possibly Parker (whom

See below. tliis cliaptcr. Dickens called Jewel's "chief co~league"~')and the bishops who stood with him. certainly

Cecil, and possibly even Elizabeth herself supported a restored Protestant Church of England following the Edwardian and Zurich traditions. Here was a powefil bloc working against those who would subvert the newly reconstituted church: to them, the doctrine was pure, the cerernony was tolerable, and changes were no longer desired or anticipated in the English

Church. The satisfaction OFthe bishops for the settlement as it now stood and their strong unity on this issue would become evident at the Convocation of 1563, where the Upper

House squarely blocked the programme of reforrn proposed by a group of nascent "puntans" in the Lower House.

The Con~~oca~io~~of 1563

The meeting of Convocation in 1563 was the first synod of the English Church afier the 1559 religious settlement. Despite its relative importance. this Convocation has received little attention tiom historians, and the buik of that scholarship was written over two hundred years ago. William Wake arnbiguously proclairned that nothing of any importance occurred in the Convocation, Edmund Gibson used its proceedings ody to chart comrnonaiities through centuries of synods, and John Strype's contribution consisted of several working papers and petitions. which he confùsingly placed in the wrong chronological ~rder.'~~Yet the information provided by these authors is now precious, since studying this Convocation

Dickens. The English Refirmation. p. 305. '* William Wake. The State ofthe Church and CIergv ofEngiand in rheir Councils, Conr?occttions.%ods, Conventions. and other Public Assemblies (London: R. Sare. 1703); Edmund Gibson. .xvnodus Anglicana. or, The Constitution and Proceedings O/ an English Convocation (London: A&J Churchill. 1672). pp. 85-172 pnssim; Strype. Annals ofthe ReJonnarion. 1. pp. 3 15-52. has been fùrther complicated by two ofan historian's most formidable stumbling blocks: a fire in St. Paul's destroyed a number of Convocation acts, and the proceedings of private cornmittees and executive sessions were not rnin~ted.~~"The most complete and accurate historical account of the Convocation of 1563 has been offered by William Haugaard, who framed his study around this synod because "the major issues and conflicts of the definitive early years of the settlement were largely drawn into the proposals and debates of the d on vocation.""^ Haugaard aptly-and for the first time-highlighted a problem that we in this study must consider in more detail:

[Wlhat the Convocation rejected is more important than what it adopted. . . . In these clerical meetings [nascent puritans] launched a major attack on the shape of the Elizabethan church as it was developing under the guidance of Elizabeth and her chosen bishops. Their proposals would have altered the doctrine, liturgy. and discipline of the Church of England in a rnanner that could not help but have mynad effects on the imrnediate course of England's social and political life."'

Indeed, even more than Haugaard supposed, the bishops seemingly unanimously quashed the more reform-minded, Calvinist-inclined recommendations for fùller reform initiated by the

Lower House. The bishops, as with the authors of the Apology, generally preferred to acknowledge the Elizabethan Settlement as a complete programme of reform, From which additional changes were not necessary.

In his opening remarks to the Convocation, Archbishop Parker told the bishops and senior clergy that their assembly provided an oppo~tunityto "reform things in the Church of

England." No unusual significance should be read into these words, as Gibson recorded

2w Strype. Annnis of the Refornmtion. 1. p. 3 15: and Haugaard Elizabeth and the English Reforntafion. p. 56. '" Haugaard. Eiimbeth and the EngIish Reformafion. pp. vii-viii. Ibid.. p. viii. similar comments from the addresses of primates dating back to the mid- fourteenth cent~ry.'~~

In the first synod of the Elizabethan Church, however, Parker's words were certainly uncarefbl, for the Lower House contained a number of what Haugaard tenned "militant ref~rrners."*~~Tv:enty-seven retumed émigrés found seats in the Lower House, including most of those considered for but ultimately refbsed bishoprics, such as Thomas Sampson and others who while in exile had eamed a reputation of being militants. Of these, sixteen spent most of their exile in Frankfort (where ten signed the New Discipline) or Geneva and another

Ealf dozen were too transient to link with any one cornmunity. "Drawing to them the considerable number of other reform-rninded clerics," Haugaard wrote of these former exiles,

"t hey could serve as the nucleus of a group determined to bring the English C hurch to greater spiritual perfection." This group could not yet be called "puntans" and Haugaard used the term "precisians," a phrase later used by Parker to describe the militants in the Lower

It was this group who introduced substantial proposals for refom into the Lower

House. When sessions began on January 19, the prolocutor of the Lower House and a

"precisian, " Alexander Nowell, appeared before the Archbishop, where he:

reported and claimed that certain of the said Lower House had exhibited papers of things to be reformed, these having been devised by them and rendered in writing. Which papers were indeed by common consent handed over to certain grave and learned men selected for this purpose . . . to be looked over and considered . . . that by this means they might reduce the papers into chapters and exhibit thern in the next session. . . .'%

ZQ' Gibson. Svnodus .4nglicnna. pp. 85f. 294 Haugaard. Elirnbeth und the Engfish Refonnation. p. 6 1. 2P5 Ibid.. pp. 50-1 and appendis II. pp. 357-9. Gibson. .?vnodus rlngiicana. pp. 50- 1. Gibson reported that it was not unusual for the clergy to present their individual "church's

grievances" and their informal petitions to the Upper House. but the presentation of a lengthy

treatise, divided into chapters, was clearly irregular. Unlike the Lower House in Parliament,

which could introduce legislation, the Lower House in Convocation was limited to offering

advice and proposa~s.'~~

Before Convocation began, the Lower House submitted the lengthy and

comprehensive working paper alluded to by Nowell to the bishops. Significantly, it was

entitled "General notes of matters to be moved by the clergy in the next Parliament and

synod," a title which in itself signified the Lower House's belief in its ability to move

ecclesiastical legislation. The document was divided into four carefully worded sections,

conceming doctrine, liturgy, clerical and lay discipline, and ministerial finance^."^ Among

suggestions touching largely upon the appointment of pnests and the holding of offices, the

authors recommended that the Church prepare an official doctrinal statement, probably

recognizing that this was already a chief purpose of the synod. They also asked that for a

furtherance in the reformation "the use of vestments copes, and surplices, be from henceforth

taken away" and that "the table fiom henceforth stand no more altarwise. . . ." Both of these

railed against the ornaments proviso and other compromises made with the Catholics in 1559,

and against the bishops' resolution of the omaments controversy in 1560. It also suggested

that "thirty-two persons may be appointed to collect and gather ecclesiastical laws," possibly

hoping to usurp the magistrate's govemance over the church and the authority of the

"' Ibid.. pp. l47ff and 172. The entirc document has been reprinted in Edward Cardwell. Svnodolia: A Collection of .;frticles ofReligion. Canons,and Proceedings of Con\~ocation(O.dord: O.dord U.P.. 1842). II. pp. 495- 5 16. footnotes. bis hop^.^ These were not in themselves "radical" reformed ideas; they were, to varying

degrees, generally accepted and legislated under Edward VI, but they were not issues which

Elizabeth would likely wish to have reopened. "General notes" may have been drafted Iargely

by the 'precisians"; as a working paper, it did not require a majority in the Lower House to be passed to the bishops just the approval of the proloc~tor.~~When the document was delivered to the Upper House by Nowell. Archbishop Parker received it and made several marginal cornments on it, which probably reflect his role as president of Convocation rather than his approval of the articles. Although there is no record of the episcopal executive sessions, the working paper appears not to have been considered among the bishops. perhaps because such recommendations were perceived to be beyond the puMew of the Lower

House.

An examination of the working papers and early amrnplishments of the Upper House offers some reasons as to why the bishops quashed the clergy's recommendations for refom.

Not surprisingly, the working papers of the Upper House of Convocation were considerably less "reformed" than those of the Lower House and codinued to fully support the Elizabethan

Settlement. The primary working paper ofthe Upper House was probably "Certain articles."

Strype suggested that this paper was "composed by a Secretary of the Archbishop' sl' and t hat

Grindal "mended and added" to it in some places.301Haugaard disagreed and argued that both Parker, as president of the synod, through his amanuensis, and Grindal, as dean of the

" Cardwell. Svnodalia. II. pp. 495-5 16. especially 498-500. footnotes. MO Gibson. Svnodus .4nglicana. pp. 147K "' Strype. .-lnnafsCI f fhe Reformation. 1. p. 3 50. province, perused the document, but that it was submitted by the Lower ous se.^* A closer look at the evidence suggests that Strype's version is more plausible. Nowell told Parker that the proposais of the Lower House were being reduced and turned into chapters, which clearly resulted in the "General notes"; it seems unlikely that given this they would have submitted another lengthy and quite different document pnor to Convocation's start. As well, the full title of the document is "Certain articles in substance desired to be granted by the Queen's

Majesty." an Erastian position that some in the Lower House likely would not have admitted.'03 The author of the document thought it necessary to "put out one Book, containing articles of Doctrine, and to be drawn out of the Substance of the Book of the

Apology, set out by the Queen's Authority." This was a clear reference to the need for an official doctrinal statement, and an explicit approval of Jewel's Apoiogy and the Queen's authority in ecclesiastical matters. The "Certain articles" asked fùrther that certain external apparel be prescribed to avoid contention, not that it be aboli~hed.~~Nowhere in the document is there mention of abolishing ceremonies, images, or kneeling at communion, or that ecclesiastical laws should be made by a consistory and not by the magistrate. Overall, in their main proposals. the "Generai notes" and "Certain articles" are diametncally different -- the former challenged nearly al1 important points of the Elizabethan Settlement, while the latter supponed the Settlement, recomrnending the preparation of Articles "to join God's

People and the Queen's Subjects in durable con~ord."~~~

302 Haugaard. Elizabeth nnd the English Reformation. pp. 60-1 and appendis 1. p. 345. M3 Sm.Annals of the Refonnation. 1. p. 350. " Ibid. pp. 350-2. 30' Ibid.. p. 350. Haugaard has made much of the proposals of Edwin Sandys and some of the correspondence of John Parkhurst, citing these sources as evidence of dissension in the Upper

ou se.^'^ In one very bnef working paper, Sandys proposed minor changes in the prayer book. including that the "collect for crossing the infant in the forehead" at baptism be omitted, as it seemed to him superstitious. He also recornrnended that "certain learned Men. Bishops, and others," be appointed to an Ecclesiastical commission.307Neither of these proposals need necessarily be seen as militant or dissentious: the former was a minor corrective to a prayer book whose essential doctrine had not been examined in detail in ten years and the latter sought the retum of a secular and derical cornmittee that had existed in the time of Henry

VI11 and Edward VI. Sandys's second proposai, the so-called "orders for bishops," provided for certain rules to be followed by bishops; Strype intimated that the document was commissioned by Parker and that it was ultimately deemed unnecessary in the episcopal executive sessions; still, the proposa1 contained neither implicit nor explicit criticisrn of the settlement nor of the current episcopa~y.~~~

In 1562, Parkhurst wrote a letter to Bullinger in which the bishop lamented that

"religion is in the same state among us as heretofore; a state, 1 Say, not altogether to be thought lightly of" Parkhurst hoped "for an improvement at the approaching conv~cation."~~Haugaard has used this brief extract to argue that Parkhurst and sorne of his friends remained unsatisfied with the level of ref~rm.~"This is a curious reading. By

" Haugaard Elirnbeth nnd the English Reformation. pp. 56-7. " Strype. .~nna/sof the Refom~ation.1. p. 3 35. Ibid.. pp. 33940. 309 Parkhurst to Bullinger. 28 April 1562. Zurich Letters. pp. 139-40. ''O Haugaard. Elizabeth and ihe English Refimation. p. 57. examining carefülly Parkhurst's letter, it is clear that the bishop was complaining about laymen and clergy who are "tao cold" or "lukewarm" to the new religion, the Catholics and

Lutherans. "For," Parkhunt wrote, "almost al1 are wvetous, al1 love gifts. There is no tmth, no liberality, no knowledge of God; these are not generally cornplaints against reformed

Protestants and there is no reason to assume that Parkhurst was writing about his fellow bishops, or of their repugnance for the English Church as currently established. Probably,

Parkhurst was complaining of the lack of an officiai doctrinal statement, which caused religion to seem ambiguous and open to too much interpretation. a problem which he anticipated would be solved at Convocation and which was recommended in the "Certain articles." Since this letter was written before Parkhurst knew of the Apohgy, his concem was well founded." ' Thus, given the extant evidence, the proof of Haugaard's assertion that the Upper

House was divided (beyond the minor differences one rnight expect among highly trained and educated eccIesiastics) seems slight.

The major accornplishment of the Convocation of 1563--and designed entirely by the

Upper House-was the Church's official doctrinal statement, the Thirty-Nine Articles. These shared numerous similanties with the Forty-Two Articles prepared but never adopted in

Edward's reign, with the Westminster declaration presented to the Queen in 1559, and with the doctrinal issues discussed in lewel's works. Significantly, but not surprisingly given their antecedents, the Articles recognized baptism and the Lord's supper as the only true sacraments, accepted the other five sacraments as rites of the Church, supported the hierarchy and ordination of priests, stated that ceremonies established by the Church may not be

3" Parkhurst to Bullinger. 20 August 1562. Zurich Letters. p. 160.

102 arbitrarily abrogated by individual parishes, and upheld the mle of the civil magistrate over

"aii estates of this Realrne, whether they be Ecclesiasticdl, or n~t."~'~Al1 of these points fit quite well into the Zurich tradition. According to Grindal, the acceptance of the Articles in the Upper and Lower Houses was unanimous, as "not one that was present [in the

Convocation] rehsed to subscribe the ~rticles.""~ Looking more completely at the

Convocation records, Haugaard noted that while the bishops subscribed imrnediately, the clergy subscnbed more slowly and possibly gave their unanimous assent only afler Parker demanded of the prolocutor a list of non-sub~cribers.~'~The clergy's hesitations are hardly unusual, considering that the Thirty-Nine Articles essentially meant the ruination of the

"precisian" programme of fùrther reform.

The passing of the Thirty-Nine Articles in Convocation was not enough to deter the

Lower House "precisians" fiom petitioning for additional reform. Three sets of articles were considered by the Lower House in its later sessions, which if passed through that House would have been taken to the Upper House as petitions. These were. chronologically, the

"Seven articles," "Six articles." and "Twenty-one articles." The first recommended the elimination of the singing of psalms, kneeling at communion, clencal dress, holy-days beanng the narne of a "Creature" (as tending toward superstition) and the need for individual parishes to subscribe to al1 ceremonies established within the Church. This paper received thirty-four of 1 17 votes in the Lower House. including the twenty-seven former exile^."^ The "Six

''' Cardwell. Svnodaiia. 1. pp. 53-72. 313 Grindal. The Renrains ofEdmund Grindal, Letter to Cecil. 17 My 1563. p. 257. "' Haugaard Elizabeth and the English Reformation. pp. 624. "' Strype. Annals of the Refirmation. 1, pp. 335-6. articles" petition was less refonn-minded, probably so that it would have a better chance of passing in the Lower House; it did not prohibit singing psaims or any holy-days, asked that kneeling be placed at the discretion of the communicant, and requested that only the surplice, and not the cope, be used at services. This paper met with more favour than its predecessor, receiving fifly-eight subscriptions, but was defeated by one vote.316 The "Twenty-one articles" were considerably longer than al1 of the other papers considered by the Lower

House, incorporating a number of issues discussed in the "General notes," but they were aiso somewhat less "reformed." They asked that "Roods, and al1 other Images . . . be taken away out of al1 Places, Publick and Private. and utterly destroyed." something generally supported by many bishops. but othenvise there were no recommendations for abrogating ceremonies and omamentation. This watered-down set of articles managed to secure sixty-four votes. a figure which rises to ninety-two if proxies are included."' and it was thus the only one of the three to be submitted to the Upper House as a petition."' Among the bishops, the petition must have met its demise, for no mention is made of it in the Convocation acts and it was never passed on to Parliament.

Haugaard has argued that through the passing of the "Twenty-one articles," the

"precisians had won a major victory by carrying the Lower House along in their pr~gramrne.""~This States the case too strongly. It seems much more likely that the House was divided between the "precisians" and their cornpatriots and the more traditional clergy,

'16 '16 Ibid.. 1. pp- 337-8. "' Haugaard. Elizabeth and the English Reformation. p. 7 1. 318 Strype. Annals of the Reforrnation. 1. pp. 340-3. "' Haugaard. Elizabeth nnd the Eng/ish Reformation. p. 72. many of whom had remained in office through decades of religious stnfe and who likely did not see it within their jurisdiction to dictate policy to the bishops. The "precisians" had to continually whittle away at their demands until this more moderate group of clergy could be drawn to their side. Yet the "precisians" were a powerful group within the Lower House; t hey did manage to get their "General notes" and "Twenty-one Articles" to the Upper House, and would Iater comprise the leading members ofearly puritanism.

Why did the bishops so squarely block (or ignore) the Lower House's recommendations for reform? There are at least four possible CO-relatedreasons. Firstly. based on their primary working papers, the goals of the two Houses were quite different; some of the Lower House, through the "General notes," desired substantial changes in the reformed-style, while the Upper House, through the "Certain articles." did not desire the further refom of religion. but simply the fine tuning and officia1 sanctioning of what had aiready occurred. Secondly, two precisians wrote to Bullinger, intimating that the bishops did not recognize the authonty of the clergy in matters of ecclesiastical polity:

[The clergy] may discuss and detemine, but in such a way as that nothing is held to be binding and ratified without the consent of the Queen and the archbishop. Whence it arose, that many things of the greatest advantage of the church, which had been adopted by the last convocation but one [ie. the Thirty-Nine Articles], were suppressed, and never saw the light. Our case was also proposed to the convocation . . . but one of the bishops intempted him saying, "What are these things to you? We begun this matter, and we will make an end of it." [The clergyman answered,] "We thought the Queen was the author of this business, but we now perceive that you yourseives are.""'

Of course, this was a partisan account, but it nonetheless shows that some of the clergy believed that the bishops thought the reformation of the Church was their responsibility and

320 G. Withers and J. Barthelot to Bullinger and Gualter. [August?] 1567. Zurich Letters. p. 282. 105 not that of the clergy at large.

Thirdly, nothing is known of the Queen's desires regarding religious affairs in

Convocation, but Archbishop Parker provided some evidence that the bishops followed the

Queen's desires. In a letter to Cecil afier the synod, Parker wrote:

[T]he Queen's Majesty may have gwd cause to be well contented with her choice of most of[her bishops]. . . . And fùrthermore, though we have done amongst ourselves little in our own cause, yet 1 assure you our mutual conferences have taught us such experiences, that 1 trust we shall al1 be the better in govemance for here~~fter.~''

Parker's letter is particulady telling: he has affimed that the bishops followed not their "own

cause," whatever it might be, as the "precisians" supposed, but presumably that of the Queen

and her advisors. as they had during the enactment ofthe Elizabethan Settlement itselE These

bishops could continue to be counted upon to govem the church well in the future. Founhiy.

the bishops appear to have been fundamentally united by their support of the Elizabethan

Settlement and the doctrinal purity of the Church as now established. They did not see this

Convocation as a time to reform religion to the individual desires of bishops or clergy, but to

- finalize and codiq the Settlement, which was accomplished by the Thirty-Nine ~rticles.~''

Certainly, John Jewel was pleased with the proceedings of Convocation. He wrote to

Bullinger near the end of the synod that things were "going on successfùlly . . . as to the

affain of religion," showing his explicit support for what had occurred. Indeed, Jewel and

his fellow former exiles would not have been displeased with the Thirty-Nine Articles; over

the past four years they had been iargely responsible for its antecedents.'*

"' Parker. The Correspondence ofMatthew Parker, p. 23 1. "' Thc other accomplishment of Convocation was the derical subsidy for the crown. and the concomitant issue of ministerial finances, which. while clearly important administmtively. is of little concem in rny study. 323 Jewel to Bullinger. 5 March 1563. Zurich Letters. p. 167. By the time of this Convocation. the former exiles in Strassburg and Zurich had become capable defenders of the Church of Engiand as currently established, rather than pupils of Continental refonnen. By 1563, after the omaments controversy was satisfactorily resolved, after Jewel was recognized as a willing defender of the English Church, and after the first Elizabethan Convocation, Jewel and his colleagues on the episcopal bench had shown themselves compromising and moderate. Regarding issues of adiaphora, such as vestments and the recommendations for reform brought by the Lower House of Convocation, the bishops acquiesced to the Queen, their magistrate and their supreme govemor. This was a reformed position highly reflective of the Zurich tradition and of Archbishop Cranmer's earlier leadership of the Henrician and Edwardian Church of Engiand. As Parker afirrned, Elizabeth had chosen her episcopacy well. and it is no coincidence that former exiles from Strassburg and Zurich comprised much of its ranks. Summary and Conclusion

This thesis has reintetpreted much of the limited extant evidence regarding the early

Elizabethan Church. It has argued that the leaders of the Zurich church and the English exiies who spent some time in Strassburg and Zurich had a key impact upon Protestant reforrn in

England between 1559 and 1563. Hiaorians such as J.E. Neale and William Haugaard have been too content to see the returneâ Marian exiles as a homogenous group that fought against what became the Elizabethan Settlement. Others, such as Norman Jones and Winthrop

Hudson, have seen the exiles as being too divided and too few in nurnber to have had much effect. Wayne Baker termed the Zurich tradition the "other" Protestant faith, a lesser researched and known tradition than Lutheranism and Cal~inisrn.~"Perhaps this elusiveness has kept these and other historians fiom systematically considering the influence of theologians in Zurich and their English fnends on the highly formative early years of the

Elizabethan Church. This study has made that attempt.

Throughout the making of the Elizabethan Settlement, the leaders of the church in

Zurich, Hei~chBullinger, Rudolph Gualter, and especially Peter Martyr, sent letters to the

Queen, the earl of Bedford, Sir Anthony Cooke, and a number of leading clergy, offering their advice and encouragement. In thae letters, they explicitly supported the magisterial right of the Queen, her Council, and Parliament to design a programme of religious reform, to re- establish royl supremacy over the Church, and to unite the nation under a uniform order of

Baker. Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenanr. p. 165.

108 wonhip based on the Edwardian religion of 1552. Recent histosical studies have shown that

the Queen was predisposed toward enacting a religious settlement very similar to what existed

in Edward VI's reign. As a result, the influence of the Zurich reformers in directing their

correspondents in England toward a settlement heavily reflecting late-Edwardian and Zunch

reformed models was probably not very strong; their advice was hardly necessary to bnng

about a settientent satisfactory in rnost respects. Yet their support for the planned programme

of reform served as an important contirmation of Elizabeth's right to change the national

religion, especially given that other Continental models were less tolerant of magisterial

innovation. These interactions aIso set a precedent to the Zurich refomers' involvement in

controversial events that occurred in the Elizabethan Church in the later- 1 560s and 1 5 7Os,

in which their continued support for Elizabeth was manifest.

Likely because oftheir close relationship with the Zurich refomers. Bedford. Cooke.

and the returned clerical exiles fiom Strassburg and Zurich, held moderate, Erastian

Protestant views and thus largely supported the position of the Queen. As patrons to

influential people in the Council and the House of Commons, Bedford and Cooke could help

to ensure the successful passing of the suprernacy and uniformity legislation to retum the

Church to the Edwardian religion. Even more vocal during the Parliamentary settlement in

1559 were the clerical exiles from Strassburg and Zurich. Upon their retum, they supported the Queen and Council by preaching at court and at Paul's Cross, by participating in the

Westminister Disputation, and by preparing a declaration of their faith for the Queen.

Probably because of their help in enacting the settlement of religion, the secular and clerical exiles from Strassburg and Zurich were awarded with numerous appointments to visitation and ecclesiastical commissions and more clergymen within this group were elevated to

bishoprics than any other contemporary group of clergy. In these important positions, the

visitors, commissioners, and bishops helped direct the shape of the English Church fiom

within.

In the yean tiom 1559 through the Convocation of 1563, the bishops-indeed, those

who had expenenced exile in Strassburg and Zurich-participated in the three most

controversial events of the early Elizabethan Church. During the omarnents controversy

Edmund Grindal, John Jewel, and Edwin Sandys considered resigning their bishoprics and

their letter to the Queen initiated a disputation that resulted in a compromise favourable to

their point of view and that of Peter Martyr of Zurich. The resolution of this conflict served

to distance the Church of England from Catholic, Lutheran, and Calvinist rnodels, kept

Grindal and his colleagues in positions of ecclesiastical authority, and kept the episcopacy

from being "contaminated" by less or more reformed Protestants, al1 of which helped to shape

the Elizabethan Church for years to corne. Mer the omaments controversy, John Jewel

through the challenge senno& the Epistola, and, with his CO-authors,the Apofogy, explicitly

defended the Elizabethan religious settlement. The very fact that the Queen and William Cecil

commissioned and supported Jewel's defences suggests that Jewel, and the bishops who

stood with hirn, were highiy innuential clergy in the realm. Since these men were disaffected by the disciplinary models set by Catholicism and other Protestant fait hs, the traditions of

Edwardian and Zurich refonn were amply reflected in these documents. Their intense dislike pariicularly of Calvinkt models would become evident during the Convocation of 1563 when the bishops. now seemingly a unified group, squarely blocked the recommendations for refonn made by the "precisians" in the Lower House. They preferred instead to work within the Established Church-now satisfactorily reformed in al1 important respects--and to follow the desires of the Queen and Council by assernbling the Thirty-Nine Articles, a reformed version of the articles drafied in Edward VI's reign and a confessional document closely refated to the traditions of the Zurich church.

The traditions of Zurich gained so much ground in Elizabethan England for a number of reasons. First, the impact of Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr upon the Edwardian Church laid the foundation for the reconstitution of the English Church under Elizabeth. Second. the former exiles fiom Strassburg and Zurich made up the largest and most vocal group of

Protestant clergymen and statesmen involved in making and enforcing the Elizabethan

Settlement. Third, the Zurich reformers could support the new settlement because of their attitudes toward compromise, moderation, doctrine, ceremonies, omaments, a hierarchical clerical structure. and magisterial mie over the national church, which agreed with or supported Elizabeth 1 and her councillon. Aithough the Church of England continued to have a unique govemment and liturgy among the reformed churches, it also continued to share doctrinal positions and attitudes toward the magistrate with its sister church in Zurich. Bibl iography

Primarv Sources

Bray, Geralci, ed. Doçurneir~sof the E@sh Refomatioon. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co.

Ltd., 1994.

Bullinger, Heinnch. "Second Helvetic Confession" in Reformed Cor>fsssitzs of the

Sixteetrtii-Cmhiry. Ed. and tram Arthur C. Cochrane. London: Westminster Press.

1966.

Bumet, Gilbert. "A Collection of Records, &c, Book III." neHistory of the Reformatiotz

of the Chruch of Etrglami, The Second Part. London: T.H.Richard, 1683

Cnlenrdar of State Papers? Domestic Series, of the Reips of WardVI, Mary, Elizabeth

1547-1580. Vol. 1. Ed. Robert Lemon. London: Longman, Brown, Green,

Longmans and Roberts, 1856.

('alctrdar of Stute Papers ar id Mamiscripis, ReIatitig lo Etrgiish Affairs, Existi~~gi» ihe

Archives and Collec~iotrsof Vienice. Vol. VIL Ed. Rawson Brown. London:

Longman, Brown, 1 892.

CkIe~rdmof Sfde Papers, Foreign Series, of the Re@ of EIizabeth. 1558- 1559. Ed. Joseph

Stevenson. Liechtenstein: Kraus Repint, 1966.

Calvin, John Institzites of the Christini~ReIigio~i. 2 vols. Trans. John Allen. Philadelphia:

Presbyterian Board of Christian Religion, 1936.

Card well, Edward, ed. Syiodalia: A Collection of Articles of Relis-ot7. Canmrs, and Proceedings of Convocation. in the Province of Canterbziry. from the Year 1547 to

the Year 171 7. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford U.P.,1842.

-.- . D0~21rner1twyAntlals of the Refonned Chtirch of England; Beitrg a Collecfiotrof

Il>juzctiom. Orders. Articles of Inpiry. &c, from the Year 15-16 îo the Yeur 1716.

2 vols. Oxford: Oxford U.P., 1844.

Dasent, John Roche, ed. Acts of the Privy Courlcil of Er~glurrd,New Senes, VII, AD 1 5 58-

1570. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1893.

D 'Ewes, Simond. The Jozinlals of ail the Parlametlts diiring the Re@i of Q~ieerrE/izabeth.

both of the Holise ofLordsandHozise of Commor>s. London: 1682.

Frere, Walter Howard, ed. Visitatioti Arficies und Injturcfiom of fhe Period of the

Reformation, 111. 1559-1575. London: MacMillan, 1 9 10.

Grindal, Edrnund . The Remaim of Edmiind Grindal, D. D. Sirccessively Bishop of Lotidon,

arid Archbishop of York nrid Cariferbziry. Ed. William Nicholson. Parker Society.

Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1 843.

Jewel, John. The WorkîofJoht~Jewel, Bishop of Salisbwy. 3 vols. Ed. John Ayre. Parker

Society. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.,1845.

------. Epistola criiicsdam Angli in John Jewel as Apologisr of the Chrirch of Engiard

Ed. and tram John E. Booty. London: SPCK, 1963.

Liirirgical Services. Liturgies and Occasional Fonns of Prqyer Ser Forth iri the Reigr of

Queeri Elizabeth. Ed. William Keatinge Clay. Parker Society. Cambridge:

Cambridge U.P.,1847.

Melanchthon, Philipp. "Augsburg Confession." me Book of Comord: The Cotfessiorrs of the Evangelical Liitheran Chrch. Ed. and t rans. Thedore G. Tappert . P hiladelp hia:

Muhlenberg Press, 1959.

Origirial Letters Relative to the D~glishRefonnaiiorz, wrttten dirritig the reigns of King

Henry t?.',King Edward P7. and Qireen MmChiefy from the Archives of Zurich.

2 vols. Ed. Hastings Robinson Parker Society. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.,1846.

Parker, Matt hew . Correspotiu'etice of Matthew Parker, D.D.. A rchbishop of Carzterbtuy.

Ed. John Bruce and Thornason Perowne. Parker Society. Cambndge: Cambndge

U.P., 1853.

S t rype, JO hn. "Appendix of Original Records." Atitials of the Refomatior~ and

Estabffshmetilof Religiot~.utxi other varimis ocninetices bz the Chirrch of EriRla,~d

diiring Qireen EZizabeth S Happy Reigrr 2d ed. Vol. 1. London: Thomas Edlin,

1725.

Whittingham, William. A Brief Discotrrse of the Troubles Begtrri al Frankjiorf, zrz the Year

1554, A boirt fhe Book of Comrnoti Proyer arzd Cerernonies. London, 1 5 74.

Zurich Leiters. or The Correspor~dericeof Several English Bishops atid Others. with somr

of the Helvetim Reformeers, Drririg the Reign of Queen Elizabeth: Chiefyfrom the

Archives of Zirrich. 2d. ed. Ed. Hastings Robinson. Parker Society. Cambridge:

Cambridge, U.P., 1846. Secondary Works

Abr ay , Loma Jane. The People 's Refonnatiotr :Magistrates, Clergy, and Comrnorts in

Slrmbmrg, 1500-1598. New York: Corneil U.P., 1985.

Anderson, Marvin Walter. Peler Martyr: A Reformer in Me(1542-1562): A Chrortology

of Bibkal Wrifingsbl Engfand & Europe. Nieuwkoop: B. De Graaf. 1 975.

Aston, Mârgaret. Ei~giand'slco~~ocimts. 1: hs Aguzmt Images. Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1988.

Baker. J . Wayne. Lieinrich Bdlhger and the Coveriarit: The Other Reformed Traditim.

Athens, OH: Ohio U.P., 1980.

Barth. Karl. ne 7heology of John Calvin (1922). Trans. GeoEey W. Bromiley.

Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans, 1995.

Barilett. Kenneth. "Appendix XI: The Role of the Marian Exiles." The Home of Commoms.

1558-1603. Ed. P.W. Hasler. VOL 1. London: History of Parliament Trust, 198 1.

Beckingsale, B.W. B~rrghiey:Ttdor Stafesmnnt, 1520-1598. London: MacMillan, 1967.

Birt, Henry Norbert. The Ekabeihm Religims Setrlmf. London: George Bell and Sons,

1907.

Black, J.B. The Rei,of Ekabeih 1558-1603. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1959.

Booty, bhn E. John Jewel as Apologisr of the Chifch of Eng/atrd. London: SPCK, 1963.

Bumet, Gilbert. neHistory ofthe Reforntatiot~of the Chrch of EtlRla>d The Seco~dParr.

London: T.H.Richard, 1683.

Camden, Wil 1iam. Amtaks Renrm A t~giicanrmet Hiberi~icur~rm,Regiia~iie Eiizabe tha.

London: 1615. Christianson, Paul. "Refonners and the Church of England under Elizabeth 1 and the Early

Stuarts." Jotimal of Ecclesiastica~Hisw 3 1( 1980), pp. 463 -48 1.

Collinson, Patrick. The Elimbethatz Pirritan Movemet~t. London: Jonathan Cape, 1967.

Cross, Claire. "Continental Students and the Protestant Refonnation in England in the

Sixteenth Cenhiiy." Reform and Refomatioi~:Englaitd ami the Corltiizet~t.c. 1500-

c. 1 730. Stzid~esin Chtrrch History, Subsida 2. Ed. Frank Baker. Oxford: Basil

Blackwell, 1979.

------. Chtirch und People 1450- 1660. Cornwall: Fontana, 1976.

------. Royal Stiprernacy iii the Elizabethz Chzirch. London: 1 969.

Dent, C.M. Protestant Reformers 11Eiizabefhan Oqfbd. Oxford: Oxford U .P., 1 983.

Dickens, A.G. me E~iflshReformatiotr,. London: B.T. Batsford, Ltd., 1964.

Elton, Geofiey R. Reform and Reformatiot~:Engiattd 1509-1558. London: 1977.

Foxe, John. Acres arld Morit(ments. Vol. II. London: 16 1O.

Frere, Walter Howard. neDtglish Chrch in the Reigtls of Elizabeth andJames I (ISM-

2625). London: MacMillan, 1904.

Froude, James Anthony. History of EngIandfrom the Faii of Wolsey lo the Death of

Elizabeth. Vol. 2. New York: Charles Scribner's and Co., 1867.

Fryde, E.B., et al. Hatldbwk of British Chrotzology. 3d ed. London: Royal Historical

Society, 1986.

Garrett, Chriaina H. neMmian Exiles, 1553-1559: A Stua'y of the Origitls of Eiizabethan

Pwita~iism.Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 193 8.

Gibson, Edmund. Spodzis A t~giicara,or, The Cot~stittitiotiut id Proceedittgs of an Engilsh Cmrvocatiott. London: A&J Churchill, 1672.

Gordon, Bruce. "Calvin and the Swiss Reformed Churches." Calvit~ismitt Ezirope, 1540-

1620. Ed. Andrew Pettegree, et al. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1994.

Gully, Frank, Jr. "The Influence of Heinrich Bullinger and the Tigurine Tradition upon the

English Church in the Sixteenth Century," Phi3 thesis, Vanderbilt University, 196 1.

Haigh, Christopher. hglish Refomafions: Religion. Pofitics, and Society iitrder the Tt~dors.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.

Hasler, P.W., ed. me Hoiise of Commotts. 1558-1603. 3 vols. London: History of

Parliamentary Trust, 1 98 1 .

Haugaard, William P. Elizabeth atld the Errgiish Reforrnnfioi~:The Strt~gg/esfor a Stable

Setfletnent of Reiig~orr.Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.,1968.

Hudson, Winthrop S. The Cambridge Corrrtectiorr atid fhe Eiizabelha~rSettlement of 1559.

Durham, N.C.: DukeU.P., 1980.

Hughes, Phili p E. 7he Refornatioti il1 Ettgiattd London, 1963.

Hume, David. The History of Dig/àttdfrom the Ittvasion of Jtilii~sCnesar to the Revofzitiott

of 1688 [1778]. Vol. IV. London: Liberty Classics, 1983.

Jones, Norman L. Fnirh by Statute: Parliurnetrt and the Seltkmet~tof Refigioti 1559.

London: Royal Historical Society, 1982.

Keep, David J. "Henry Buliinger and the Elizabethan Church. A Study of the Publication of

his 'Decades', his Letter on the Use of Vestments, and his Reply to the Bull which

Excommunicated Elizabeth," PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, 1970.

--. --. "Bullinger's Intervention in the Vestiarian Controversy of 1566." The Evarlgelicai Qziarteriy 47( 1979, pp. 223 -30.

------"Bullinger's Defence of Queen Elizabeth." Heinrich Bulihger 1504-15 75,

Gesammelte AzIfSatze mm 400 Todeszag. Vol II. Eds. Ulrich Gabler and Erland

Herkenrath. Zurich: nieologischer Verlag, 1975.

Knappen, M.M. Tudor Pzrritmtism. Chicago: 1965.

MacClure, Millar. Regisrer of Sermons Preached al Paul k Cross 153-1-16-12. Rev. Peter

Pauls and Jackson Campbell Boswell. Ottawa: Dovehouse, 1989.

MacCulloch, Diarmaid. 7?te Luter Refomatiot~it~ Eng[and, 15-17-1603. London:

MacMillan, 1990.

McNair, Phillip M.J. "Peter Martyr in England Peter Martyr PérmigIï ami Itafia11Rrform.

Ed. Joseph C. McLeiland. Waterloo, ON: Wilfied Laurier U. P., 1 980.

Meyer, Car1 S. Eiizabeth l md the Religiozcs Se&meitt of 15.59. St. Louis: Concordia,

1960.

Milton, Anthony. Catholic at~dReforrned: The Roman and Protestant Chrches in Etlglish

Protestat~lTltozrght, 1600-1640. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 1995.

Neale, John E. "The Elizabethan Acts of Suprernacy and UNfonnity." English Hisiorical

Review 65(195O), pp. 304-32.

-______. Elizabeth i md Her Parliamen~s1559-158 1. London: Jonathan Cape, 1959.

Pettegree, Andrew. Marian Protesla~itism:Six Sttrdies. Aldershot: Scolar, 1996.

Po Ilard. A. F. The Hisrory of England from the Accession of mvard M to the Death of

Elizabeth. Vol. VI. London: Longman's, Green & Co., 19 19.

Phillips, Walter. "Henry Bullinger and the Elizabethan Vestiarian Controversy: An Analysis of Influence." Jotirrial of Religims History (A ustralia) 1 1 ( 198 1), pp. 3 63 -84.

Read, Conyers. Mr. Secretury Cecil and Qireeiz EIizaOeth. New York: 1963.

Southgate, W.M."The Marian Exiles and the Influence of John Calvin." History ( l942), pp.

148-52.

Stevens, Sir Leslie and Sir Sidney Lee. Dic~iotmyof Na~iotmlBiography. OOxford: Oxford

U.P.,1968.

S trype, John. The Amiais of the Reformatiot~utid Estabfishmettt of Religiort and Variozis

Ocnirre~icesUt the Chiîrch of EttgIatid duritg Qzieert Ekabeth 's Happy Reigt. 2d

ed. Vol. 1. London: Thomas Edlin, 1725.

Wake, William. The State of fhe Chirch aiid Cler~of Et~glatdbt their Cowtcils.

Co~tvocnti~m,Syd, Corrwntiom, und other Pzîblic Assembk. London: R. Sare,

1703.

Wallace, Ronald S. Calviii, Geiwa. ai~dthe Reforrnatiot~:-4 Sfzidy of Càiviit as Social

Reformer, Chzirchmm, Pwrand Theologiun. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press,

1988.

Warfleld, Benjamin W. "Introduction on the Literary History of Calvin's Instirzr~es."

Itistit~rtesof the Christiat~Religion. Vol. 1 . Trans. John Allen. Philadeiphia:

Presbyterian Board of Christian Religion, 1936.

Williams, George Huntston. ne Radical Refomatiot~.3 d ed. Sixteenth Century Essays

and Studies XV. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth-Century Journal, 1992.