English Evangelicals and Tudor Obedience, c.

15271570
 Studies in the History of
Christian Traditions

General Editor
Robert J. Bast
Knoxville, Tennessee

In cooperation with
Henry Chadwick, Cambridge
Paul C.H. Lim, Nashville, Tennessee
Eric Saak, Liverpool
Brian Tierney, Ithaca, New York
Arjo Vanderjagt, Groningen
John Van Engen, Notre Dame, Indiana

Founding Editor
Heiko A. Oberman

VOLUME 167

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/shct

English Evangelicals and Tudor
Obedience, c. 15271570

By

Ryan M. Reeves

LEIDEN BOSTON
2014
Cover Illustration: The British Library Board (C.18.d.10) Frontispiece of Henry VIIIs personal
copy of the Great Bible of 1539.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Reeves, Ryan M.
English evangelicals and Tudor obedience, c. 1527-1570 / by Ryan M. Reeves.
pages cm. -- (Studies in the history of Christian traditions, ISSN 1573-5664 ; VOLUME 167)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-25011-6 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Obedience--Religious aspects--Christianity--
History of doctrines--16th century. 2. Evangelicalism--Great Britain--History--16th century. I. Title.

BV4647.O2R44 2013
274.206--dc23

2013035744

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual Brill typeface. With over 5,100 characters
covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the
humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.

ISSN 1573-5664
ISBN 978-90-04-25011-6 (hardback)
ISBN 978-90-04-26174-7 (e-book)

Copyright 2014 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

 CONTENTS

Acknowledgmentsvii
Abbreviationsix

Introduction1

1.Ye Gods: Political Obedience from Tyndale to Cromwell,

c. 15281540 25

2.English Evangelicals, Persecution, and Obedience,

15401547 61

3.Henrician Rhetoric and Godly Josiah: Obedience and

Edward VI (15471553) 95

4.That Outrageous Pamphlet: Obedience and Resistance,

c. 15531558129

5.If the Prince Shall Forbid: Divisions over Evangelical

Obedience in the 1560s165

Conclusion195
Bibliography199
Index211
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The origins of my interest in the study of Reformation history came as

a result of the late Prof. Dr. Heiko Oberman. He had come in 1999 to
deliver the Reformation Heritage lectures at Beeson Divinity School, and
I attended as the result of undergraduate curiosity to hear a leading
scholar. His generosity and kind words afterward were a shaft of light into
my world, and though he never knew it, the advice he gave me then for
pursuing a life of 16th century studies was a motivation to me all the way
down to the publication of this book. A signed copy of his Luther biogra-
phy still stands tall on my shelves.
This particular book originated during my doctoral studies at the
University of Cambridge, under the supervision of Dr. Richard Rex. During
my research Dr. Rex was a model advisor, providing lively discussion and
critique, and he was eagle eye at spotting bad prose or bad argument. It
was Dr. Rex, too, who first spotted the ye are gods argument emerging in
a draft chapter and suggested I explore it further. My thanks also to Profs.
Eamon Duffy and Peter Marshall, who examined the thesis and who
encouraged me to publish the manuscript. The guild of Tudor historians
often is a warm and friendly bunch, and I had the pleasure of discussing
my research with a number of them. Ethan Shagan supported me as
I joined him in exploring the many facets of Tudor obedience and resis-
tance, and though I quibble with him about a few points of interpretation
in this book, I profess my deep gratitude for his warm camaraderie during
my research. Others I can only mention briefly: Stephen Alford (to whom
I owe next round), Diarmaid MacCulloch, Jacqueline Rose, Ashley Null for
his many encouragements, Gerald Bray for his friendship and for showing
me the trenches at the BL and PRO. I also thank my fellow doctoral stu-
dents during my time in Cambridge: Simeon Zahl, Jason Fout, Paul
Nimmo, Tom Greggs, the Cambridge 1405s. Tyndale House and Dr. Peter
Williams were especially kind to let someone not studying the Bible hop
the wall and join their desks.
Special thanks go to the History Department of the University of
Cambridge for awarding an early version of chapter 1 the Archbishop
Cranmer Prize. Randall Zachman and Bruce Gordon sat a panel with
me at the Sixteenth Century Conference for this same essay, and they
immensely shaped my understanding of Swiss theology and the
viii acknowledgments

Reformation. I also read the essay at the Reformation Studies Institute

at St. Andrews University, where Bridget Heal and Roger Mason were
incredibly hospitable. Frank James has been a close friend for over
a decade now, and I am grateful to now call him a colleague after all
this time.
I would like to thank Robert Bast, Arjan van Dijk, Ivo Romein, and all
the others at Brill who made the book possible.
Special thanks to Jim and Dayle Seneff for their friendship and support
throughout my studies, as well as the encouragement of my new col-
leagues at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.
And to my extraordinarily patient and loving wife, Charlotte, I can
only say that a book is poor reward for the years of love you gave while
I toiled at this manuscript. My daughter Zo was born during the write up
of this manuscript, and her laughter blessed me during those stressful
months; my son, Owen, was born just as the manuscript was coming to its
present form as a book, and like his sister, the rascal has been known to
drag me away from my work for more important matters. To all three of
you I dedicate this book.
 ABBREVIATIONS

ARG Archiv fr Reformationsgeschichte

C.C.C.C. Corpus Christi College Library, Cambridge (Parker
Collection)
CH Church History
CR Corpus Reformatorum
Cranmer D. MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life (New Haven:
Yale UP, 1996)
CW  Collected Works of Erasmus (42 vols. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 1974-)
EHR English Historical Review
Foundations Q. Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought
(2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, rpt. 2005)
HJ Historical Journal
LW  Luthers Works, ed. J. Pelikan (55 vols. St Louis:
Concordia, 19551986)
OL  Original Letters relative to the English Reformation, ed.
H. Robinson (2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 18467)
SCJ Sixteenth Century Journal
STC  A short-title catalogue of books printed in England,
Scotland, and Ireland, and of English books printed
abroad, 14751640, ed. A.W. Pollard and G.R. Redgrave.
2nd edn. Rev. W.A. Jackson, F.S. Ferguson, and
K.F. Pantzer (3 vols. London, 197691)
T.R.H.S. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society
WA  D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesammtausgabe
(120 vols. Weimar, 18832009)
ZL  The Zurich Letters, ed. H. Robinson (2 vols. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 184245)
ZW  Huldreich Zwinglis Smtliche Werke (14 vols. Berlin,
Leipzig, and Zurich, 190583; Corpus Reformatorum
88101)
 INTRODUCTION

The question that led to this book is simple: if the Lutheran gospel is a
catalyst for political radicalism then why do so many Tudor evangelicals
remain so zealously committed to submission and non-resistance? As I
explored the subject there emerged two popular answers to this question:
either they were not truly Protestant or they, somehow, did believe in radi-
cal political thinking despite their boisterous claims to the contrary. Yet
the evidence for either of these conclusions was lacking. In the first place,
we know that, while there were not overwhelming numbers of evangeli-
cals in Tudor England, there was a not insignificant number of committed
Protestants in England or in exile. It is increasingly impossible to compart-
mentalize Tudor evangelicals as non-Protestants. Similarly, the notion
that evangelicals believed in resistance while also proclaiming their obe-
dience to the king could not be squared with the testimony of the vast
majority of evangelical writings. Most evangelical writings teach categori-
cally that resistance leads to eternal damnation, so if this truly is masking
nascent resistance theory, then we must conclude that evangelicals are
either good liars or bad theologians.
The result is a book that attempts to explain the idiosyncratic nature of
evangelical teachings on obedience and which, I hope, opens up a new
facet for studying Tudor evangelicals. I have two goals. First, I want to
trace the evangelical doctrine of obedience from the 1530s, with the advent
of the Royal Supremacy, through the first decade of Elizabeths reign.
Secondly, I want to examine a few connections between the political
teachings of English evangelicals and Swiss Reformed leaders on the sub-
ject of obedience, in an effort to achieve a wider understanding of
Protestant influence beyond that of Luther. Each chapter explores a range
of evangelical texts that deal with the subject of obedience to the king, and
I indicate a number of foundational principles that structured evangelical
political thinking during the Tudor period.

The Nature of Political Obedience

For the better part of thirty years (15271553), most evangelicals adhered
to a strict doctrine of non-resistance, even under persecution, and it was
relatively late in the sixteenth century when evangelicals seriously began
2 introduction

to articulate resistance theory. While a few early evangelicals allowed for

resistance, the vast majority did not.
Nevertheless the doctrine of obedience is rarely studied by historians.
Scholars typically study reactions against the doctrine of obedience, while
others hunt for the earliest expression of resistance theory in an effort to
date its arrival in England. But it was the doctrine of obedience that domi-
nated evangelical minds during the Tudor period. It was published,
preached, and enforced in every corner of England. Thus, by focusing
almost exclusively on the doctrine of resistance, historians have made the
tail wag the dog. Resistance is only one side of the coin, and without a
proper understanding of obedience, the context of resistance theory
becomes obscured. By focusing on resistance, one can fall into the trap of
overplaying the evidence. Older studies, for example, tend to focus on
deviant texts during the sixteenth centurytexts that somehow hint at
the possibility of rebellion. Historians looking for resistance theory too
easily find phantom examples of potentially radical ideology lurking in
the corners of books and letters, or they champion a figure as an early
resistance theorist simply because he criticised the king or refused to
comply with his orders. Such a method suggests the doctrine of obedience
was merely a conventional appeal to civil order or perhaps a hangover of
medieval political thinking. In other words, obedience is believed to be
conservative, while resistance is radical and new.
Oppositional figures play a role here, but they are not the focus of my
analysis. Instead, I want to look at the doctrine of obedience without
presupposing that it was ordinary, unadventurous, or conservative.
Evangelical political theology was richly complex and defies easy categori-
sation, and this is no less true of those who taught non-resistance.
Evangelicals who supported obedience described persecution as Gods
providential hand at work, punishing them for their sins, and they pro-
claimed their willingness to die rather than lift a hand in vengeance or
self-defence. The kings heart is in Gods hand (Proverbs 21:1), they quoted,
and any attempt to violently oppose the monarch was a usurpation of
Gods prerogative.
Resistance theory, of course, grew in the minds of evangelicals, as for
example during the Marian regime. But these Marian resistance writers
stood against a well-defended doctrine of non-resistance. As a result,
English evangelical resistance teachings went to extremes in order to criti-
cise obedience theory. In the 1550s, when Knox and Goodman began to
adopt resistance theory, they espoused views that were more radical, and
more populist, than anything even Calvin and other Swiss leaders would
 introduction3

accept at that time. Goodman himself admitted openly that the moste
parte of meneven the learned and godliehave taught non-
resistance.1 So it is not my intention to deny the existence of resistance
ideas but simply to declare that they should not occupy our full attention.
Large numbers of evangelicals reflected on the biblical teachings on obe-
dience and non-resistance in new and unexpected waysappealing, for
example, to the new Zurich interpretation of Psalm 82 to describe kings as
gods on earth.2 For these evangelicals the doctrine of obedience was new
and biblical, freshly recovered after the tyranny of the papacy had been
overthrown. For them non-resistance was the only Protestant view. In the
1550s, not a few evangelicals looked on in horror as resistance theory writ-
ers began to undermine what they believed to be the obvious biblical
teaching on obedience, opening up a schism of opinion that endured up
until the Civil War and beyond.
The motive for studying the evangelical doctrine of obedience is, in
part, the sheer amount of evidence for it. The English doctrine of obedi-
ence was so pervasively taught, and so vigorously defended, that it
deserves study in its own right. Indeed, it would be difficult to find an
evangelical text between 1530 and 1570 that does not in some way touch
on the biblical command to obey civil magistrates. It shows up in devo-
tional tracts, instructions on marriage, discussions on formal theological
subjects andin one bizarre examplean Edwardine textbook on logic.3
In 1540, when Lancelot Ridley wrote his comments on Ephesians 5:22
(wives, submit yourselves), he felt obliged to drag in Romans 13, instruct-
ing his readers that the obedience of a wife to her husband reminds us of
our obedience to the king.4 Thomas Becon went so far as to place godly
obedience at the heart of the gospel itself, describing submission to God,
king, and neighbour as the summe of all christianitie.5 Even more striking

1How superior powers o[u]ght to be obeyd (Geneva: J. Crispin, 1558; STC 12020), Bviiv. See
chapter 4 for discussion.
2See discussion in chapter 1.
3T. Wilson, The rule of reason, conteinyng the arte of logique (London: R. Grafton, 1551;
STC 25809), Gviii-Gviiiv, which argues: All honest thynges are to be embrased // All law
made by a christian magistrate are honest // Therefore all lawes made by a Christian mag-
istrate are to be embrased. This is followed up with a syllogism on Anabaptism: No con-
temner of the magistrates is a christian // All Anabaptistes are contemners of the
magistrate // Therfore no Anabaptiste is a Christian.
4L. Ridley, A commentaryEphesyans (London: R. Redman, 1540; STC 21038.5), Lviii.
Ridley states wives who disobeys her husband resyst the ordinaunce of God [and] they
brynge judgemente to themself.Roma.13.
5T. Becon, A pleasaunt newe Nosegaye (London: J. Mayler, 1542; STC 1742), Ciii-Ciiiv.
(see discussion in chapter 2).
4 introduction

are the views of Thomas Cranmer. At his trial in 1555, when questioned
about his views on royal authority, Cranmer uttered the remarkable state-
ment that Nero was head of the church, that is, in worldly respect of the
temporal bodies of men, of whom the church consisteth; for so he
beheaded Peter and the apostles. And the Turk too is head of the church
of Turkey.6 MacCulloch rightly notes that this teaching on civil obedience
is where Cranmer is at his most remote from modern Christians.7 Yet it
was shocking even by sixteenth-century standards. Cranmers inquisitor
was simply astonished by such teachings, unable to understand how a
tyrant that was never member of the church could be its Supreme Head.
All he could reason was that this teaching was the result of Cranmers new
found understanding of Gods word.8
Such ideas may sound strange to modern ears but they were cherished
by English evangelicals and shocking to English Catholics. Examining the
doctrine of obedience, then, affords us a unique opportunity to measure
changes within evangelicalism over a substantial length of time. Most
evangelicals under Henry and Edward shared the conviction that rebel-
lion was a damnable offence that imperilled ones soul. Gods fury would
be unleashed, they argued, on those who assault the divinely anointed
magistrate. Such rhetoric should not be taken lightly, as it effectively fused
the orders of salvation and politics, grounding submission to the magis-
trate in the gospel itself: those who adhere to the gospel must obey
the king.
During the second half of the sixteenth century, however, obedience
was a contentious issue for evangelicals, as they were tossed about by
changes in official religious policy. When Mary took the throne in 1553, a
few began to question the moral imperative to refrain from violent resis-
tance, while others modified their views of non-resistance to allow for
resistance only by lesser magistrates. Knox and Goodman worked to cre-
ate an overtly biblical defence of resistance theorybut they did more
than this. Their biblical interpretations served as a critique of the politi
calideas of Henrician and Edwardine evangelicals. Many of the biblical
texts Knox and Goodman cite were the same as those used to support

6Works of Archbishop Cranmer, (ed) J.E. Cox (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 18446),
vol. II, p. 219; also found in P.N. Brooks, Cranmer in Context (Cambridge: Lutterworth Press,
1989), p. 105.
7MacCulloch, Cranmer, p. 279. He goes on: Nowhere today can one find such a theory
of royal supremacy in the Christian world.
8Works of Archbishop Cranmer, p. 219; also found in P.N. Brooks, Cranmer in Context,
p. 105.
 introduction5

obedience under Henry and Edward, only now the interpretation of these
texts was altered in order to allow for violent resistance. In the end, many
evangelicals remained unconvinced, and they opposed these new ideas as
a fundamental rejection of the evangelical message. Suffice it to say, the
debate over obedience and resistance was a jarring experience for most
evangelicals, hardly the natural development it is so often portrayed to be.
If studying the doctrine of obedience allows us to measure changes in
evangelical theology over time, it might also shed light on some of the
sources from which evangelicals drew their political theology. The second
aim of this book, therefore, is to explore some of the connections between
the political teachings of evangelicals and continental Protestants. In par-
ticular, we will explore connections with Swiss Reformed theology.
Historians have long recognised the close relationship between evangeli-
cal and Lutheran teachings on obedience, and there is no need to repeat
those arguments here. But older assumptions remain about the influence
of radical Calvinism on English evangelical culture. We are not far
removed from the traditional claim that Anglicanism was insular and
unique, a claim that was supported by the assumption that Reformed
influence on England were either irrelevant or harmful.9 A crucial differ-
ence between Anglicanism and Swiss Protestantism was said to have
been their teachings on obedience to civil government.10 As A.G. Dickens
proclaimed: From the first, the coherence of Anglicanism depended upon
the State, since the nature of the Henrician via media placed the
Supremacy at the heart of the English church. Dickens noted that
Calvinism was coming to birth in Geneva during Edwards reign, setting
the stage for an ideological showdown that would be decided under
Elizabeth.11 Underlying all of this is the belief that Anglicanism was fault-
lessly obedient to the monarch, inspired, Dickens argued, by the easy-
going nature of the English temperament. Calvinism, on the other hand,
was brimming with new and radical political ideas of resistance and
immediate retribution for tyranny. By rejecting Calvinism, the English

9A recent argument against Reformed influence in England is H. Horie, The influence

of continental divines on the making of the English religious settlement, ca.15471590:
a reassessment of Heinrich Bullingers contribution, PhD dissertation (University of
Cambridge, 1991). Hories evidence rests primarily on the claim that, while Reformed texts
were printed and circulated throughout England, they were irrelevant in the shaping of the
official English religious settlement.
10For example, P. Avis, The Church in the Theology of the Reformers (London: Wipf
& Stock, 2002), pp. 13163.
11An almost identical thesis is found in M. Walzer, Revolution of the Saints (Harvard:
Harvard UP, 1962).
6 introduction

church immunised itself from radicalism, and it emerged from the fray
under the leadership of men who sought compromise and detachment
rather thana narrow orthodoxy.12
It would be an understatement to say that Dickens thesis was influen-
tial, as historians have adopted his slogans about the English Reformation
until very recently. Like so many other tenets of the whiggish paradigm,
however, there is little evidence to support this interpretation. Dickens
based most of his characterisation of Swiss Protestantism on personal pre-
dilections and a general aversion for Calvinistic theology. He offers little
comparison, for example, of Swiss and evangelical teachings on obedi
ence and nothing that would substantiate a difference between their
approachesto resistance. Notably in his colourful synopsis of Calvin and
Calvinism he cites only three sources, all of which paint a lopsided picture
of Calvin as the rebellious dictator of Geneva, casting down kingdoms
with the swipe of his hand and leading his followers into open rebellion
an image that has begun to fade in recent years.13 Yet for Dickens, the
distance between London and Geneva could not have been greater. Calvin
was a zealous ogre sending disciples into England to inspire disobedience,
and this image went a long way towards separating Anglicanism from
continental Protestantism.
This book, by contrast, will present evidence that Swiss teachings on
obediencenot resistancehad an impact on evangelicalism from as
early as 1527. In particular, Tyndale and a number of early evangelicals
were positively inspired by Zurichs interpretation of the Old Testament
and incorporated these ideas into their political theology. Such evidence
reveals an intriguing relationship between Swiss Reformed political ideas
and evangelical teachings on obedience and non-resistance, which under-
mines the sterile claim that Calvinism arrived late in England and only
supplied evangelicals with revolutionary political ideology. Swiss leaders,
in fact, were influential from the beginning and, for decades, contributed
to the general evangelical articulation of obedience.

12A.G. Dickens, English Reformation (Philadelphia: Penn State Press, 1989), pp. 20406.
13Dickens, English Reformation, pp. 2225; cf. B. Hall, John Calvin: Humanist and
Theologian (London: Historical Association, 1967). Contrast B. Gordon, John Calvin (New
Haven: Yale UP, 2009); R. Zachman, John Calvin as Teacher, Pastor and Theologian (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006). Caros Eire, War Against the Idols: The Reformation of
Worship from Erasmus to Calvin (Cambridge: Cambrige University Press, 1989), of course,
makes a strong case for the ideological roots of sedition within Calvins thinking in relation
to its views on idolotry, but during the early decades of the Tudor period Calvin was not yet
an international figure, and so these radical views spark action in England only relatively
late, perhaps not until the Stuart dynasty.
 introduction7

To be sure, none of this suggests that evangelical teachings caused the

Royal Supremacy (Henry appears to have been relatively unconcerned
with evangelical political ideas) but rather indicates that Protestant politi-
cal ideas were in place several years before Henrys divorce. By 1530, most
evangelicals believed that obedience to civil magistrates was a Protestant
virtue, and they rushed to embrace these ideas in order to demonstrate
their antipathy towards Rome. Once the Supremacy legislation was under-
way, evangelicals began to use their newfound doctrine of obedience to
exploit the Supremacy for their own advantagenamely to ingratiate
themselves with government elites in the hopes of convincing Henry to
continue his reform of the church. It is now well established that some of
the ideas used by Cromwells propaganda circle were torn from the pages
of evangelical treatises.14 Ironically, then, the new evangelical doctrine of
obedience was derived in part from an invasion of foreign Protestantism,
and not its exclusion.
I should also state from the outset that it is not my desire to align
English evangelicals with a particular confessional identity, Lutheran or
Reformed. Historians have spent too much time attempting to press evan-
gelicals into confessional moulds, and I will not be emulating them. It is
revealing to note the various labels affixed to evangelicals like William
Tyndalehumanist, Lutheran, Zwinglian Puritanfew of which
have managed to stick.15 Rarely does it occur to biographers that, in a pre-
confessional decade, he might have been a mixture of all of these ele-
ments.16 Tyndales willingness to use Swiss Reformed ideas sat easily
alongside his commitment to Lutheran soteriology. Like many evangeli-
cals, Tyndale was eclectic, and he was willing to use a wide range of
Protestant ideas and texts in his writings, since he had no legitimate rea-
son at the time to see a fundamental difference between both camps.
Searching for a single evangelical confessional identityor a shift from
one confession to anotheris misguided, as it assumes that evangelicals
were simply passive recipients of Protestantism.
This book will demonstrate that a more helpful approach to the subject
is examining the many ways in which evangelicals were interpreters of
continental Protestantism, actively reading and incorporating elements of

14R. Rex, The Crisis of Obedience: Gods Word and Henrys Reformation, HJ 39/4
(1996): 86394.
15The various interpretations of Tyndale are discussed in chapter 1.
16See similar comments in P. Marshall and A. Ryrie (eds), The Beginnings of English
Protestantism (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002), pp. 113.
8 introduction

Swiss and Lutheran teachings but in ways that better fit their own con-
text.17 Not every thread can be examined in this book, but it should be
noted how frequently English sources continue to combine Lutheran and
Reformed sources into their writings, seemingly without any care or con-
cern to account for the on-going hostility between Luther and his Swiss
counterparts. In the case of political teachings, from 1530 to 1570, many
evangelicals believed that Lutheran and Swiss Reformed leaders such as
Bullinger, Melanchthon, Bucer, and Calvin supported the doctrine of obe-
dience. As a result, they regularly appealed to Protestant works as exam-
ples of godly instruction against resistance. After the 1549 rebellions, for
example, a number of Swiss Reformed treatises against Anabaptism
(including Calvins) were quickly translated and printed in London. Peter
Martyr and Ochino worked closely with Cranmer after the rebellions, and,
where possible, they shoehorned Swiss ideas into the Edwardine rhetoric
of obedience.18 A generation later rival evangelicals during the Elizabethan
vestiarian controversy were at odds over their different interpretations of
early Reformation teachings on obedience: Matthew Parker and non-
conformists both claimed the support of Bullinger, Peter Martyr,
Melanchthon, and Calvin, while non-conformists similarly claimed to be
the true descendants of these Protestant stalwarts. The division between
Elizabethans over the doctrine of obedience would become, in manyways,
then, a dispute over the competing interpretations of early Protestantism
and the role these ideas would have in shaping the English church.19 By
exploring the ways in which evangelicals interpreted Protestant thought,
then, we are able to note Swiss influences in England without labelling
evangelicals as Calvinist or Reformed. What matters more is how evan-
gelicals utilized Protestant theology during moments of crisis or division,
not whether evangelicals can be located on a confessional Protestant grid.
So this book deals with the complexities of evangelicals teaching on
obedience. Ultimately, however, I have constructed this book in such a
way that it might sit alongside studies of resistance theory, constitutional
government, and the Elizabethan monarchical republic, rather than cast
them from our shelves. I do not claim to have written a comprehensive
study of evangelical political thought, much less of English obedience the-
ory. For the sake of brevity, innumerable twists and turns in the evidence
receive only short treatment or were left on the editing floor. Yet this

17C. Haigh, English Reformations (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1993), p. 12, notes that evangeli-
cals borrowed ideas from Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin.
18See discussion in chapter 3.
19See discussion in chapter 5.
 introduction9

was not done in order to place evangelical political teachings onto a

Procrustean bed, stretching or removing evidence to fit into a single uni-
tary theory. Instead, my goal is simply to balance the obviously important
development of early modern resistance theory with the fact that, in
Tudor England, most evangelicals believed such theories were papist,
unbiblical, and damnable heresy. The goal, in other words, is to see evan-
gelical political arguments in their correct proportions. Scholars who
focus on the emergence of radical political thought, therefore, should find
their arguments strengthened. English resistance ideas were radical
painfully so.

Historians and the Doctrine of Obedience

While there is no single study on the evangelical doctrine of obedience, it

has not been entirely ignored. The importance of the Royal Supremacy in
Tudor England means that a formidable number of scholarly works influ-
ence our reading on the subject of obedience.
There are two developments amongst scholars that have occurred sep-
arately, but which I hope to bring together. The first is found amongst revi-
sionist historians, who since the 1970s have corrected many of the
traditional misconceptions about the English Reformation. Christopher
Haigh and J.J. Scarisbrick led the charge by offering a number of critiques
of the older whiggish narrative,20 and these critiques were deepened
through the work of Eamon Duffy.21
The traditional interpretation of the English Reformation approached
the subject essentially with one question: how did England change in such
a short amount of time? The majority of historians assumed that England
was desperately in need of renewal. The traditional church was believed to
be corrupt and corrupting, prone to magic and superstition,22 and led by an
inept and poorly educated clergy. The churchs moral and intellectual bank-
ruptcy left it vulnerable to assaults of various kinds. Moreoever, Englands
government had emerged from the destabilising events surrounding the
Wars of the Roses, in which landholding magnates redirected the political
process in order to advance their own dynasties. The power structures of

20C. Haigh, Reformation and Resistance in Tudor Lancashire (Cambridge: Cambridge

UP, 1975); J.J. Scarisbrick, The Reformation and the English People (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1984).
21E. Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars (New Haven: Yale UP, 1992); idem, The Voices of
Morebath (New Haven: Yale, 2001).
22The crucial study of early modern popular adherence to magic and superstition is
K. Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1971).
10 introduction

governing elites were corroded and cumbersome, thereby hindering the

development of modern governmental efficiency.
The Reformation, therefore, cleansed the Augean stables.23 G.R. Elton
described Cromwells activities during the 1530s as a Tudor revolution in
government, while Dickens opted for the religious idea of conversion, in
which English subjects hardened their hearts against Rome and refreshed
themselves at the wellsprings of humanism and biblical literacy.24 The
process of change, according to traditional assumptions, was inspired by
the desire to renovate England as a whole. The backward-looking institu-
tions of the church, and the dilapidated political process at the heart of
government, were re-founded. With the king, the Privy Council, and
reformers working in unison, England rapidly instituted a number of
changes that were accepted at every social level. In the place of older insti-
tutions were set the modern bureaucratic organ of the Privy Council, a
literate clergy, and a morally credible religion that cherished rationality
and the via media.
A central feature of this interpretation is the doctrine of obedience. The
political foundations of this period lay with the adoption of the Royal
Supremacy, which placed Henry as Supreme Head of the English national
church. It was believed that, by making the church subject to the State,
Henry was able to halt the rise of religious radicalism. The vicissitudes of
Tudor politics forced English prelates to deal with compromise. Thus,
Anglican adherence to the via media was said to have been a natural com-
panion to Henrys re-organisation of the church, as a somewhat inchoate
desire for theological moderation allowed English subjects to obey their
king without the overweening need for purity or precision.25 It was only
during Marys reign that we see a noticeable upturn in Protestant zeal,
derived in large part from Geneva, where a minority of evangelicals
imbibed advanced theological opinions.26 Elizabeth reaped the whirlwind

23The traditional interpretation can be found in G. Burnet, History of the Reformation

of the Church of England (Oxford, 1865).
24G.R. Elton, Tudor Revolution in Government (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1962); A.G.
Dickens, The English Reformation, especially chs. 13, which couch the English Reformation
as a conversion of English elites to the Erasmian gospel.
25Dickens, English Reformation, pp. 10612. For a critique of this, see See D. MacCulloch,
The Myth of the English Reformation Journal of British Studies 30 (1991): 119. Ethan
Shagan explores many of these same historiographical threads in The Rule of Moderation:
Violence, Religion and the Politics of Restraint in Early Modern England (Cambridge:
CUP, 2011), pp. 1529.
26See, for example, D. Danner, Pilgrimage to Puritanism: History and Theology of the
Marian Exiles at Geneva: 15551560 (New York: Peter Lang, 1999).
 introduction11

of these new Protestant radicals and fought to maintain the Anglican

identity of the English national church: Matthew Parker and John Whitgift
championed the middle way, and eventually radicalism lost what little
advantage it had. The twin forces of radicalism and traditionalism were
exorcised.
Over the last four decades, historians have challenged the whiggish
interpretation on most of these points. It has been shown that traditional
religion was intensely passionate and deeply ingrained in English cul-
ture,27 and that the effects of Lollardy and anticlericalism were relatively
small.28 The English church was not led by bumbling lack-Latin priests,
but by leading intellectuals such as John Fisher, who supported humanist
study and the pursuit of education, and who was more than prepared to
defend the faith.29 Traditional assumptions about evangelicals have also
been re-evaluated. The purported creation of an ideologically distinct
Anglican movement during the early Tudor period is no longer plausi
ble; it is clear that large numbers of evangelicals were committed to
Lutheran and Swiss ideas from the beginning.30 There is no greater exam-
ple of the reinterpretation of evangelicalism than recent studies of Thomas
Cranmeronce viewed as the doyen of Anglo-Catholicism, he has been
found cavorting with Swiss and Lutheran leaders over the doctrine of jus-
tification and the Eucharist, and he even incorporated Protestant theol-
ogy into the Edwardine prayer books.31
Loosely related to this is a discussion found amongst intellectual histo-
rians, who have debated the nature of early modern political thought.
Beginning in the early twentieth century, historians were concerned with
the effect of the Reformation on the modern world. These years were
dominated by the work of Weber and Tawney, as well as by the Troeltschian
taxonomy of church-type and sect-type religious groups. Each of these
scholars in their own way looked to Protestantism for the origins of

27Cf. Duffy, Stripping of the Altars.

28Recent scholarly works on Lollardy include J.A.F. Thompson, The Later Lollards,
14141520 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1965); M. Aston, Lollards and Reformers (London: Hambledon
Press, 1984); R. Rex, The Lollards (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002).
29R. Rex, The Theology of John Fisher (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991); P. Ackroyd, The
Life of Thomas More (London: Doubleday, 1998).
30C. Trueman, Luthers Legacy: Salvation and the English Reformers, 15251556 (Oxford:
Oxford UP, 1994); P. Marshall and A. Ryrie (eds), Beginnings of English Protestantism;
A. Null, Thomas Cranmers Doctrine of Repentance (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000).
31MacCulloch, Cranmer; see also, Gordon P. Jeanes, Signs of Gods Promise: Thomas
Cranmers Sacramental Theology and the Book of Common Prayer (New York: T&T Clark,
2008), which sees Cranmer as an independent theologian but still clearly Protestant.
12 introduction

odern views on economics, ecclesiology, and politics. Following in these

m
footsteps, sixteenth-century historians grew increasingly interested in
studying Luther and Calvin as forerunners of modern political govern-
ment. A central issue during this period was the relationship between
obedience and resistance, and countless articles and monographs were
published from 1935 to 1965 on Luthers doctrine of the Two Kingdoms
and Calvinist resistance theory.32
In the 1960s and 1970s, however, the work of J.G.A. Pocock, Robert
Kingdon, and especially Quentin Skinner redefined our understanding of
the nature of Lutheran and Reformed political thought and offered new
interpretative paradigms for understanding how resistance theory fit
within early modern political culture.33 In particular, Skinner attacked the
canard that Luther taught absolute obedience while Calvin supplied
Europe with a new political ideology of resistance. Skinner altered the tra-
ditional image of Protestant political thought: Luther himself accepted
resistance theory as early as 1531, while Swiss Reformed leaders continu-
ally dragged their heels on the subject. The Swiss began to accept radical
ideas in the 1550s, but were only fully committed to resistance theory after
the St Bartholomews Day massacre in 1572.34
It is worth noting that both of these older paradigmsthe whiggish
interpretation and the older Protestant modernisation thesiswere
inspired by the same impulse to trace the origins of modern values back to
the Protestant heritage. Weberian historians rarely considered the influ-
ence of Catholic political thought, such as medieval scholasticism, or the
effect of classic antiquity on early modern political thought. Yet, as Skinner
has argued, the rise of radical political ideas during the sixteenth century,
in particular the right to resist tyranny, was not the intellectual property of

32For example, W. Hudson, Democratic Freedom and Religious Faith in the Reformed
Tradition, CH 15/3 (September 1946): 17794; V.H. Rutgers, Le Calvinisme et ltat
Chrtien, in tudes sur Calvin et le Calvinisme (1935); H. Baron, Calvinist Republicanism
and Its Historical Roots, CH 8/1 (1939): 3042; A. Hyma, Calvinism and Capitalism in the
Netherlands, 15551700, Journal of Modern History 10 (1938); M. Chenevire, La Pense
Politique de Calvin (Geneva, 1937); G Ebeling, The Necessity of the Doctrine of the Two
Kingdoms, in Word and Faith (London, 1960); R.E.E. Harkness, The Development of
Democracy in the English Reformation, CH 8/1 (March 1939): 329; H. Diem, Luthers Lehre
von den zwei Reichen (Munich: Kaiser, 1938).
33J.G.A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1975);
R. Kingdon, The First Expression of Theodore Bezas Political Ideas, ARG 46 (1955): 88100;
idem, Geneva and the Consolidation of the French Protestant Movement, 15641572 (Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1967).
34Skinner, Foundations, II, pp. 188301. For a discussion of the influence of Skinners
work and subsequent developments, see A. Brett and J. Tully (eds), Rethinking the
Foundations of Modern Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006).
 introduction13

a single theological tradition, such as Calvinism, but arose as a result of a

cross-fertilisation amongst European intellectual elites that included an
active engagement with medieval scholasticism and the humanist study
of the classics.35 Scholars also rarely considered the possibility that early
modern political thought might be radically different than our own. Early
twentieth-century scholarsperhaps driven by circumstances in their
own daywere drawn to revolutionary figures who stood against totali-
tarianism. The language of obedience received only small interest, and it
was used primarily as a backdrop to resistance.
While new light has been shed on early Protestant political thought, tra-
ditional conceptualisations about English evangelical political thought
have endured, if only in the fact that certain foreign Protestant influences
are excluded from consideration whenever historians look for the sources
of early English evangelicalism. The whiggish interpretation held that
resistance theory was a quintessentially Reformed doctrinea point that
has since been disproven by Skinner. Yet such ideas continue to be
defended by historians despite the collapse of the whiggish framework in
which they were first created. Tudor historians continue to assume that
English evangelical political thought moved through two stages: 1) Lutheran
obedience and 2) an increased adherence by some to Reformed radical-
ism.36 Discovering the origins of resistance theory, then, often becomes a
matter of determining the point at which Calvinism lands on English soil.
The traditional approach is on display, for example, in Gerald Bowlers
study of English resistance theory,37 which focuses on Marian resistance
and its impact on Elizabethan England, and which went on to have a sig-
nificant influence on Patrick Collinsons development of the Elizabethan
monarchical republic. Bowlers framework for discussing resistance the-
ory is entirely traditional: evangelicals adopted radical Calvinist ideology
during the Marian exile and returned to England under Elizabeth embrac-
ing resistance theory.38 According to Bowler, while England produced no

35Foundations, II, pp. 188238.

36This method is employed in Ryrie, The Strange Death of Lutheran England. JEH 53/1
(2002): 6492. For a similar critique of the two-stage approach to English evangelicalism,
see Jeanes, Signs of Gods Promise, pp. 112.
37G. Bowler, English Protestant Resistance Theory, c. 15351600, PhD dissertation
(University of London, 1981) See also idem, Marian Protestantism and the Idea of Violent
Resistance, in P. Lake and M. Dowling (eds), Protestantism and the National Church in
Sixteenth-Century England (London: Croom Helm, 1987).
38Bowler, English Protestant Resistance Theory, p. 26, states that resistance theory
was widely shared by leading Protestant clergymen during the 1520s. Though he cites
Skinner, Bowler fails to note Skinners argument that Lutheran theologians were the first
to accept resistance theory, and no earlier than 1531. Cf. Foundations, II, pp. 189238.
14 introduction

native work justifying resistance to a tyrant, nevertheless every major

continental leader of the reformed churches had written approvingly of
various sorts of resistance.39 A similar approach is found in the work of
Robert Greaves, though he relies less on Calvin and focuses his attention
on Zurich. Yet his conclusions follow the same progression. Greaves con-
structs a genealogy that runs from Bullinger, through Hooper, to Knox and
evangelical resistance theory. He argues that Elizabethan Anglicans (or
Conformists) adopted the conservative position of political compli-
ance,40 and he maintains that radical English evangelicals derived their
doctrine of resistance from Zwinglianism, perhaps as early as the 1540s.41
Greaves thesis highlights the fact that old assumptions die hard. He has
adopted one of the credos of the whiggish narrativethe view that
moderate Anglicanism supported the Royal Supremacy and Henrician
conservatism, while Swiss leaders taught an aggressively modern concep-
tualisation of political resistance. And to the extent that this paradigm
was incorporated into the bedrock discussions on the monarchical repub-
lic of Elizabethan England, it is vital that we assess their merits insofar as
they shape our understanding of how radical ideas emerged towards the
end of the Tudor dynasty.
A more pernicious error lies in the assumption that the doctrine of obe-
dience was incompatible with true Protestant faith. Such a notion is rarely
defended and often assumed. Historians regularly claim that evangelicals
could never fully obey the king, since they believed in the authority of the
word of God. Since the Bible was authoritative, and since kings were
often so tremendously flawed, it is believed that evangelical convictions
must, de fact, lead to certain forms of political violence. We are told that
Protestant radicalism was a result of the straightforward consequences of
the liberation of the gospel.42 The Tudor proclamation of the Supremacy,
therefore, is assumed to be a natural antagonist to evangelical theo
logy and, over time, the natural evolution of evangelical disobedience

39Bowler, English Protestant Resistance Theory, pp. 412.

40R. Greaves, Concepts of Political Obedience in Late Tudor England: Conflicting
Perspectives, Journal of British Studies 22/1 (Autumn 1982): 27; Greaves ideas are repeated
in A. Raath. and S. de Freitas, From Heinrich Bullinger to Puritanism, Scottish Journal of
Theology 56/2 (May 2003): 20830. See also D.A. Scales, Bullinger and the Vestments
Controversy in England, PhD dissertation (University of Cambridge, 1979).
41See R. Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation (Grand Rapids:
Christian University Press, 1980), which argues for role of Knox and others in mediating
radical Calvinism to England.
42K. Gunther and E. Shagan. Protestant Radicalism and Political Thought in the Reign
of Henry VIII, Past and Present 194/1 (February 2007): 164.
 introduction15

blossomed into outright rebellion. Bowler, for example, argues that the
claim that obedience is not to be given contrary to the word of God even-
tually led evangelicals under Mary to advocate active, violent resistance.43
Those who taught that the king might not enforce evil, thus, stood on a
slippery slope. The ambiguity of this position, he argues, could easily
lead to a defence of violent resistance to persecution.44 Consequently,
when evangelicals passively refuse to obey the kings commandas
Hooper did under Edward by refusing to wear vestmentsit is held as
evidence of the emergence of the idea of active resistance.
In her fine work on Edwardine evangelicalism, Catherine Davies fol-
lows a similar line of reasoning, claiming that wherever limits were placed
on the doctrine of obedience there was the possibility (even if only implic-
itly) that rebellion might be permissible. She begins with the observation
that protestant views of Christian obedience were not as absolute as
[their work] seems to indicate.45 Like Bowler, she points to the official
Edwardine homily Of obedience, which espouses an unambiguous doc-
trine of non-resistance, yet nevertheless admits that, when commanded
to sin, it is better to obey God rather than man (Acts 5). Davies rightly
acknowledges that limits to obedience did not necessarily entail active or
violent resistance, but she nonetheless suggests that such ideas were
potentially radical: did not the idea that disobedience was a duty in cer-
tain circumstances carry within it a dangerous potential?46 Davies
answer to this question is given in her conclusion:
As Marys reign wore on, the potential of the doctrine of limited obedience
for becoming a doctrine of disobedience became all too clear, and Edwardian
prophets became theorists of resistance.47
These conclusions are repeated more recently by Dan Eppley, who says
that even Tyndales statements on passive disobedience could ultimately
drive others into armed rebellion.48
Unfortunately, such arguments are based on faulty assumptions about
the nature of obedience. The alleged slippery slope from disobedience to

43Bowler, English Protestant Resistance Theory, p. 16.

44Bowler, English Protestant Resistance Theory, p. 78.
45C. Davies, A Religion of the word (Manchester: Manchester UP, 2002), p. 159.
46Davies, Religion of the word, p. 160.
47Davies, Religion of the word, p. 233. Oddly, she cites Skinners work in Foundations,
which rejected the notion that Protestant teachings on passive disobedience created the
context for revolutionary political thought.
48D. Eppley, Defending Royal Supremacy and Discerning Gods Will in Tudor England
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), p. 22.
16 introduction

rebellion is illusory. No one has demonstrated how setting up limits to

obedience could easily develop into the right to resist.49 Bowler and
Davies, in particular, have confused passive disobedience (refusing to do
evil) with active resistance (violently fighting against evil). Both argue
that by refusing to do evil evangelicals were moving towards active, vio-
lent resistance. The general acknowledgment that subjects must not obey
evil commands is seen, somehow, to be the seed of political radicalism.
But this would make obedience theory itself the driving force behind
revolutionindeed, it would imply that the official Edwardine Homily
on Obedience was a potentially radical text.
A better way forward would be to acknowledge that we must beware of
setting evangelical political teachings in a binary division between abso-
lute obedience and resistance. Disobedience does not necessarily lead to
rebellion. In point of fact, passive disobedience was always part and parcel
of the doctrine of obedience. Obedience theory stated that one must obey
in all matters except for evil commands, suffering punishment or exile if
necessary. In other words, there is no ambiguity in claiming that one must
disobey evil commands: no sixteenth-century figure held that the king
was to be obeyed without question. The monarch could not override natu-
ral or divine law or refashion ethical norms according to his whims.50 The
doctrine of obedience assumed that evil commands would be disobeyed.
But it nonetheless denied that one could then take up the sword against
the higher powers. There is no ambiguity in this position; when com-
manded to do evil, the duty of a Christian subject is to refuse and, if neces-
sary, to suffer the consequences.
One example of this confusion will suffice. Historians have frequently
pointed to cases where evangelicals cite Acts 5 (it is better to obey God
than man) as evidence of a radical ideology that will inevitably lead to
resistance. But this text establishes nothing in itself. As Davies herself
notes, political thinkers of all types cite this passage, including advocates
of non-resistance. It is no surprise, then, to see the Edwardine homily Of
obedience quoting Acts 5. It was a commonplace that evil commands were

49For a similar conclusion that disobedience should not be confused with violence,
cf. Robert J. Bast, Honor Your Fathers: Catechisms and the Emergence of a Patriarchal
Ideology in Germany, 14001600 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 153162.
50P. Lake, The Monarchical Republic of Queen Elizabeth I (and the Fall of Archbishop
Grindal) Revisited in D. McDiarmid (ed), The Monarchical Republic of Early Modern
England (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), p. 1412: no contemporarycertainly not Elizabeth
Tudorwould have disputed that the godly prince was obliged to follow the dictates of
Scripture.
 introduction17

not to be obeyed. For both medieval and early modern writers it was a
matter of course that if Nero instructed his subjects to worship false gods,
or if Nebuchadnezzar demanded believers to worship his own image, the
duty of the Christian was to abstain. If the king then decided to kill his
subject for his unwillingness to commit idolatry, or exile him from the
realm, then it was the Christians duty to offer no violence against the
ruler.51 The Exodus story (Exodus 1:1520) of the Egyptian midwives refus-
ing to murder Israelite babies was the locus classicus for this: Pharaoh can-
not authorise his subjects to murder innocent children, as that is a
violation of natural law. But this is not resisting the king. For it to be so, the
midwives would need to draw swords and lead a palace coup. Suffering
and passive disobedience, then, were the foundational principles of
the doctrine of non-resistance and there is no automatic link between
an acknowledgement of limits to obedience and a theory of active
resistance.

Interpreting Resistance: Text and Action in Tudor England

Sixteenth-century English men and women liked to think of themselves as

obedient subjects. In their minds, the notion of obedience suggested a
rich assortment of ideas, reinforced by religious devotion and public dis-
course. In worship, they were instructed to pray that God would give them
submissive hearts to obey their husbands, parents, and rulersand
sermons echoed these prayers, encouraging believers to maintain the
social order. In the intellectual realm, educated elites reflected on the doc-
trine of obedience in their writings, often professing their loyalty and
submission to the king. So ingrained was the idea of obedience that sedi-
tion became a byword of innumerable social evils. Controversialist writ-
ers charged their opponents with sedition, treason, and usurpation of
authorityeven where there was little evidence of political radicalism.
It was a useful weapon in the early modern world: convincing civil rulers
that ones enemies were seditious often meant that the battle was won.
Few things frightened governmental elites more than the possibility of
heretical ideas plunging the commonwealth into anarchy.
Nevertheless, while it is easy to find examples of the doctrine of obedi-
ence, it can be difficult to interpret this doctrine within its own context.

51On the theme of martyrdom as it relates to various sixteenth-century ideologies, see

B. Gregory, Salvation at Stake (Harvard: Harvard UP, 2001).
18 introduction

If England was shaped by a culture of obedience, how do we measure

resistance?
Patrick Collinson has offered one of the most influential interpretative
approaches in his essay on the monarchical republic of Elizabethan
England.52 This essay capped off a generation of research on English polit-
ical thought and indelibly shaped the way historians study the subject of
Tudor obedience, resistance, and ideas of government.53 Although he
disliked the term resistance theory, Collinson nevertheless supplied his-
torians with several concepts that grounded a polemical critique of
monarchy.54 These ideas are
that monarchy is a ministry exercised under God and on his behalf; that it is
no more and no less than a public office; that as a public officer the monarch
is accountable, certainly to God and perhaps to others exercising, under
God, other public offices of magistracy or respecting an overriding transcen-
dent duty to God himself; and that there is a difference between monarchy
and tyranny.55
Collinson rejects Quentin Skinners estimation that evangelical and
Reformed texts prior to the 1560s held only a few wisps of resistance lan-
guage, citing instead the conclusions of Gerald Bowler and Richard
Greaves.56 He ultimately concludes, as did Bowler, that a great deal of
resistance language had seeped into English political culture by the start
of Elizabeths reign.
Despite the influence of Collinsons theory, there are reasons to ques-
tion his concept of resistance. In short, this definition is too large: any
evangelicalradical or obedientwould have accepted nearly all of
these points. Those advocating non-resistance, for example, would cer-
tainly have held that the monarchy is a ministry under God. It would have
been inconceivable to envision a purely secular magistracy, operating out-
side the authority of God. Indeed, the very backbone of the Supremacy
was the notion that the king was an instrument of divine providence and
that one must not resist him, as he rules in Gods place. Moreover, to take
Collinsons last criterion, when evangelicals taught obedience they did
not do so by denying the existence of tyranny. Tyndale, for example,
and the majority of evangelicals who defended non-resistance, wrote

52P. Collinson, Elizabethan Essays (London: Hambledon Press, 1994), pp. 3158.
53See essays in J.F. McDiarmid (ed), The Monarchical Republic of Early Modern England
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007).
54Collinson, Elizabethan Essays, pp. 434.
55Collinson, Elizabethan Essays, p. 44.
56Collinson, Elizabethan Essays, p. 44.
 introduction19

extensively in order to rebuke tyrannical government. The main issue for

evangelicals, instead, was the Christians proper response to tyranny. Most
denied that the duty to obey is suspended whenever the subject suffers
oppression, and they were fully aware that this entailed obedience under
tyranny.57
For the purposes of this book, we will focus on Collinsons one criteria
that differentiates theories of obedience from theories of resistance: the
issue of accountability. Was the monarch accountable to God alone or
possibly to others in the public arena as well? Could the princes actions
result in a situation where power reverted to Parliament or the populace
in order to keep him accountable for his actions? In the case of tyranny,
could the kings authority be violently opposed without the divine threat
of damnation? Or must one suffer under tyranny?
J.P. Sommerville has recently noted the importance of accountability
in English political thought. In particular, Somerville corrects a number
of misconceptions regarding royalism and absolutism in the seventeenth
century. One misconception is the claim that absolutists believed rulers
were never held accountable for their evil deeds. In fact, the most robust
theories of absolutism held that rulers were held to account in eternity for
their actions: the idea that sovereigns are subject only to God was central
to absolutist thought.58 Those who taught non-resistance nevertheless
denied that another earthly authoritywhether the pope, lesser magis-
trates, or subjectscould challenge or depose the king. No earthly
authority could bridle the monarch, in other words, and it was sinful to
attempt to take Gods vengeance upon oneself. Punishment was Gods
prerogative.
Approaching resistance theory in this way helps interpret evangelical
political discourse. For example, evangelicals such as George Joye fre-
quently warned that God would punish monarchs for their wickedness
(usually through plague, natural disaster, famine, or invasion from foreign
enemies).59 This punishment was ultimately in Gods domain, since these
disasters were seen as an immediate manifestation of divine vengeance
on tyranny. Likewise, other evangelicals warned monarchs of their
impending doom before the judgment seat of God, usually as a punish-
ment for oppressing Gods people. Yet while it would be tempting to

57See discussion on persecution and obedience in chapter 2.

58J.P. Somerville, Absolutism and Royalism, in Burns and Goldie (eds), The Cambridge
History of Political Thought, 14501700 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991), p. 354.
59See discussion in chapter 2.
20 introduction

interpret this as resistance, in fact neither of these cases constitutes radi-

cal political concepts. Instead, they assume the commonplace view that
the king is still accountable to God. Joye thus goes to great lengths to say
that he is willing to die obediently for the faith, submitting to tyranny if
required, but he nevertheless warns Henry that God would punish his sup-
pression of the word of God. In other words, there is a difference between
a prophetic warning that God will punish the magistrate and a threat to
rise in rebellion.60 The alleged slippery slope from passive disobedience to
active rebellion cannot be maintained if we pay close attention to the
question of accountability. If God alone punishes the magistrate, without
human intervention, then such warnings should not be taken as resis-
tance theory. If we are to study obedience theories, then, we must
acknowledge from the start that even the most waspish criticisms of the
king are not necessarily evidence of resistance theory. One could just as
easily convert their strong ideological views into a case for radical submis-
sion and not radical freedom.

Method

This book will draw on a wide range of texts in an effort to reconstruct the
mentalit of English evangelical political teachings. This is necessary for
two reasons. First, obedience theory is pervasive in evangelical writings,
and this can only be established by sampling a wide range of texts, rather
than narrowly focusing on a few key texts on political obedience. As
Quentin Skinner has argued, it is difficult to base a history of political
thought on the study of a few classic textsparticularly when these texts
are studied apart from their context.61 Instead, he argues, historians must
focus on the matrix of texts within an entire generation in order to recon-
struct their political vocabulary. This same method must be applied to
English evangelical political texts. In fact, there are only a few works that
dealt exclusively with political ideas. Most of their teachings on obedience
are found in devotional works, theological treatises, and sermons. Thus,
while we are unable to offer deep contextual analysis of each text, the goal
is not to decontextualize evangelical political thought, but to understand
its overall sweep.

60This distinction I owe to Randall Zachman.

61See the introductory comments in Foundations, I, pp. ix-xv; a more extensive defence
of his method can be found in Skinner, Visions of Politics, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 2002).
 introduction21

While each chapter will examine a wide range of evangelical works, I

have striven to remain focused on the immediate context of individual
texts, rather than on their possible influence on later events. Though this
book will use the term evangelical political thought, I am not thereby
attempting to extrapolate evangelical ideas into some meta-theory
finding proof-texts that comport with some idealised Doctrine of
Obedience. Each text will be examined on its own terms, in its own con-
text. We must assume that evangelical texts from the 1540s deal, at least
tacitly, with events occurring in the 1540s, no matter their significance for
evangelicals in the 1570s. John Hooper, for example, was an important fig-
ure amongst Elizabethan non-conformists and puritans. Yet it would be
problematic to assume, as many historians have, that Hooper served as an
ideological catalyst for later English radicalism62. The fact that some of
Hoopers puritan followers allowed for resistance does not necessarily
make Hooper an early resistance theorist. Hooper was, first and foremost,
an Edwardine preacher and bishop, and his teachings must be examined
against his immediate backdrop if we are to understand his teachings on
the subject. Each chapter, therefore, will examine obedience rhetoric in
its own environment.
Throughout this book, two standards will be used in order to determine
if a text falls under the rubric of evangelical political thought, namely,
1) it must be overtly evangelical and 2) it must deal with the subject of
political obedience or resistance in a self-conscious way. In the first case,
we will exclude texts by conservatives, as well as texts that do not clearly
express evangelical convictions. This is not intended to isolate evangeli-
calism, but rather to safeguard us from smuggling in political teachings
from other sources. There were numerous attempts by non-evangelicals
to articulate a doctrine of obedience (e.g. Stephen Gardiners De Vera
Obedientia). We are concerned here with but one attempt to create a the-
ory of obedience: the evangelical argument for the word of God and gos-
pel obedience.
Secondly, texts discussed in this book must deal self-consciously with
the subject of obedience. To prove the case that evangelicals taught obe-
dience, one could trot out any number of examples where evangelicals
mention obedience or submission. Texts published after the Supremacy,
for example, often refer to Henry as Supreme Head of the Church, or as
the highest authority next unto God (typically on the title page or pref-
ace). One could also point to the frequency with which evangelicals cited

62On interpretations of Hooper, see chapter 3.

22 introduction

Romans 13 or 1 Peter as examples of an underlying political ideology. But

such evidence would hardly prove that evangelicals taught obedience
theory, and it certainly would not clarify what evangelicals meant when
they said obey the king. Such comments may have been based on con-
ventional Tudor rhetoricevangelicals may be paying lip service to
Henry (or Edward or Elizabeth) before getting on with theological mat-
ters. Similar evidence could be cited as resistance: warnings that the
monarch would be punished by God, anger over idolatrous worship, lam-
entation for suffering and oppression. Yet such evidence proves little
about evangelical resistance theory. As Quentin Skinner argues, in order
for a text to qualify as a resistance text it must identify who is resisting the
tyrant (lesser magistrates, subjects) and what process is employed to
remove them from office (constitutional procedure, regicide).63

Vocabulary

A few things must be said about the conventions used throughout this
book. Like many recent publications on the English Reformation, I will
refer to English reformers as evangelicals, a term that embraces a wide
array of figures who rejected the medieval institutional church and its sac-
ramental system, and who adhered to the broad parameters of solafide-
ism. In some respects, such terminology is arbitrary, as this thesis will
focus almost exclusively on those who would have happily identified
themselves with continental Protestantism. Our concern here, then, is not
the dividing-line between Catholics and evangelicals in England, but the
internal struggle over the issue of obedience amongst the minority of
committed evangelicals.
I also use the terms Swiss and Reformed interchangeably to refer to
the theological circles found in southern Germany and the Swiss confed-
erations: Zurich, Strasbourg, Geneva, Basle, and Lausanne, and several
other smaller cities. In the 1520s and 1530s, the Swiss were not a unified
theological movement, but they nevertheless were moving away from
Luther on several important issues, such as the presence of Christ in the
elements and the renovation of the will after justification. I do not, of
course, mean to suggest that everyone who participated in these circles
was a native SwissCalvin, for example, was French, while Peter Martyr
and Ochino were both Italianand I am not suggesting that Reformed

63Foundations, II, ch. 7.

 introduction23

leaders agreed on every subject. Yet my aim is to focus on Reformed ideas

as a whole rather than on Calvin (or Geneva) alone. In the last several
decades, historians have moved beyond the confessional preoccupation
with Geneva and have focused on the surrounding cities that nurtured
Reformed thinking. This is important for Tudor history, as Calvin is little
more than a walk-on character during the Henrician and Edwardine refor-
mations, and his relationship with evangelicalism was restricted to several
small treatises and a brief exchange of letters with Somerset. Calvin shows
little familiarity with the situation in England, and he frequently had to be
brought up to speed by Bullinger.63 It is thus wildly anachronistic to refer
to Reformed thought in England during this period as Calvinism. Several
of Calvins English readers may have respected his opinions, but none
would have considered themselves his direct disciple prior to the Marian
exile. Even in 1560, Calvin is not the dominant figure in England he became
for the two generations thereafter.

63Gordon, John Calvin, pp. 25166. Gordon writes (p. 253) that when he returned to
Geneva in 1541 England hardly figured in Calvins thoughts. Through Bucer and Bullinger
he received information, but he was neither well informed nor particularly interested.
 CHAPTER ONE

YE GODS: POLITICAL OBEDIENCE FROM TYNDALE

TO CROMWELL, C. 15281540

English evangelical political thought began with Tyndale and the publica-
tion of Obedience of the Christen man (1527/8).1 Tyndales robust doctrine
of non-resistance, and his call for evangelicals to submit to temporal rul-
ers, foreshadowed the Henrician preoccupation with obedience and the
Royal Supremacy. Tyndale also offered his new translation of the Bible
and he advised the king that true obedience begins with the word of God.
Kings who allowed the scriptures to be published in the vernacular, he
claimed, ensured the prosperity of their kingdoms. Thus, only an evangeli-
cal reformation in England could guarantee Henrys quest for authority
over his subjects.
For decades, historians have assumed that Tyndale derived his political
teachings from Luther. Tyndale often used Lutheran theology in his
writingsparticularly Luthers understanding of justification by faith. It
seemed reasonable, then, to assume that his political teachings were also
derived from Luther. Nevertheless, a few historians have rejected this sug-
gestion. Leonard Trinterud and William Clebsch, in particular, have sug-
gested that Tyndale was primarily influenced by Swiss Reformed theology,
particularly the doctrine of the covenant, and they argue thereby that he
was a proto-Puritan and an advocate of disobedience. Tyndale, thus,
stands as an early example of Elizabethan non-conformity.
This chapter will offer a reappraisal of early evangelical political thought
and suggest a number of key foundational elements that endured through-
out sixteenth-century England. In the first case, we will examine the tradi-
tional historiography of Tyndale, Luther, and the doctrine of obedience.
The established view that Tyndale derived his political theology from
Luther must be dealt with if we are to understand Obedience of the Christen
man. Despite its popularity, this view rests on a false division between
Lutheran obedience and Swiss radicalism. But Luthers was not the only
theory of obedience. Similar ideas were found in Swiss political teachings,
particularly in Zurich. Those who have assumed that obedience was a

1Tyndale, Obedience of the Christen man (Antwerp: J. Hoochstraten, 1527/8; STC 24446).
26 chapter one

more-or-less Lutheran doctrine, therefore, have neglected to compare

Tyndales political teachings to those found amongst the Swiss. The alter-
native suggestion by W.A. Clebsch and Leonard Trinterud that Tyndale
was an early puritan repeats this same fallacy, only it sees Tyndale as a
Swiss radical instead of a committed Lutheran.
Second, we will present a new discovery in Tyndales political teachings
in Obedience of the Christen man: his use of Zurichs reinterpretation of
Psalm 82 and Exodus 22 (ye are gods). This discovery provides evidence
that Tyndale used political works circulating amongst the Swiss, modify-
ing the image of Tyndale as a fully-fledged Lutheran. His use of an overtly
Zwinglian political argument reveals a certain degree of ideological flexi-
bility in Obedience. By 1527, Tyndale was freely borrowing from Swiss
political teachings without any apparent conflict. But over against the
claims of Trinterud and Clebsch, Tyndales Swiss-inspired appeals to
Psalm 82 were not based on a radical theory of covenantal theology or
contractual politics. Instead, the political reading of Psalm 82 provided an
intensified argument for obedience, portraying the king as god on earth.
Thus, while Tyndale may have later qualified the extent to which subjects
must obey the king, he also provided English evangelicals with a strong
biblical argument for obedience and non-resistance.
Finally, we will examine the convergence of evangelical teachings on
obedience and the Supremacy and examine how, by 1535, evangelical
ideas were co-opted by Cromwells circle. Evangelicals courted Henry and
Cromwell, offering their arguments for obedience to the king, and, as a
result, a few were received into the regimes inner circle, while others were
given limited freedom to publish their works. This reaffirms the claim that
Cromwellian propagandists purposefully employed evangelical teachings
as part of the campaign to establish the Tudor cult of authority.

Tyndale, Luther, and Obedience

It was during the post-war boom in Reformation studies that Gordon

Rupp published his profoundly influential work Studies in the Making of
the English Protestant Tradition.2 Rupp proclaimed to his generation that
they need not be ashamed or afraid to acknowledge the full indebtedness

2G. Rupp, Studies in the Making of The English Protestant Tradition (first ed., 1947; rpt.
Cambridge, 1966); Rupp was concerned with issues of obedience and resistance in his day.
For example, see idem, Martin Luther: Hitlers Cause or Cure (London, 1946).
 political obedience from tyndale to cromwell27

of the English Reformers to their brethren on the Continent.3 He was will-

ing to accept that Tyndale adhered to Lutheran solafideism and that
English reformers drew heavily from German Protestantism. Indeed, he
brought to our attention Tyndales direct borrowings from Luther in his
commentary on Romans.4 Rupp nevertheless refused to accept the notion
that English evangelicalism was merely derivative. Though the English
considered themselves full-blooded Protestants, their caps were tilted
after an English fashion.5 Turning to politics, Rupp stressed the Protestant
origins of evangelical teachings on obedience, particularly the nature of
princely authority. In effect, he saw Tyndales teachings on obedience as a
natural outworking of Lutheran theology. Luther wrote on the Freedom of
a Christian Man, Tyndale on the Obedience of the Christen man, but the
difference between the two was a matter of emphasis rather than an ideo-
logical division. Later evangelicals generally shared Tyndales Lutheran
convictions, he argued, and thus foreign Protestantism inspired early
English evangelicalism.6
Not all historians shared Rupps contention that Tyndale taught an
essentially Lutheran theory of obedience. Some found little merit in
this claim and, for various reasons, attempted to marginalise Luthers
impact on the English church. Leonard Trinterud argued throughout
the 1950s and 1960s that Tyndales political teachings were more akin to

3Rupp, English Protestant Tradition, p. 47; For more on Lutheranism and evangelical
political thought, see F. Oakley, Christian Obedience and Authority, c. 15201550, in Burns
and Goldie (eds), Cambridge History of Political Thought, 14501700 (Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 1991), pp. 15992, which argues that evangelical political thought was a Lutheran dias-
pora; A. Cromartie, The Constitutionalist Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006),
pp. 668; J.L. ODonovan, Theology of Law and Authority in the English Reformation (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1991); older texts include: B. Hall, The Early Rise and Gradual Decline of
Lutheranism in England (15201660), in Derek Baker (ed), Reform and Reformation:
England and the Continent c. 15001750 (SCH Subsidia 2, 1979), 10331; C. Morris, Political
Thought in England: Tyndale to Hooker (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1953).
4Rupp, English Protestant Tradition, pp. 4950.
5Rupp, English Protestant Tradition, p. 48. A similar argument, albeit less concerned
with theology, was made in G.R. Elton, England and the Continent in the Sixteenth
Century, in D. Baker (ed), Reform and Reformation: England and the Continent c. 15001750
(SCH Subsidia 2, 1979), pp. 116.
6These themes were picked up by Lutheran scholars, whose works looked nostalgically
on the White Horse Tavern and which cultivated the idea of Cambridge students gathered
surreptitiously to read Luthers works. Cf. E. Doernberg, Henry VIII and Luther (London:
Barrie and Rockliff, 1961); C. Mayer, Elizabeth and the Religious Settlement of 1559 (SaintLouis:
Concordia, 1960); N.S. Tjernagel, Henry VIII and the Lutherans (Saint Louis: Concordia,
1960). For a modern look at Henrys relation with Lutheranism, see R. McEntegert,
Henry VIII, the League of Schmalkalden, and the English Reformation (Royal Historical
Society, 2002).
28 chapter one

non-conformity and separatismor proto-Puritanism.7 Trinterudstressed

the specificity of English religion: Puritanism was indigenous, not exotic.8
He further critiqued the notion that Luther was a primary influence on
Tyndale, suggesting instead that Tyndales greatest debt was first to
Christian humanism and then to the German-Swiss reformers of Zurich
and Basel.9 W.A. Clebsch published a bold reinterpretation of evangeli-
cal theology that echoed Trinteruds thesis. Clebsch, in effect, jetti-
soned Tyndales teachings on obedience, and he claimed that Tyndales
new contractual theology demanded a new contractual politics.10
Tyndales political radicalism had wider ramifications for early evangeli-
calism, Clebsch argued, and it ultimately led evangelicals to oppose the
Supremacy. In the 1530s, for example, Robert Barnes rejected autocratic
magistracy for one of covenanted society, and traded its insistence on jus-
tification by faith alone for an acknowledgement of justification before
the world by works.11
Amongst English historians, debates over Lutheran political theology
in England were furthered by the work of W.D.J. Cargill Thompson. Like
Rupp, Thompson defended the belief that Tyndale adhered to the princi-
ples of the Zwei-Reich-Lehre, though he suggested that Tyndale was selec-
tive in his use of Luther.12 Thompson strove to correct several of the
claims of Trinterud and Clebsch and to provide depth and nuance to
Rupps earlier outline of Lutheran-evangelical political teachings. He
argued with vigour that the evidence that Luther was the primary influ-
ence on Tyndales thinking at least down to 1530 is incontrovertible.13 The
strength of his argument was somewhat attenuated, however, when he
admitted that no one has discerned a direct single source in Luthers writ-
ings for Tyndales Obedience, and he could only surmise that it appears to

7This point was echoed in F. Baumer, The Early Tudor Theory of Kingship (New Haven:
Yale UP, 1966), pp. 8890, and M.M. Knappen, Tudor Puritanism (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1939), chs. 12; idem, William Tindale: First English Puritan, CH 20/1 (1936):
20115.
8L. Trinterud, The Origins of Puritanism, CH 20/1 (1951): 37.
9L. Trinterud, A Reappraisal of William Tyndale, CH 31/1 (1962): 24.
10W.A. Clebsch, Englands Earliest Protestants, 15201535 (New Haven: Yale UP, 1964),
p. 182; he further claims that this reveals Tyndales repudiation of Luthers theology
(p. 183). Clebsch appears to rely on Trinterud, citing him explicitly later (p. 199). For similar
arguments, see M. McGiffert, William Tyndales Conception of Covenant, JEH 32 (1981):
16784; J.G. Moller, The Beginnings of Puritan Covenant Theology, JEH 14 (1963): 4667.
11W.A. Clebsch, Englands Earliest Protestants, p. 68.
12W.D.J. Cargill Thompson, The Two Regiments: The Continental Setting of William
Tyndales Political Thought, in D. Baker (ed), Reform and Reformation: England and the
Continent c.1500- c.1750 (Oxford: SCH Subsidia 2, 1979), p. 22.
13W.D.J. Cargill Thompson, The Two Regiments, p. 21.
 political obedience from tyndale to cromwell29

be a synthesis of Lutheran thinking.14 Thompson was ready to admit that

Tyndale does not take over the whole theological substructure of Luthers
political teaching, only part of it.15 He thus suggests that Tyndales later
writings began to drift away from Lutheran theology, which quite possi-
bly owes something to the influence of Bucer.16 By 1530, Tyndale had
emerged from Luthers shadow, but whether this is due to the influence
of the Swiss and Rhineland reformersis difficult to assess.17
Other historians have grappled with the effects of continental
Protestantism on the Supremacy itself. Stephen Haas devoted several arti-
cles to the Henrician rhetoric of obedience, in which he attempted to link
Luthers divine right theory of kingship and the subsequent rise of the
Supremacy.18 Central to Haas argument is the claim that Luthers theol-
ogy (mediated through Tyndale) served as a foundational ideology for the
Henrician Supremacy legislation of the early 1530s. Haas arguments have
been critiqued (though not altogether repudiated) by Richard Rex, who
corrected a number of problems in Haas dating of key texts in the early
1530s.19 Rex did not, however, seek to undermine the basic claim that
Tyndales political theology was based on the teachings of Luther. Instead,
he offered a close textual analysis of the link between Luthers political
reinterpretation of the fourth commandment (honour your father) and
similar teachings by evangelicals. He noted that Luther refocused the
medieval reading of the fourth commandment from the church to civil
rulers, which in turn was adopted by Tyndale in Obedience of the Christen
man. Moreover, Rex noted that the evangelical doctrine of obedience was
but one attempt to exploit the Supremacy for a particular agenda.
Tyndales arguments were not the cause of the Supremacy itself. Cromwell
began to employ evangelical arguments in the later 1530s only after the
Supremacy was in place. Other historians have noted the extent to which
various factions shaped the rhetoric of the Supremacy according to their
own perspective. The debate over whether evangelicalism was the cause

14W.D.J. Cargill Thompson, The Two Regiments, p. 21.

15W.D.J. Cargill Thompson, The Two Regiments, p. 22.
16W.D.J. Cargill Thompson, The Two Regiments, p. 31.
17W.D.J. Cargill Thompson, The Two Regiments, p. 32.
18S. Haas, Martin Luthers Divine Right Kingship and the Royal Supremacy: Two
Tracts from the 1531 Parliament and Convocation of the Clergy, JEH 31 (1980): 31725;
S. Haas, Henry VIIIs Glasse of truthe, History 114 (1979): 35362; S. Haas, The Disputatio
inter clericum et militem: was Berthelets 1531 edition the first Henrician polemic of Thomas
Cromwell? Moreana 14/55 (1977): 6572.
19Rex, Obedience. For a full length discussion on the late medieval background to
Luthers teachings on the Fourth Commandment, see Bast, Honor Your Fathers.
30 chapter one

or effect of the English Reformation has been exchanged for a more

nuanced understanding of the competing vocabularies of political dis-
course at work in Tudor England. Evangelicals, conservatives and even
Anabaptists offered their obedience to the king while nevertheless main-
taining the majority of their core convictions.20
Again, however, historians have not always been satisfied with the
notion that Tyndales teachings were used to support the Supremacy or
advocate a theory of non-resistance. Anne Richardson has recently pro-
claimed Tyndale to be one of the prophets of modernity, a martyr for
rightsfreedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and
a harbinger of the U.S. Bill of Rights.21 Such a nakedly whiggish reading of
early evangelicalism is uncommon today, but several features of
Richardsons argument can be spotted in more careful studies of Tudor
politics. Dan Eppley, in particular, applauding Richardsons work, has
suggested that Tyndales criticism of Henry VIII undermined his doctrine
of obedience. Eppley claims that historians have traditionally read
Obedience as a defence of royal absolutism in both Church and state,
andunqualified obedience to the king.22 Though no Tyndale scholar has
made such an argument, Eppley attacks this straw man with vigour.23
He suggests instead that Tyndale rejected unqualified obedience, and he
may have taught a nascent form of resistance theory and ecclesial separa-
tion from temporal jurisdiction. Eppley admits that Tyndale denounces
active resistance, but he argues that Tyndale, in fact, espoused a political
framework that could inspire others to popular rebellion.24
Eppleys comments, however, misrepresent early evangelical political
thought. Even the strongest supporters of the Supremacy acknowledged
that the king could not overrule divine or natural lawindeed such a
notion would have been patently absurd to early modern minds. The

20On Anabaptists and the Supremacy, see E. Shagan, Clement Armstrong and the
godly commonwealth: radical religion in Tudor England, in Marshall and Ryrie (eds), The
Beginnings of English Protestantism (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002).
21A. Richardson, William Tyndale and the Bill of Rights, in J. Dick and A. Richardson
(eds), William Tyndale and the Law (Kirksville, MO.: Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies,
1994), p. 11.
22Eppley, Defending Royal Supremacy, p. 20.
23Eppley provides no citation for this claim, but J.W. Allen comes closest when he
states that Tyndales comments in Obedience seem to represent an extreme view that was
not heard again till Jacobean England (History of Political Thought, pp. 1289); but this is
not unqualified absolutism, in the sense Eppley maintains.
24Eppley, Defending Royal Supremacy, p. 22; He states that Tyndales teachings on dis-
obedience were similar to the basis of Fisher and Mores refusal to acquiesce to royal
demands.
 political obedience from tyndale to cromwell31

divorce campaign, for example, claimed that the pope had usurped divine
and natural law by dispensing with the degree of affinity between Henry
and Catherine. These arguments assumed that no powerpope or king
retained the right to usurp divine authority. The opening statement of the
Articles Devisid by the holle consent of the kynges moste honourable coun-
sayle is absolutely clear on this point:
Firste the mere truthe is, that no lyvinge creature, of what astate, degree, or
dignytie so ever he be, hath power gyven hym by god, to dispense with god-
dess lawes, or lawe of nature.25
The pope is described as the usurper of goddess lawe,26 which was predi-
cated on the fact that the jurisdiction of the pope did not extend to divine
law. But this was an incontrovertible point.27 The issue in England, of
course, was whether it was divine law that he had dispensed from, or
canon law.28 Eppleys claim that early evangelicals had to choose between
stark division between absolute obedience and resistance is simply
misleading.
In the end, determining Tyndales opinion about the Supremacy itself is
unnecessary. Obedience was written six years before the Supremacy legis-
lation was enacted, and thus Tyndale was not responding to a full articula-
tion of the kings relationship to the church. Yet even during the 1530s,
advocates of the Supremacy never proposed an unqualified absolutism,
but focused on the issues of the kings jurisdiction in England, his preroga-
tive to correct errant clergy, and a denial of the right of subjects or nobility
to raise arms against the king.29 Official proclamations never specified
what role Henry VIII played in defining doctrinethe king was to enforce
religious truth, but there was a conspicuous ambiguity about who was the
final court of appeal on this matter.30

25Articles Devisid by the holle consent of the kynges moste honourable counsayle (London:
T. Berthelet, 1533; STC 9177), A3.
26Articles Devisid, A3v.
27Another example is Glasse of truthe (London: T. Berthelet, 1532; STC 11918), G5-G8,
which states that Catholic tradition is in agreement that the pope may not dispense with
divine or natural law, thus Henrys marriage to Catherine was illegitimate.
28Cf. V. Murphy, The Literature and Propaganda of Henry VIIIs First Divorce, in
D. MacCulloch (ed), The Reign of Henry VIII: Politics, Policy and Piety (New York: St Martins
Press, 1995).
29See discussion in R. Rex, Henry VIII and the English Reformation (Basingstoke:
Palgrave, 1993), pp. 637.
30Eppleys argument is shaped by his decision to hold up two examples of obedience in
the teachings of Christopher St. German and Richard Hooker, each of whom argued that
the right to interpret obscure biblical texts resided in king and Parliament. Tyndales teach-
ings on obedience, of course, never approached such claims but that does not mean that
32 chapter one

This sketch of the historiography of Tyndale and early evangelicalism

brings to light disagreements over the relationship between Protestant
and English political thought in the 1530s. We can now identify two issues
that have endured up to the present day. First, there is the claim that
English evangelicalism began more or less as a Lutheran movement.31
Luthers role in shaping the theology of committed evangelicals is estab-
lished and supported by recent scholarship, and it is commonly assumed
that the convergence between evangelicals and Swiss reformers did not
occur until much later, perhaps as late as Marys reign. In terms of political
ideas in particular, there is a tacit belief that early evangelical political
ideas were inherently Lutheran. The evolution of evangelical teachings on
obedience to resistance, then, is viewed as a move away from Lutheranism
to other theological perspectives.
Secondand a key issue for this bookthere is a disagreement over
what Protestantism imparted to evangelicals: obedience or a radically lim-
ited theory of kingship.32 Historians continue to see Luther as a commit-
ted pacifist, a teacher of obedience in all circumstances. Swiss Reformed
ideas have been subject to similar confusion, as many historians continue
to assume that Calvinism was the source of modern political radicalism.
But such ideas must be tested. The crucial issues are: 1) how early evangeli-
cals read and interpreted continental political thought and 2) how these
ideas were used in relation to the Supremacy after 1534.

Zurich and Early Evangelicalism

Consider one of Tyndales arguments in Obedience of the Christen man:

Marke, that judges are called Gods in the scriptures because thei are in Gods
rowme and execute the commaundmentes of God. And in an other place of
the said chapter Moses chargeth sayenge: se[e] that thou rayle not on the
Gods nether speake evill of the ruler of thy people. Who so ever [does this]
therfore resisteth God (for they are in the rowme of god) and they that
resiste shall receave their damnacion.33

Tyndale taught resistance. The idiosyncratic teaching of St. German has been noted by
J. Guy, The Henrician Age, in J. Pocock (ed), The Varieties of British Political Thought
(Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993), p. 28.
31See, for example, Ryrie, Strange Death of Lutheran England.
32For similar comments, see D. Whitford, Luthers Political Encounters, in D. McKim
(ed), The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003).
33Obedience, Dvi.
 political obedience from tyndale to cromwell33

In this early section of Obedience, Tyndale reveals some of his most aston-
ishing teachings on non-resistance and submission to temporal rulers.
Evangelicals must obey their rulers unto death: the inferior person [may
not] avenge him selfe apon the superior or violently resiste him for what
so ever wronge it be. If he doo he is condemned in the dede.34 Suffering
was no excuse for raising a hand against a civil magistrate; subjects must
suffer under tyranny. Indeed, Tyndale goes on to argue that the kinge is in
this worlde without lawe and maye at his lust doo right or wronge and
shall geve acomptes, but to God only.35
Throughout Obedience, Tyndale approaches political authority through
a sustained meditation on power itself, rather than on the nature of politi-
cal government. He avoids the tactic that builds on the natural develop-
ment of authority from the family, to the village, and ultimately to civil
government. There are no traces of arguments grounded in natural law,36
any concern for Englands legal autonomy, or that power is dispersed
within government or society at large. For Tyndale, the origin of political
power is not to be found in the temporal world. He thus has a singular
focus to situate all authority within divine power: God alone is able to
helpe or hurte; al other might in the worlde, is borowyd of hym.37
Reflecting on his comments, not a few historians have concluded that
Tyndale was in essential agreement with the Henrician doctrine of the
Royal Supremacy, or at least that he did not deny the monarchs authority
in the church. While Tyndale never vocally supported the Supremacy,
there is at least a verbal similarity between Tyndales uncompromising
dedication to obedience and the Supremacy campaign of the 1530s. While
it is true, as Daniell argues, that Tyndale did not offer Henry VIIIa sover-
eignty not subject to natural law,38 it would be misleading to argue that
Tyndale believed, somehow, in limited government. Tyndale emphati-
cally denies that there is a process, available to subjects or lesser magis-
trates, by which to bridle tyranny; the Bible does not teach that kings may
be restrained through constitutional or popular resistance. He teaches,

34Obedience, Dviv.
35Obedience, Dviiiv.
36Natural law, for Tyndale and many early evangelicals, generally referred to the sec-
ond table of the Decalogue, which was believed to provide general ethical norms shared by
all civilizations. Tyndale never refers to laws derived from studying nature or non-biblical
sources, such as classic antiquity.
37Tyndale, The exposition of the fyrst epistle of seynt Jhon (Antwerp: M. De Keyser, 1531;
STC 24443), Cv.
38Cf. D. Daniell, William Tyndale (New Haven: Yale UP, 1994), p. 242.
34 chapter one

of course, that ungodly kings will be punished in eternity for their sins
and he never allows subjects to obey sinful commands. Yet his teachings
on these matters deal with the Christian response to oppression, not the
limits of political authority itself. Tyndale, in other words, denies that the
king can be brought to account in this world.
By meditating first on Gods power, Tyndale was led to several stark
conclusions. For Tyndale there is, strictly speaking, no worldly or secular
power, only Gods power that works through human rulers, and there is no
intrinsic distinction, then, between power wielded for evil purposes and
power used for godly ends. There is, of course, a moral distinction between
godly rule and tyranny. But evil rulers, for Tyndale, are not operating apart
from Gods providence. Instead, they serve as instruments of divine pun-
ishment for sin. Again, he instructs his readers to approach their superiors
as if they were God:
Understond also that what soever thou doest unto them (be it good or
badde) thou doest unto God. When thow pleasest them thou pleasest God:
when thou displeasest them thou displeasest God: when they are angre with
the, God is angre with ye, nether is it possible for thee to come unto the
favoure of God agayne (no though all the Angels of heven praie for ye) untill
thou have submitted thyselfe.39
This argument is a refrain throughout Obedience of the Christen man and is
employed in a number of contexts; wives, children, and servants are to
submit to their superiors and they face damnation should they usurp
Gods rightful order.
The biblical origins of Tyndales teaching here comes from Psalms 82:
God stands in the midst of the gods, he judgeth amongst the godsI have
declared ye are gods and Sons of the Most High but you shall die like
men. Tyndale makes a connection between this psalm and Exodus 22:28:
Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people. Using the
language of Exodus, Tyndale concludes that Psalm 82 teaches that God
stands amongst the gods, or the kings of the earth. He argues, then, that
the close relationship between God and king is symbolised by the fact that
they share the same name in Hebrew (elohim). In other words, Tyndale
quite literally deifies royal powerthe king is god and Gods power is in
the king, and thus the kings actions are identified with Gods providence.
Tyndale goes on to claim that, when one speaks evil of the civil rulers, they
speak against these gods. He thus establishes an overtly biblical rationale

39Obedience, Div. See also Div-Divv, Dviii.

 political obedience from tyndale to cromwell35

for undermining theories of political resistance that was not exclusively

dependent on Romans 13. Kings are elohim (gods), and their authority is
unassailable.
Yet the origins of this peculiar argument are somewhat obscure. The
claim itselfthat monarchy participates in divine authorityis nothing
new. At times, political theorists during the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries used such hyperbole, and the late medieval period was known
to divinise its kings.40 But these arguments never fully relied on the
teaching of Psalm 82. When referring to Exodus 22, most commentators
relied on the fact that elohim refers to rulers in general, which included
parents, priests and magistrates. The German author Stephan von
Landskron, for example, who led the Observant of the Augustinian Canons
in Vienna on the eve of the Reformation, cites Exodus 22 as part of his
sustained critique of those who unduly criticize their superiors. Other late
medieval figures would allude to similar conceptions in general.41 These
sources, of course, would not be likely candidates for Tyndales direct
source for these materials. On the one hand, Tyndale shows little to no
familiarity with the intellectual traditions of late medieval sources, though
he may have learned of these sources from Luther indirectly. On the other
hand, there appears to be no parallel late medieval tradition in England of
using this similar argument to refer to the monarch as a god. They do,
however, speak to the fact that in Germany and in surrounding regions
there was increased interest in using the biblical trope of a ruler as god as
a justification for civil coercion. The tradition, though, is not a strong one.
Luther cites Exodus 22 in one of his early writings, Die zehen Gepot, yet he
is not overly concerned to reflect on the authority of the civil magistrate
itself, and instead reflects on how authority is guaranteed by the Fourth
Commandment.
Also under this commandment belong bishops, princes, city magistrates
and clerics: temporal and spiritual authorities whom we must hold in awe,
for they bear the sword of the Lord[Exodus 22] commands that we do not
slander or curse them. For it would be a perversion of order if subjects were
permitted to judge their authorities.42

40Older literature includes J.N. Figgis, The Divine Right of Kings (modern ed.: New York,
1965). A recent edition of texts with commentary is J. ODonovan and O. ODonovan, From
Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in Christian Political Thought 1001625 (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999). The background is also studied extensively in Bast, Honor Your Fathers,
ch. 4.
41Bast, Honor Your Fathers, pp. 160161 describes this in detail.
42Zum lesten gehren auch hierhr die bischff / frsten / ratherren vnd pfarherren /
weltlich und geistlich oberkeit / die man frchten sol / Dan sy tragen das schwert des
36 chapter one

Luthers point here is relatively straightforward: authorities are in place by

God and should not be slandered against; order must be maintained and
not usurped; punishment must come from God; and those who revile their
rulers will receive divine punishment. What is striking, though, is that
these comments come in Luthers pre-Reformational writings in 1516, and
reveal mainly Luthers desire to mimic popular late medieval scholastic
sources. More importantly, Luther will not make reference to this concept
of authorities being gods again in his works until 1531, when he offers a
critique of this argument, and then only several years after Tyndale and
others have begun to publish their views on rulers as gods. There does not
seem to be a tradition in late medieval political writings or in Luthers
early works of using Psalm 82. The Exodus 22 verse prohibits people from
reviling, or slandering, the ruler, and so it is of little use in determining the
locus of political power itself. Psalm 82, though, is a stronger declaration
as to the nature of civil authority, as it is Gods own words to civil magis-
trates that you are gods. A political reading of Psalm 82 shrouds the civil
ruler in an intoxicatingly divine aura, and from it other political concepts
can be deduced.
Any attempt to find a political use of Psalm 82 prior to 1526 has been
unsuccessful. There is good reason, then, to take the view that a political
use of Psalm 82 is a new manifestation in European theology. This is an
important date, since the use of Psalm 82 is the one preferred in Henrician
and later Tudor sources, and so no Tudor king would have been called a
god were it not for this later, post-Reformational reading of political
authority. Early Tudor use of Psalm 82 has garnered some attention by
historians. Richard Duerden has recently noticed Tyndales use of Psalm
82 and remarks that Tyndale draws an analogy between the doctrine of
justification and political obedience.43 Francis Oakley similarly draws
attention to this argument, but he situates it exclusively within England
during the late-1530s. He suggests that the description of Tudor kings as
gods arose out of Henry VIIIs doctrine of the Supremacy and Cromwells
propaganda campaign to establish the Tudor cult of authority. Oakley

herren[Exodus 22] das gesatz / das man inen nit nachred oder flch. Dann das wer ein
verkerter orden / das die undern wlten urteilen die bern. Citation and discussion comes
from Bast, Honor Your Fathers, pp. 187188. On Luther and the Fourth Commandment,
see Rex, Obedience.
43R. Duerden, Justice and Justification: King and God in Tyndales The Obedience of a
Christian Man, in Dick and Richardson (eds), William Tyndale and the Law (Kirksville,
MO., 1994).
 political obedience from tyndale to cromwell37

goes on to claim that this growing cult of kingship was not necessarily
welcomed in truly Protestant circles.44
These claims, however, must be reconsidered. Oakleys argument can-
not be maintained as Tyndale in fact cites the political reading of Psalm 82
in 1527/8, several years prior to the Supremacy. Tyndales teaching is also
derived explicitly from Protestant ideas circulating on the continent. We
can date this new reading of Psalm 82 to within a period of several months
in late-1526 and early-1527, when it was introduced by Zwingli and Conrad
Pellican in Zurich. This reading of Psalm 82 was popular in Swiss circles in
later decades: Bullinger, Bucer, Calvin, and nearly every Reformed leader
from 1527 to 1540, rapidly adopted this teaching. The origins of this teach-
ing, then, are Swiss and not Lutheran, and they do not appear to come
from any late medieval source. The use of Psalm 82 in conjunction with
Exodus 22, then, is an expansion of the late medieval tradition of referring
to rulers as divine gods. These verses were later debated the following
year during a series of troubled disputes in Nuremberg.45 Yet there is no
evidence of a Lutheran political interpretation of Psalm 82 in the 1520s. In
fact, Luther was ultimately critical of using Psalm 82 as a biblical justifica-
tion for magistrates to encroach on the spiritual authority of the church.
Fearing the implications of this new interpretation, he wrote a new com-
mentary on this psalm in 1531 to rebuke those who used this text to set
civil authority on a level equal with God.46 We have to conclude, then,
that Tyndale somehow has gotten his hands on the political arguments
emerging from Zurich and has incorporated this element into his
own thinking. The importance of this link between Tyndale and Swiss
Reformed is crucial in our interpretation of Tyndale and early evangelical
political thought. Tyndales use of this argument in Obedience provides
conclusive evidence that Tyndale was influenced (at least in part) by Swiss
theology: in the late-1520s, a political reading of Psalm 82 was unmistak-
ably Reformed since Luther was first silent on the subject and later
rejected this teaching, and, given that we can locate its provenance to

44Oakley, Christian Obedience, p. 181; Oakley cites Richard Taverner, The second booke
of the Garden of wysdome (London: R. Banks, 1539; STC 23712.5), fo. 14; Oakleys claim about
Protestant political thought is, in part, due to his tendency to separate Protestant and
English political theologies sharply.
45For background, see D.M. Whitford, Cura Religionis or Two Kingdoms: The Late
Luther on Religion and the State in the Lectures on Genesis 1, CH 71/1 (March 2004).
46WA 31/1, pp. 189218 (LW, 13). Cf. Foundations, II, pp. 206238, which covers the rise
of Lutheran resistance theory, though it does not mention Luthers commentary on
Psalm 82.
38 chapter one

Zurich in 1527, it provides us with a clear link between Tyndales argu-

ments in Obedience and the early Zwinglian Reformation.
The use of Psalm 82 in humanist and Protestant writings is complex.
First, we must examine the text itself. The interpretation of Psalm 82 is
based largely on a basic principle of Hebrew grammar: the generic, Old
Testament word for God (El) was often used in its plural form (elohim).
Thus, depending on the context, elohim could refer to either the one God
of Israel or to many foreign gods. Biblical translators were able to distin-
guish these usages by the fact that, when referring to God, elohim was
often paired with a verb in its singular form.47 When referring to foreign
gods, biblical writers typically used a plural verb and, at times, inserted a
definite article (the gods) in order to distinguish these gods from Yahweh.
In more difficult cases, the context provided clues as to the original
meaning.
The use of the plural elohim served a theological purpose in the Old
Testament: when it refers to God, it was said that elohim was plural in
order to emphasise the majesty of the Lordoften referred to as the plu-
ral of majesty or plural of mightand was believed to be similar to the
pluralis maiestatis, or royal we, used by contemporary monarchs.48 In
most cases, then, the use of elohim was uncontroversial and easily trans-
lated. Psalm 82, however, is unusual in that it depicts God (elohim) in the
midst of lesser gods (elohim), issuing judgments against them for their
oppression and evil deeds. The presence of two distinct uses of the word
elohim in verse 1, thus, created an exegetical problem for interpreters
throughout the centuries. Who are these gods standing with God?
In the patristic period, the notion that Psalm 82 depicts God standing
amongst lesser deities was unappealing. They worried that this interpreta-
tion might obscure Christian monotheism and lead believers into heresy.
To combat these issues, commentators offered what may be called a
Christological-spiritual reading of Psalm 82. Patristic writers read Psalm
82 in the light of John 10, where Jesus cites this psalm during a dispute over

47A. Ross, Introducing Biblical Hebrew (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), p. 72; for
a full list and variant usages of elohim, see L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew
and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 4850. Just one
example will suffice: Whoever sacrifices to any gods (elohim) save unto the Lord (Yahweh)
only, he shall be utterly destroyed (Exodus 22:21). A few verses later, however, readers are
told not to blaspheme elohim (v. 28), clearly not a reference to pagan gods.
48In his 1531 commentary on 1 John, Tyndale makes reference to this grammatical point
in order to reject medieval sainthood. God is all powerful, he argues, pointing to the plural
of majesty in the Old Testament, and he thus finds no grounds for venerating saints. Fyrste
epistle of seynt Jhon, Cv.
 political obedience from tyndale to cromwell39

his claims to be the Son of Man.49 In verse 34, Jesus declares that these
words show that God favoured those to whom the word of God came,
and he called the Israelites gods.
Following John 10, the patristic writers concluded that Psalm 82 referred
to the divinisation or sanctification of humans through salvationor
that it referred to Christ himself as the supreme example of sanctified
humanity. Irenaeus, for example states that Psalm 82 refers to both him
who is anointed as Son, and him who does anoint, that is, the Father.50
Taking a different tack, Tertullian and Cyprian argue that the declaration
ye are gods refers to those who have become sons of God by faith;51 thus,
believers have obeyed the divine precepts [and] may be called gods.52
Athanasius, in particular, employed this argument against his Arian oppo-
nents, arguing that Psalm 82 reveals how God became man to deify us.53
Augustine likewise proclaimed that God has named his people gods
because they have been deified by his grace.54 Similar applications of
Psalm 82 were made by Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of
Nazianzen, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Theodoret, Ambrose,
and Jerome.55
This patristic reading of Psalm 82 was normative in the medieval
period.56 Prior to the sixteenth century no significant connections
between Psalm 82 and civil magistrates were made.57 Indeed, Gregory the

49The Authorised Version reads that Jesus was threatened with stoning for being a
man, makest thyself God (10:33), to which Jesus replies, Is it not written in your law, I said,
Ye are gods? (v. 34).
50Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.6.1. See also, 4.38.4, which connects Psalm 82 to human
salvation.
51Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 13.
52Cyprian, Treatises, 12.2.6.
53Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, 1.389. Cf. Athanasius, On the
Incarnation, 4.
54On the Psalms, 50.2, 82; See also, City of God, 9.23, Tractates on the Gospel of John, 48.1,
Homilies on First John, 2.14.
55Respectively, Chrysostom, Homilies on Eutropius, 2.8; Cyril, Procatechesis, 6; Gregory
of Nazianzen, Orations, 30.4; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, 12; Justin
Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 124; Theodoret, Letters, 146; Ambrose, Exposition of the
Christian Faith, 2.13.117.
56Medieval writers, at times, note that judges were called elohim, but this was always
connected to Exodus 22 and not Psalm 82. Cf. Lombard, Sentences, Book 1, dist. 2, c.4.: Et
pro eo quod apud nos dicitur Deus, Hebraica veritas habet elohim, quod est plurale
huius singularis, quod est El. Quod ergo non est dictum El, quod est Deus, sed elohim,
quod potest interpretari dii sive iudices, ad pluralitatem personarum refertur. See also,
Aquinas, Summa, 2a2ae, 40, art. 1. Yet these comments are general points about the gram-
mar and never fully incorporated into their political thinking.
57Only James Perez de Valencias exegesis comes close to connecting this psalm to
political thought, but he ultimately falls back on the traditional reading in Commentaria in
40 chapter one

Great employed this text to mean precisely the opposite: Constantine, he

tells us, absolved criminal charges against priests, burning the bills of
accusation in front of his bishops, saying to them ye are gods.58
In the 1520s, however, a number of Protestants abandoned this spiritual
reading of Psalm 82 for an overtly political interpretation. This shift was
due, in part, to the sixteenth-century revolution in the study of Hebrew.59
One of the more fruitful areas of early Hebrew scholarship lay in the study
of word roots and their usage in scripture. Humanists viewed such research
as a way by which to clarify the meaning of obscure texts. Reuchlins
De rudimentis Hebraicis (Pforzheim, 1506), for example, the most influen-
tial source for early Hebraists, offered only a brief outline of Hebrew
syntax, along with an extensive dictionary based on Kimchis Mikhlol.60
Dictionaries such as these were necessary both as a tool for teaching
Hebrew, and as a means by which to share ideas amongst European schol-
ars. Eventually, this first generation of Hebrew dictionaries culminated in
Westheimers Troporum, a theological word book indicating the meaning
of words and their location in the Bible.61
To improve their philological studies, this first generation of Hebraists
turned to rabbinical commentaries on the Old Testament. Patristic and
medieval commentators had largely ignored Jewish texts, or even con-
demned them. Humanists drawn to the study of philology, however, found
valuable insights amongst the writings of Jewish rabbis.62 Matthus
Adrianus can be credited with inspiring Pellican, Capito, Oecolampadius,

Psalmos (Barcelona, 1506), fol. CLXXXVI. Valencia provides an extensive interpretation of

how elohim can be applied to humanity by their relationship to God and Christ. Three
sections deal with Christology, while the fourth (and shortest) section refers to spiritual,
temporal and angelic rule in general, rather than political rule in particular: Quarto aliquis
potest dici deus per participationem & officium: inquantum deus communicat alicui
potestatem regendi, & gubernandi, & prelati dicunt dii in scripturanon solum iudices &
rectore dicunt dii in terra: sed etiam Michael dicitur quis ut deus in caeloet praelatis
ecclesiasticam potestatem, & claves discernendi, & ligandi, atque sol vendi & sacerdotibus
ministrandi sacramenta.
58Registrum Epistolarum, Book 5, Letter 40.
59The influence of Jewish interpretations on humanists and early reformers has been
surveyed in G. Sujin Pak, The Judaizing Calvin: Sixteenth-Century Debates over the Messianic
Psalms (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010).
60S. Burnett, Reassessing the Basel-Wittenberg Conflict: Dimensions of the
Reformation-Era Discussion of Hebrew Scholarship in A. Coudert and J. Shoulson (eds),
Hebraica Veritas?: Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2004), pp. 1856.
61Westheimer, Troporum, Schematum, Idiomatumque (Basel, 1540). Westheimers work
was largely a collation of earlier insights from Pellican, Reuchlin, and other Protestant
scholars.
62For background, see E. Zimmer, Jewish and Christian Hebraist Collaboration in
Sixteenth-Century Germany, Jewish Quarterly Review 71 (1980): 6988.
 political obedience from tyndale to cromwell41

and Mnster to incorporate the study of ancient Jewish commentaries

into their biblical exegesis.63 Indeed, Pellican spent the remainder of his
career deflecting fire from Lutheran and humanist opponents, who criti-
cised his dependence on non-Christian sources.
The use of rabbinical sources is crucial in the evolution of the reading
of Psalm 82, since many medieval Jewish writers strove to interpret the
psalms within the context of the Old Testament itself, since the
Christological implications of the verse was a concern only to Christian
thinkers. Though there is a great deal of diversity and complexity in medi-
eval Jewish writings, they nearly all read Psalm 82 in the light of texts such
as Exodus 22:8, where the Torah commands Israel: Do not revile the gods
(elohim), and do not speak evil against the ruler of the people. Traditionally,
Exodus 22:8 was read as two separate clauses: do not revile God (elohim)
and do not speak evil against the ruler, though occasionally people would
see this as a joined pair: do not revile the gods, the rulers of the people.
But when paired with Psalm 82, a new interpretation was found which
would strengthen the argument of Exodus 22:8. By connecting Psalm 82
with this text, a number of Jewish sources adopted a political reading of
the text, which viewed God amongst the gods as a reference to civil rulers.
This political reading was widely taught amongst both ancient and medi-
eval Jewish scholars such as the Midrash:
He is a Judge among judges (lohim) (Ps. 82:1). These words are to be consid-
ered in the light of Moses charge to the judges of IsraelHence the verse He
is Judge among lohim is to be read He is a Judge among judges. What can
lohim signify except judges, as in the verse The cause of both shall come
before the judges (lohim) (Ex. 22:8).64
What is important here is not the nuances of Jewish medieval thinking,
but rather the possible influence in general on sixteenth-century
Protestantism. We know that the proper translation of elohim was up for
debate amongst a few leading Hebraists, as it erupted in a pamphlet war
between Erasmus and Lefvre in the mid-1510s.65 The debate itself, very
public and quite rancorous, concerned the correct translation of elohim

63Burnett (Basel-Wittenberg, p. 184) writes that Adrianus and his students were the
most enthusiastic users of Jewish biblical commentaries and other post biblical Jewish lit-
erature of this period.
64The Midrash on Psalms, (trans) W.G. Braude (New Haven: Yale, 1959), 2:59. See also,
for example, the Babylonian Talmud: b. San. 6b-7a, b.San. 3a-3b, b. San. 66a. Hebrew
judges here refers to the judges of the city, which would be interpreted as a civil magis-
trate by sixteenth-century readers.
65For background in late-medieval and humanist interpretation of the Psalms, see Pak,
Judaizing Calvin, pp. 1329.
42 chapter one

in the Psalms.66 Lefvre had published his Quincuplex Psalterium in 1509

and reissued it in 1513. One of his crucial arguments was that every occur-
rence of elohim in the Psalms must refer to God, and not angels or earthly
beings. He focused particularly on the interpretation of Psalm 8:6, which
read that Christ was made a little lower than the angels (elohim).67 The
presence of the word elohim was a sticking point for Lefvre, as the
Vulgate and the Septuagint had translated elohim as angels, rather than
God. Yet Lefvre found this reading heretical, since it related Christs
incarnation to lesser beings and not to God. Elohim, he argued, must
always be read in the singular. He buttressed his claims with an appendix
that defended his methodology, along with a detailed chart indicating the
various names for God in the Bible and corrections on the translations of
the Psalter he considered theologically spurious. This chart ran to over
forty pages, copiously listing each and every nuance of the divine name in
the Psalms.68
Lefvre appears to have derived his ideas about Hebrew second hand.
Erasmus later claimed that his method was owed to some Hebrew
scholar, though this person is not the best authority, whoever he is.69 But
Lefvre argued with unwavering conviction, certain his claims were
empirically true. He followed up his work on the Psalter with a commen-
tary on Paul. He offered several suggestions for the translation of Hebrews
2:7, which translated Psalm 8:6 to read that Christ was made a little lower
than the angels (ab angelis).70 Lefvres adopted a radical argument that
the book of Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew, and that a subse-
quent Greek translator has erred in using the Septuagint version of Psalms
in his translation. Based on his previous conclusions about the use of
elohim in the Psalms, Lefvre took the dramatic step of suggesting that
the Greek New Testament should be amended to reflect his new insights.71
Lefvre sought to demonstrate his case to the European community
and, in the second edition of his Paul commentary in 1518, he attacked
Erasmus for siding with the Septuagints translation of Hebrews 2:7 in his

66H. Feld, Der humanisten Streit um Hebrer 2:7 (Psalm 8:6), ARG 61 (1970): 533.
67On Lefvres interpretation of this psalm, see Pak, Judaizing Calvin, pp. 1920.
68A facsimile of the commentary and appendix can be found in G. Bedouelle,
Le Quincuplex Psalterium de Lefvre dEtaples: Un guide de lecture (Geneva: Droz, 1979).
69Erasmus, Apology against Lefvre, in CW, 83, pp. 68, 70.
70Feld, Der humanisten Streit um Hebrer 2/7 (Psalm 8:6), pp. 79. Feld surveys the
relation between Hebrews, Psalm 8, and the patristic interpretation of these verses.
71On the theological, exegetical and philological arguments involved, see the introduc-
tion to Bedouelle, Le Quincuplex Psalterium.
 political obedience from tyndale to cromwell43

Greek New Testament.72 Erasmus returned fire and criticised Lefvre for
his obstinacya move that launched the two humanists into a full-scale
publishing skirmish.73 Each issued treatises in defence of their own read-
ing of elohim and heaped scorn on the other. Erasmus defended himself
by claiming that he derived his own approach from the notes of teachers
of Hebrew literature.74 In relation to developments in political thought at
this time, this debate was crucial, for in his full-length defence, Apology
against Lefvre, Erasmus brought Psalm 82 to the attention of European
scholars: take that passage from the Psalms which Christ himself cites
I have said ye are godseven Jerome translates into the plural.75 The
text, in fact, scored the match in Erasmus favour since it clearly juxta-
posed two contrasting uses of elohim. Lefvres attempt to render every
use of elohim as a singular, then, could not account for Psalm 82.76
The fallout of the dispute between Lefvre and Erasmus had one lasting
effect in European thought: it cast doubt on a mystical or Christological
reading of Psalm 82. While the discussion over the translation of elohim
had previously been restricted to a handful of Hebrew scholars, Erasmus
and Lefvre managed to draw the debate onto the European stage.
Medieval and patristic commentaries had found it natural to connect
Psalm 82 to Christ, but because of this debate, the wider community of
humanistseven those unskilled in Hebrewbecame aware of the phil-
ological issues in this psalm.
By 1518, humanist Europe went quiet on the issue of Hebrew philology
and for some years the debate over Psalm 82 lay dormant. In the mid-
1520s, however, the rabbinic reading of Psalm 82 was put to use in Zurich.
The claim that magistrates are gods played a prominent role in Zurichs
new political theology, as it fit perfectly with Zwinglis teachings on the
authority of civil rulers. Zwingli adopted the stance that God amongst the
gods means that Gods power is exhibited through god-like princes.
Indications of this shift appear suddenly. In 1522, Zwinglis Clarity and
Certainty of Gods Word interprets Psalm 82 along traditional lines to mean
that all of humanity is created in the image of God (glichnus und bildung
gottes in uns ist).77 There is no indication that Psalm 82 was read as a

72For more on these publications, see Feld, Der humanisten Streit um Hebrer 2/7
(Psalm 8:6), and the Introduction to Bedouelle, Le Quincuplex Psalterium.
73Erasmus, Apologia, CW, 83.
74Erasmus, Apologia, pp. 68, 70.
75Erasmus, Apologia, p. 70.
76Erasmus, Apologia, pp. 6870.
77Aber zeygt sy an der geyst gottes im 81. psalmen, sprechend: Ich habs geredt, ir sind
gtt und allesamen sn des allerhchsten. (Von Klarheit und Gewiheit des Wortes
44 chapter one

political trope. Over the next few years, however, Zwingli began to lecture
on the Old Testament and at some point he abandoned his earlier opin-
ions for what he believed to be a more historico-grammatical reading of
Psalm 82. Following the rabbinical interpretation of Psalm 82, Zwingli
begins to read the text in the light of Exodus 22. As early as 1527, Zwingli
claimed that magistrates and judges are often called elohim in sacred
scripture.78 Significantly, Zwingli applies this point to political obedience
as a whole; he argues that the Bible commands people to be obedient to
magistrates, since subjects may not overthrow the gods. Moving to Exodus
22, Zwingli states that Moses was superior to Aaronbiblical evidence, he
believes, of the superiority of temporal rulers over priests, and proof that
the encroachment of the Catholic church into civil jurisdiction was against
divine law.79 He argues that magistrates are placed in Gods seat (qui loco
dei sedent), by divine providence (dei providentia evectos).80 And though
he admits that evil magistrates are to be censured according to the word
of God, he cautions that Christians must beware lest their criticism of
tyrants lead to sinful resistance.81 Zwingli expresses similar ideas in his
comments on Psalm 82, where he connects this psalm to the Romans 13
teaching that all power is of God (Aller gwalt von got har).82
The source of Zwinglis new ideas is almost certainly Conrad Pellican,
who arrived in Zurich in 1526 to teach Hebrew.83 Pellican was one of those
Hebraists who first incorporated rabbinical sources into their interpreta-
tion the Old Testament. Zwingli, of course, would have been aware of the
debate between Lefvre and Erasmus, and this may have led him to
explore the issue further. During this period, Zwingli lectured through the
Psalms and other Old Testament books, and he employed a wide array of

Gottes, ZW, 1, p. 345). Later, Zwingli supports Erasmus by translating Psalm 82:1 to mean
angels: Du hast inn wenig minder gemacht weder die engel; mit er und zier hastu inn
bekrnt. (bersetzungen, ZW, 13, p. 485).
78elohim, saepe magistratus et iudices in sacris literis vocantur, ut infra 22.cap
[Exodus] (Erluterungen zum Exodus in ZW, 13, p. 313).
79Sensus ergo hic est: Tametsi Aharon pro te loquetur, non tamen eum tibi, sed te ei
praeficiam; erit author tuus, erit tibi pro deo, pro authore, pro iudice. Hic videmus etiam
sacerdotes, tametsi ex eorum ore lex dei cunctis requirenda sit, subditos esse magistrati-
bus. Quem ordinem (ut omnia) Antichristus Romanus pervertit, non solum se suosque a
iure et potestate magistratus eximens, sed principibus et regibus se quoque praeferens.
(Erluterungen zum Exodus in ZW, 13, p. 313).
80Erluterungen zum Exodus in ZW, 13, p. 414. This has a resonance with Tyndales
claim that the king sits in the roume of God.
81Vetat ergo, ne quis temere pro adfectuum fervore maledicentiae frena in magistratus
solvat. (Erluterungen zum Exodus in ZW, 13, p. 414).
82Erluterungen zum Exodus in ZW, 13, p. 670.
83C. Zrcher, Konrad Pellikans Wirken in Zrich, 15261556, Zricher Beitrge zur
Reformationsgeschichte, Band 4 (Zurich, 1975), p. 237. Zrcher sees 1526 as a significant
 political obedience from tyndale to cromwell45

Hebrew grammars in his preparation.84 Yet the fact that Pellican arrives
just as Zwingli developed a new reading of Psalm 82 in connection with
Exodus 22 is certainly no coincidence. Zwinglis grasp of Old Testament
syntax was somewhat basic, while Pellican was a master of Hebrew.
Pellican had written one of the earliest Hebrew grammars in Europe
De modo legendi et intelligendi Hebraeum (1501)85 and he devoted most
of his career to the study of Jewish literature, as evidenced by the extant
collection of sixteenth-century rabbinical texts in Zurichs Zentral
bibliothek.86 Pellicans influence on the budding Zurich community of
Hebraists was, therefore, significant. He later wrote a full commentary on
the Bible (7 volumes, published between 15321539) and his interpretation
matches Zwinglis: on Exodus 22, he states simply that Dii sunt iudices,
while Psalm 82 states that God stands amongst the assembly of the power-
ful and mighty (in coetu potentum vel fortium).87
It would be worth a more systematic study of early Swiss teachings on
obedience, but we must stop there. We can, however, draw a few conclu-
sions. Early Hebraists in southern Germany and in the Swiss cantons
began to explore rabbinic sources in their studies of the Old Testament.
Following the debate between Lefvre and Erasmus, the thorny issues
surrounding the interpretation of Psalm 82 were made known throughout
Europe. In the end, the Zurich reformers began to develop a political
application of Psalm 82. The arrival of Pellican may have sparked Zwinglis
interest in Psalm 82, and the discovery of this new political interpretation
of elohim began to feature in Zurichs political coinage.
Returning to the context of English political thought, we can now
discern the origin of the use of Psalm 82 as a political justification for obe-
dience, as well as the timeframe in which it arrived in England. Tyndales
argument follows the same line of argument about Psalm 82 and Exodus
22 that had been developed in Zurich the year before. In Obedience, as in
the works of Zwingli and Pellican, magistrates are styled gods and the
implication for Tyndale is severe: rebellion against a magistrate is quite
literally to usurp divinely constituted authority, and damnation awaits
those who seek to overthrow biblical order. This, of course, does not lessen

turning point in Zurich as well: von 1526 die humanistische Epoche im Leben Pellikans
zu Ende.
84G.R. Potter, Zwingli and the Book of Psalms, SCJ 10/2 (Summer 1979): 4350.
85Written in Tubingen in 1501, it was published in Strasbourg in 1504, two years before
Reuchlins De Rudimentis Hebraicis. I have consulted the copy in the Cambridge University
Library.
86Zrcher, Konrad Pellikans Wirken, pp. 78 lists the wide array of Talmud translations,
Midrash and medieval Jewish literature used by Pelican.
87C. Pellican, Biblia Sancrosanta Testamenti (Zurich, first ed.: 1532, 1544), fol. 35, 368v.
46 chapter one

Tyndales reliance on Luthers political teaching, but it is significant to

note that Tyndale unknowingly sided against Luther on the subject of
describing kings as gods, since Luther subsequently repudiated this
strong political reading of Psalm 82 in 1531.88 We are left to conclude that
Tyndale derived this element in his political theology from Swiss Reformed
sourcesan important point for understanding Tyndales political ideas.
MacCulloch has explored theological links between Swiss and English
reformers.89 Here there seems to be an exchange of political ideas at work.
Indeed, this is clear evidence that Tyndale was drawing from Swiss
Reformed sources, though he did so to augment his doctrine of obedience.
In other words, early evangelicals did not derive their obedience teachings
entirely from Luther but from Protestantism as a whole.
The use of Psalm 82 is of particular importance, too, as it was derived
from Protestant teachings on political power and was not a consequence
of the Supremacy propaganda campaign. Tyndale and others, as we
shall explore below, were already enmeshed in a Protestant discussion
about royal authority before Henry began to have his famous scrupple of
conscience.

Evangelical Political Thought before the Supremacy

William Roye served for a season as Tyndales secretary before the publi-
cation of Tyndales New Testament in 1525.90 Traditionally, Tyndale is
believed to have enrolled in Wittenberg for a short period of studya leg-
end for which there is little evidence.91 Roye, however, is clearly recorded
as a student at Wittenberg prior to his translation work with Tyndale.92

88WA 31/1, pp. 189218 (LW, 13).

89D. MacCulloch, Heinrich Bullinger and the English-speaking world, in P. Opitz and
E. Campi (eds), Heinrich Bullinger (15041575): Leben, Denken, Wirkung, vol. 24, Zrcher
Beitrge zur Reformatioinsgeschichte (Grand Rapids: Eisenbrauns, 2006).
90Roye was particularly useful for his knowledge of Greek and skill with variant textual
manuscripts. See the introduction in the Parker edition (Doctrinal Treatises, vol. 42),
pp. 3738.
91Those who argue in favour of this theory include, P. Smith and R. Bar, Englishmen at
Wittenberg in the Sixteenth Century, EHR 36/1 (July 1921): 422433; and J.F. Mozley,
William Tyndale (New York: Macmillan, 1937), p. 52ff.; it has recently been asserted without
question in C. Trueman, Luthers Legacy, p. 12. The most popular case attempts to connect
Tyndales name to the entry of a Guilelmus Daltici (Album Academiae Vitebergensis,
ed. C.E. Foerstemann, 1841, i. 121). Daltici, it is argued, could possibly be an anagram for
Tyndale if it were misspelt, and originally appeared as Daltin (= Tindal). The majority of
these claims are questioned in Daniell, Tyndale, pp. 298301.
92Album Academiae Vitebergensis, i. 125, records his matriculation as 10 Iu[ni] 1525.
 political obedience from tyndale to cromwell47

How they first met is a mystery, but we can assume that they shared an
affinity for Lutheran soteriology. In the end, however, Tyndale and Roye
were a poor pair and appear to have driven each other half mad. Tyndale
later remarked that they had agreed to part for our two livesand a day
longer, an early modern equivalent to when hell freezes over.93
Significantly, Roye made his way to Strasbourg sometime after 1525 and
appears to have immersed himself in the budding Swiss reform move-
ment there. His earliest work, A brefe Dialoge betwene a Christen Father
and his stobborne Sonne (1527), was actually a translation of a popular tract
of Wolfgang Capito.94 The text sides with the Swiss camp on the impor-
tant issue of the eucharist, which Roye zealously supported, perhaps even
going so far as to alter Capitos original Bucerian teaching to provide the
English reader with a stronger memorialist view.95 Overall, Royes transla-
tion was idiosyncratic: he freely added a harsh anticlerical tone to the trea-
tise, intensifying Capitos original teachings. The most significantalteration
in Royes translation, however, was on the issue of civil obedience, which
had received less attention in the original catechism. Capito, like many
Swiss reformers, openly taught that civil magistrates alone had the author-
ity to reform the church and remove images, but he said little else on the
subject. Roye took it upon himself to expand Capitos teaching however
and, in one section, adds an entirely new catechetical question:
Son: To whom is this power or authorite [to reform abuses] committed?
Father: 
To oure temporall lords, rulers, and superioursFor they by
godis worde and ordenaunce have receved the swearde temporall,
therwith to chasten, put downe, and disanull, all that against god and
his holy worde is.96

93Walter, (ed), Doctrinal Treatises, p. 38; Tyndale, always a believer in plain texts, was
generally frustrated with Royes use of rhymes and bawdy poems against Catholics, and he
warned Barlow of Royes ability not only to make fools stark mad, but also deceive the
wisest.
94Printed in A. Wolf, William Royes Dialogue between a Christian Father and his Stubborn
Son (Vienna, 1974). For a study comparing Capitos original to Royes translation, see A. Hume,
William Royes Brefe Dialoge (1527): An English Version of a Strasbourg Catechism, Harvard
Theological Review 60/3 (July 1967): 30721. The original work was De Pueris Instituendis
Ecclesiae Argentinensis Isagoge (Strasbourg, 1527). Royes translation was reissued in 1550 by
Walter Lynn under the title The true beliefe in Christ and his sacraments (STC 24223.5).
95Hume, William Royes Brefe Dialoge, pp. 3156; Hume points out that the Latin and
German texts read that we truly (vere, worlichen) eat and drink at the Supper, which Roye
chose to leave out. Yet it is unclear if Roye intended this as a repudiation of Bucers teach-
ings on the Eucharist. The subtle but important differences between these views are sur-
veyed in B. Gerrish, Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1993).
96Hume, William Royes Brefe Dialoge, p. 315.
48 chapter one

This point may have been included as a response to the Peasants War, but
it is revealing nevertheless. While not unfaithful to Capitos original mean-
ing, Roye interprets the Reformed position for his English readers, playing
up the doctrine of obedience and the role of the magistrate in reforming
the church. Though Tyndales Obedience is often read in isolation, Royes
translation was completed in the same year and reveals a similar method.
Both texts draw from a wide variety of Protestant texts and both adapt
these ideas for their English readers.
Rede me and be not wrothe, Royes 1528 collaborative work with Jerome
Barlow, whom he met in Strasbourg, follows up on these themes. It shares
Tyndales deep seated hostility towards Wolsey, The mastif Curre bred in
Ypswitch towne / Gnawynge with his teth a kynges crowne.97 The prel-
ates have gained power, land, and authority through the Mass, by which
Kynges and prynces for all their dignite / To displease us feared oute of
measure.98 Henry is depicted as a weak and enfeebled monarch, harassed
by conservatives, who usurp his divine authority. In contrast, Roye praised
the civil rulers of Strasbourg, all godly men who were counselled by
Hedius, Butzer, and Capito.99
Further evidence of the relationship between evangelicalism and con-
tinental ideas can be seen in the early writings of George Joye.100 Joye had
become involved in the world of black market publishing in Antwerp,
and, like Tyndale, Joye spent the majority of his time translating and
adapting Protestant treatises in order to smuggle them into England. In
1530 he translated Bucers commentary on Psalms (originally published in
Strasbourg in 1529).101 The translation of Bucer shows that the reinterpre-
tation of Psalm 82 was taking root amongst evangelicals; the text reads
that the psalm warneth the princes and rulers to seke diligently for
ryghtiosnes.102
Much of Joyes translation work was in step with Tyndales publica-
tions,and the two seem to have had a working relationship in the early

97Barlowe and Roye, Rede me and be nott wrothe (Strasbourg: J. Schott, 1528; STC
1462.7), Aiv.
98Barlowe and Roye, Rede me and be nott wrothe, Bii.
99Barlowe and Roye, Rede me and be nott wrothe, Bvi. He gives an idealized portrait of
the reformation in Strasbourg, where the city government recognized biblical truth and
quickly implemented reform.
100A somewhat dated biography is C. Butterworth and A. Chester, George Joye
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1962).
101Bucers work appeared in the first half of 1529, while the English translation is dated
16 January 1530. See the introduction in G.E. Duffield (ed), The Psalter of David (Abingdon:
Sutton Courtenay Press, 1971), which is a facsimile edition of Joyes translation.
102G.E. Duffield (ed), The Psalter of David, p. 155.
 political obedience from tyndale to cromwell49

1530s. In several respects, however, Joyes theological writings from this

period mark him as a Swiss disciple, with fewer discernible traces of
Lutheranism. In his Subversion of More (1534), he stressed the covenantal
unity of the Bible, which was becoming a hallmark of Swiss exegesis, see-
ing Israel and the church as one body with less of an emphasis on a sep
aration between Old and New Testaments.103 Joye was also probably the
author of The souper of the Lord, published around 1533, which taught a
Zwinglian understanding of the Eucharist, defending by name
Oecolampadius and Zwingli against Thomas More.104 Joyes comments on
obedience in this text are remarkable:
Wolde God, the seculare prynces whyche shulde be the very pastours and
hed rulers of their congregacions committed unto their care, wolde fyrste
commaunde or suffer the trwe prechers of goddis worde to preche the
gospell purely and plainly wyth discrete lyberte.105

Joyes claim that the prince was pastour of the congregation is one of the
strongest claims on royal authority prior to the Supremacy. The king, Joye
continues, is authorised to restructure worship entirely according to an
evangelical understanding of the Bible. He is to enforce the preached
word in the vernacular, a memorialised understanding of the sacraments,
and regular meetings of pastors for mutual exhortation. Joyes under-
standing of kingship is as strongly in favour of royal power as anything
that will be published in the 1530s.
Further evidence of the early evangelical preoccupation with the
doctrine of obedience is found in Simon Fishs A Supplicacyon for the
beggers,106 published in 1528/9, in Antwerp, not long after Obedience of
the Christen man. Fish does not go to the same lengths to defend royal
authority as Obedience, but the topics up for discussion are identical. He

103(Antwerp: J. Aurick, 1534; STC 14829). This should not be confused with Clebschs
attempt to connect early covenantal ideas to later Puritanism. The covenant at this stage
was an exegetical reading of salvation history in the Bible, and was not yet employed in
political theory.
104Souper of the Lord was originally believed to be a text of Tyndales, but this has been
challenged in W. Cargill Thompson, Who Wrote The Supper of the Lord? Harvard
Theological Review 52/1 (January 1960): 7791; and W.A. Clebsch, More Evidence That
George Joye Wrote Supper of the Lorde, Harvard Theological Review 55/1 (January 1962):
636. Thomas More wrote a rebuttal to the text, The answere to the fyrst parte of the poys-
ened booke (1533, STC 18077). See also M. Anderegg, The probable author of The Souper of
the Lorde: George Joye, in The Yale Edition of The Complete Works of St Thomas More, vol. 11,
(New Haven: Yale UP, 1985), pp. 34374.
105The souper of the Lorde (London: N. Hill?, 1533; STC 24468), Dviv.
106S. Fish, A Supplicacyon for the beggers (Antwerp?: s.n., 1528/9; STC 10883).
50 chapter one

argues that resistance to reform is largely due to greed; Catholics hoard

money for one reason:
Truely[to] exempt them silves from th[e] obedience of your grace. Nothing
but translate all rule power lordishippe auctorite obedience and dignite
from your grace unto theim. Nothing but that all your subjectes shulde fall
into disobedience and rebellion ageinst your grace and be under theym. As
they did unto your nobill predecessour king John.107
He portrays a new account of how the medieval King Johns authority was
usurped by papal interdict, used by Pope Innocent III to plucke awey
th[e] obedience of the people from theyre naturall liege lorde and kinge,
for none other cause but for his rightuousnesse.108 Yet the true Christian
is not to place himself above higher authorities, for this would tear the
fabric of society. Papists infiltrated England, however, and:
of one kyngdome made tweyne: the spirituall kyngdome (as they call it)
And your temporall kingdome. And whiche of these ii.kingdomes suppose
ye is like to overgrowe the other ye to put the other clere out of memory?
Truely the kingdome of the bloudsuppers for to theym is given daily out of
your kingdome.109
Intriguingly, Fishs argument suggests that the separation between tempo-
ral and spiritual orders was a Catholic novelty, a point which undermines
the traditional Augustinian separation of the two cities.
The call to follow Christ is central to Fishs account of political obedi-
ence. Christians must be like their master: he hym silfe paid tribute to
Cesar[and] taught that the highe powers shuld be alweys obeid ye he him
silf (although he were most free lorde of all and innocent) was obedient
unto the highe powers unto deth.110 Those who have rediscovered the gos-
pel, therefore, have returned to the proper understanding of civil authority,
since spiritual freedom is no longer dependent on outward conformity to
medieval practice. Fish asserts the notion, soon to be repeated ad infinitum
by Henrician propagandists, that conservatives reject the word of God for
the sake of maintaining their exemption from temporal authority:
This is the great scabbe why they will not let the newe testament go a brode
yn your moder tong lest men shulde espie that they are notobedient unto
your highe power.111

107Fish, Supplicacyon, 33v.

108Fish, Supplicacyon, 3v.
109Fish, Supplicacyon, 5v.
110Fish, Supplicacyon, 6v.
111Fish, Supplicacyon, 6v.
 political obedience from tyndale to cromwell51

Fish concludes that England must spurn papist leaders and idle monks,
punish their wickedness, and return the word of God to England. Then
shall you have full obedience of your people.112
Yet the flexibility of evangelical theological opinions is demonstrated
in Fishs translation of The Summe of Holye Scripture in 1529. This work is,
in fact, another Strasbourg translation, though the sources are less then
obvious. The Latin text Oeconomica Christiana was published anony-
mously in Strasbourg in 1527 and was occasionally sold in London by evan-
gelicals.113 At some point, a Dutch translation of the text was published as
De Summa der Godliker Scrifturen, which would soon become the first
book officially banned in the Netherlands.114 Precisely how Fish came
across this work and what version he used remain a mystery, but the texts
approach to evangelical obedience is similar to evangelical teachings of
the early 1530s.
Summe begins with a description of how all of society is ordered around
legitimate authorities, though the majority of the text centres on civil gov-
ernment and the two maner of regimentes.115 The text begins with a clas-
sic discussion of power and its origin in Gods providential will, though it
is more interested in combating Anabaptism and justifying the right of the
State to inflict capital punishment for crimes: Then is it all certeyn &
manifest that it is the will of god that there shulde be a swerd & justice
temporall for the punycion of the evill and conservacion of the good.116
Summe then takes up the issue of how individual Christians ought to live
within society, particularly when oppressed, and it concludes that ven-
geance and rebellion are forbidden, for the swerd of justice shuld be for-
boden in the new testament emong the christen.117 The exclusion of the
sword among true Christians is not a reference to separatism but an affir-
mation that subjects are forbidden to seek vengeance. Christians may
seek political office, yet those under temporal authority must not attempt
to take up justice by their own power. Indeed, inspired by faith in Christ,
believers are the best subjects in this world. Indeed, the conclusion of the
text ultimately challenges the need for the sword within a purely Christian
society. When dealing with positive law, true Christians have no need of

112Fish, Supplicacyon, 8.
113C. Cross, Church and People: England 14501660 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999), p. 47.
114C.f. J. Trapman, De Summa der Godliker Scrifturen (1523), PhD dissertation
(University of Leiden, 1978).
115 Bomelius, H., The summe of the holye scripture, trans. S. Fish (Antwerp: s.n., 1529;
STC 3036), Nvii.
116The summe of the holye scripture, Nviiv-Nviii.
117The summe of the holye scripture, Nviii.
52 chapter one

the external sword of justice in order to conform seyng they do moche

more of theym silves then eny man can commaunde theym or than eny
lawe or worldly doctrine can teche them.118
On the eve of the Supremacy, evangelicals tended to grasp at a wide
variety of texts that included, but was not limited to, Lutheranism. Yet
even the earliest evangelical texts reveal that their use of continental
Protestantism was creative rather than passive: they adapted Swiss and
Lutheran ideas when they felt it was necessary, especially on the issue of
civil authority. There is little evidence, therefore, to suggest that evangeli-
cals were overly dependent on German Protestantism for their doctrine of
obedience. The presence of both Lutheran and Swiss Reformed ideas in
Tyndales Obedience of the Christen man is but one example of the theo-
logical dexterity of early English evangelicalism. Confirmation of this can
be found in the 1529 Convocation, which drew up several lists of heretical
and dangerous books that were making their way into England from the
continent.119 The final list is quite long and appears to have begun as a
shorter draft, which was expanded around 1531 to include books discov-
ered by Stokesley and a few that were drawn out of the confession of
Richard Bayfield.120 Many of the texts mentioned were obvious targets:
a dozen commentaries of Luther and Melanchthon and the works of
Tyndale, Roye, and Frith are all condemned.121 But alongside these are
included a rather large collection of works published in the Netherlands
and in Swiss cities. Indeed, nearly thirty works from Zwingli, Oecola
mpadius, Bucer, Lambert, and Johannes Brenz are cited as explicitly
heretical. Their appearance in Convocations records, of course, does not
imply that each of these texts were equally influential. It does, however,
suggest that conservatives knew what they were up against. Official efforts
to create a comprehensive list of dangerous Protestant works reveal the
extent to which conservatives were aware that English evangelicalism was
beholden to no single reformer.

Evangelical Obedience after the Supremacy

Having established the Reformed-evangelical development of interpreta-

tions on Psalm 82 and their clear influence on Obedience of the Christen

118The summe of the holye scripture, Oi.

119Found in G. Bray (ed), Anglican Canons, pp. 2439.
120Anglican Canons, pp. 2426n.
121For more on this, see Rex, The Early Impact of Reformation Theology at Cambridge
University, 15211547, Reformation and Renaissance Review 2 (December 1999): 3871.
 political obedience from tyndale to cromwell53

man, as well as evangelical relations with a wide scope of influence from

continental reformers, we now turn to the development of evangelical
political ideas following the enactment of the Royal Supremacy.
Perhaps the first to capitalise on the Supremacy was Miles Coverdale,
the exiled scholar who produced a new English translation of the Bible.
Although the Coverdale Bible (1535) has long held the attention of English
historians, few have noted its teachings on political obedience. But
Coverdales opening comments on civil obedience were one of the first
attempts to connect evangelical teachings on obedience to the Suprem
acy. Coverdales preface, in essence, extended an olive branch to the new
Supreme Head of the English church and offered the vernacular Bible in
support of the new English church. Evangelicals are now wooing the
magistrate.
Coverdale begins by playing up the irony that, until recently, Henry was
the Catholic Defender of the Faith. Such titles were meant to obscure the
popes usurped authority in England, he argues, but now England knows
the truth: Henry is to defend England from the papacy. The pope rages
against England lest it shulde be knowen[of his] defraudynge all
Christen kynges & prynces of theyr due obedience: lest we youre graces
subjects shulde have eyes in the worde of God. The pope, therefore,
refuses to obey God, and so resysteth his holy ordynaunce in the auctorite
of his anoynted kynges.122
Coverdales translation of the Bible is pitched to Henry as the solution
for Englands problems. He instructs the king in the biblical process by
which to return subjects to obedience. First, the king must read the word
of God, meditate on divine law, and recover his usurped authority. Second,
beyng taught by the worde of God, [the people] shulde fall from the false
fayned obedience of hym and his disguysed Apostles, unto true obedience
commaunded by Gods owne mouthe: as namely, to obey theyr prynce, to
obey father and mother, &c.123
This two-fold progression, from king to subject, would become the hall-
mark of the Cromwellian rhetoric of the word of God that culminated
in the artwork for the frontispiece to the Great Bible (1540).124 Yet it is
already here in 1535. Coverdale continues that the Bible declareth most

122Biblia the Byble, that is, the holy Scrypture of the Olde and New Testament [hereafter:
Coverdale Bible] (Southwark?: J. Nycolson, 1535; STC 2063.3), *iiv.
123Coverdale Bible, *iiv.
124Coverdales appeal to father and mother are an allusion to the Lutheran-Tyndalian
use of the 10 Commandments. Cf. Rex, Obedience, passim.
54 chapter one

aboundauntly that the office, auctorite and power geven of God unto kyn-
ges, is in earth above all other powers; the worde of god declareth them
(yee and commaundeth them under payne of dampnacion) to be obedi-
ent unto the temporall swerde.125
It would be a mistake to view Coverdale merely as an opportunist seek-
ing to propagate his message through feigned obedience to Henry. As we
have seen, these ideas were commonplace amongst evangelicals between
1527 and 1534, only now they are pressed into service to address the situa-
tion brought about by Henrys reformation. Obedience, in other words,
was not foisted onto evangelicals as a result of the Henrician reformation.
The new rhetoric of evangelical obedience was based on older argu-
ments, though they were redeployed to please the king. Thus, Coverdale
endorses the Zwinglian interpretation of Psalm 82, using the language of
ye are gods to support the Supremacy:
[P]rynces and temporall rulershere unto us in the worlde present the per-
sone of God, and are called Goddes in the scripture, bycause of the excel-
lency of theyr office. And though there were no mo[re] auctorities but the
same, to prove the preeminence of the temporall swerde, yet by this the
scripture declareth playnly, that as there is nothyng above God, so is there
no man above the kynge in his realme but that he only under God is the
chefe heade of all the congregacyon and church of the same.126
What is striking is that Coverdale places Psalm 82 at the heart of his open-
ing argument to the king, fusing it to the Supremacy, and declaring that
divine law has placed kings over the church, for it is agaynst Gods worde
that a kynge shulde not be the chefe heade of his people.127 He also reiter-
ates the evangelical interpretation of Exodus 22 and states that Moses
so strately forbyde the Israelites to speake so moche as an evell worde
agaynst the prynce of the people, moche lesse than to disobeye hym, or to
withstonde hym.128
Coverdale nonetheless offers one caveat to his doctrine of obedience:
if the king should command evil, or live immorally, then preachers may
bring the word of God before him to offer counsel. Like Nathan rebuking
David for adultery, preachers may instruct kings on their duty without
compromising their obedience (he notes that Nathan fell down before
Davids feet before delivering his rebuke from God). Coverdale dwells but

125Coverdale Bible, *iiv.

126Coverdale Bible, *iiv.
127Coverdale Bible, *iiv.
128Coverdale Bible, *iii.
 political obedience from tyndale to cromwell55

briefly on this, however, lest I be too tedious unto your grace.129 His point,
then, is not that one may resist sinful princes. He concludes instead that
magistrates must be made aware of the Bibles teaching, and that the
charge of counselling the monarch falls to preachers. Without hesitation,
Coverdale returns to his exhortation on obedience. He reaffirms that if
English subjects were well acquaynted with the holy scripture, they
would never stand against their prince. For the authority of kings meant
that a ruler deposed even prestes when he saw an urgent cause, as
Salomon dyd unto Abiathar.130 Innumerable places mo[re], he con-
cludes, bynde us to the obedience of our prynce.
The Coverdale Bible, in effect, reveals the extent to which evangelical-
ism became entangled with Henrys redefinition of his own power. The
basic vocabulary of biblical obedience was well established by 1533, but it
took the advent of the Supremacy for evangelicals to reorient their own
teachings around the reality of Englands political revolution. Evangelicals,
both at home and abroad, had always proclaimed their loyalty to the
crown, but the extent to which evangelicals discussed civil obedience and
non-resistance was shaped by the unique context of England after 1534.
The Coverdale Bible also exhibits a number of teachings that caught
Cromwells attention during the 1530s: the bold language of submission,
the superiority of the temporal power over the spiritual, the proclamation
that kings are gods. All of these teachings were couched in the rhetoric of
returning to Gods word and the fruit of Christian faith. The biblical
defence of obedience, then, must be seen as the initial point of contact
between English evangelicalism and the Henrician reformation. This con-
nection continued to be expressed in the publication of vernacular Bibles,
beginning with the Matthew Bible (1537), which borrowed heavily from the
translations of both Tyndale and Coverdale. This was followed by
Taverners Bible (1539), and, ultimately, the Great Bible (1540). Each pro-
claimed the duty of Christian subjects to obey the king. When viewed
together, there is little to support James McConicas suggestions that these
translations sought to remove the evangelical message of the Coverdale
Bible, by changing the translation of the English Bible to a moderate and
characteristically Erasmian compromise.131 There is nothing to substanti-
ate a theological difference between these later texts and the Coverdale

129Coverdale Bible, *iii.

130Coverdale Bible, *iii.
131McConica, English Humanists and Reformation Politics (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965),
p. 165.
56 chapter one

Bible. The campaign to produce a native English Bible shows little concern
with diluting evangelical teachings. Instead, the editors appear more
focused on hiding the fact that they were using Tyndales translation
under Henry VIIIs nose.132
More importantly, it was evangelical teachings on obedience that
helped inspire Cromwells circle to utilise their message. We find Richard
Taverner in 1539, for example, quoting from Psalm 82 that kings represent
unto us the parson even of god himself, since the Bible adourneth them
with the honourable title of hys own name callyng them Goddes.133 This
is an appropriation of the Tyndalian argument, reiterated by Coverdale.
A more mainstream employment of obedience language can be found
in the works of John Bale. It has long been noted that some of the language
used in Bales plays may have been borrowed from Tyndales Obedience.134
Bale writes in King Johan that good and evil kings are appointed directly
from God:
For be he good or bade / he is of Godes apoyntyng:
The good for the good / the bade ys for yll doyng.135
The evangelical doctrine of obedience is seen as a direct contradiction to
Catholic obedience:
For his holy cawse / I mayntayne traytors and rebelles,
That no prince can have / his peples obedyence,
Except yt doth stand / with the Popes prehemynence136
A number of these points were common enough for the late-1530s, par-
ticularly the charge that seditious Catholics strove to oppress England
through usurpation of authority. Perhaps the most striking theme through-
out the play, however, is Bales portrayal of the king as the divinely inspired
leader of Englands reforms. It is the king who is convinced to remove sedi-
tion from his realm and, thereafter, to call my nobylyte and fathers spiri-
tuall. Parliament and Convocation assemblies, however, were somewhat

132The most sacred Bible [Taverners Bible] (London: J. Byddell, 1539; STC 2067).
133Taverner, The garden of wysdom wherin ye maye gather moste pleasaunt flowres
(London, 1539); quoted in Francis Oakley, Christian Obedience and Authority, p. 181.
134See Barry B. Adams, (ed), John Bales King Johan (San Mariano, CA: Huntington
Library, 1969), lines 236686n; These conclusions are supported by Peter Happ, Dramatic
Images of Kingship in Heywood and Bale, Studies in English Literature, 15001900, 39/2,
Tudor and Stuart Drama (Spring 1999), p. 247.
135J. Bale, King Johan, in Peter Happ, (ed), The Complete Plays of John Bale, vol. 1
(Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985), p. 32.
136Bale, Complete Plays, p. 35.
 political obedience from tyndale to cromwell57

unnecessary in Bales mind, as the king should reform the commonwealth

himself: Yf they helpe the not / myself wyll take yt in honde.137 All of this
stemmed from the kings reinterpretation of his own authority: We wyll
thow know yt / owre powre ys of God. Civil obedience therefore becomes
a crucial spiritual issue: the papacy is not simply idolatrous or unfaithful
to God but rather errs in teaching that they maye a prynce depose.138
Later in the play there is an exchange between Imperial Majesty and
Veritas that describes the evangelical doctrine of obedience:
For Gods sake obeye / lyke as doth yow befall
For in hys owne realme / a kynge is judge over all
By Gods appointment / and none maye hym judge agayne
But the Lorde hymself139
Bale goes on to say that resistance is against the word of God and brings
damnation:
He that a prynce resisteth / doth dampen Gods ordynaunce
And resisteth God / in withdrawyng hys affyaunce (sic)
All subjectes offendynge / are undre the kynges judgement:
A kynge is reserved / to the Lorde Omnypotent.140
He not only rejects resistance against the king, he clearly states that ven-
geance is reserved to God alone. No power on earth may judge the king,
as he has authority over all. As the king uses his power to reform England,
so the duty of the commons and the nobility was to recognise his newly
recovered authority and swear obedience to the crown.
Perhaps the most eloquent exponent of semi-official evangelical propa-
ganda was Richard Morison, one of Cromwells leading men, who happily
blurred the lines between evangelical and royal polemics. The British
Library, for example, has a copy of Morisons translation of Luthers
Freedom of a Christian.141 Though it is unclear what Morisons intentions
were with Luthers early work, it at least suggests that he was hunting for
material to incorporate into his own political works.
Morisons political theology was first seen in his Lamentation, pub-
lished after the Pilgrimage of Grace (1536), which dealt exclusively with

137Bale, Complete Plays, p. 33.

138Bale, Complete Plays, p. 35.
139Bale, Complete Plays, p. 90. On these themes, see Peter Happ, Dramatic Images of
Kingship in Heywood and Bale, pp. 247249.
140Bale, Complete Plays, p. 90.
141Cf. C.R. Bonini, Lutheran influences in the early English Reformation: Richard
Morison re-examined, ARG 64 (1973): 20624.
58 chapter one

the subject of sedition and treason. Morison reserved most of his rhetori-
cal ammunition for seditious Catholics. It is the kings prerogative to
make of a pope a byshop, he argues, and English subjects should never
rebel, as [i]t was a princis dede to dryve out him, ayenste whose abusions
no man coude open his mouth.142 The Lamentation, in particular, follows
several of Tyndales biblical arguments to the letter. The story of David
agonising over whether to kill the tyrannous Saul is put forward as an
unquestionable defence of non-resistance. Morison admits that Saul
deserved death but argued that his higher allegiance to God meant that
David would not assault the king: Not withstandyng David thought hym
worthy to dye, which layd no violent handes uppon [t]he kynge.143
Morison also agreed with Tyndale that obedience is restricted to those
cases where the king follows biblical law: obedience is limited to when
both their [God and king] commaundements agree.144 Evil commands
were not to be obeyed. But in Morisons mind, Henry was a godly king, and
he instructs his readers to stand against those who seek
to stoppe goddis worde, to sowe sedition betwene our moste christen and
godly kynge and his true and obedient servauntes. Kepe the commaunde-
mentes of one, and thanne you shall kepe bothe. For he that sayd, kepe my
commandementes, sayde also, Gyve your prynce such thynges as perteyne
unto hym.145
It is perhaps fair to see this as a step further than Tyndale might have gone,
if only in the fact that Morison offers an overwhelmingly positive appraisal
of Henrys faithfulness to scripture. But his arguments were not entirely
against the grain of evangelical political theology. In exile, Tyndales focus
was on non-resistance and suffering under tyranny; here Morison accen-
tuates the other side of the coin by suggesting that following legitimate
human laws constitutes obedience to God himself. As he writes in Remedy
for sedition: We must fyrst lerne to kepe goddis lawes, or ever we ernestly
passe of the kynges statutes. All be it he that kepeth the one, wylle also
kepe the other.146 Indeed, of all of Gods commands, none is more neces-
sarye for us, than this, Obey ye your kynge.147
Writing three years later against Reginald Poles De Unitate, Morison
continues to stress the doctrine of obedience. He asks, What thynge is

142Morison, Lamentation (London: T. Berthelet, 1536; STC 18113.3), Biiv.

143Morison, Lamentation, Aiiiv.
144Morison, Lamentation, Ciii.
145Morison, Lamentation, Ciii.
146Morison, Remedy for sedition (London: T. Berthelet, 1536; STC 18113.7), Eiii.
147Morison, Lamentation, Ciiiv.
 political obedience from tyndale to cromwell59

more beneficiall unto mannes lyfe, then polytike orderand suche as

maynteyne this socyetie?
God ordeyned kynges, magistrates, and rulers, commaundynge theym to be
honoured, even as fathers are of theyr chyldren. This is the fyrste precept of
the seconde table, wherin god setteth a polycie, and teacheth the workes,
necessarye unto mannes lyfe.148
He concludes that Obedyence undoubtedly is the knotte of al common
weales, this broken they muste nedes runne al heedlonge to utter destruc-
tion.149 Morison makes several key interpretative moves in order to con-
nect Tudor kings to the Davidic monarchy in the Old Testament, the most
important of which is his meditation on the promises made to David
that God will be with him and support him against all his enemieswhich
Morison argues are not made to David alone but unto all kynges, that har-
tyly seke his gloryehe faileth not to performe now, that he than [sic]
promised.150
When we compare evangelical arguments for obedience with those
originating in Cromwells propaganda circle, we notice a number of paral-
lel themes, but not in every case. Several texts that support the Supremacy,
such as Starkeys Exhortation to obedience and the Articles Devisid by the
holle consent of thecounsayle, do not use evangelical political teachings
at all.151 But several of Cromwells men were nevertheless interested in
using overtly evangelical arguments to flesh out their own convictions
about the autonomy of the English monarchy. In doing so, they often esca-
lated the rhetoric of obedience. By 1527, Tyndale had already set obedi-
ence at the heart of Christian ethics, stressing that life requires submission
to various authorities, including magistrates, parents, and masters.
Nevertheless, following the legislation of the Royal Supremacy, and the
flurry of propaganda texts that ensued, obedience to the king came to
dominate everything else, ultimately serving as the acid test for true faith.
The general approach of evangelical texts after 1534, thus, was strongly
inclined towards the newer teachings on obedience that had emerged
after the Supremacy. This is not to say that evangelicals concurred at every
point. Yet it is important to note the lack of evidence for anxiety over the
kings new role as head of the church. Evangelicals were getting what they
wanted.

148Morison, An exhortation (London: T. Berthelet, 1539; STC 18110), Bii.

149Morison, An exhortation, Bii.
150Morison, An exhortation, Bvi.
151A point made in Rex, Obedience, p. 881.
60 chapter one

Conclusion

Historians have traditionally seen evangelical obedience rhetoric under

Henry VIII as an outworking of the Lutheran Two-Kingdoms theory, or as
the result of the Supremacy itself. This is based, in part, on the assumption
that Tyndale and others supported a quasi-confessional Lutheran outlook
on theological matters. In the 1530s, they argue, the Lutheran understand-
ing of obedience converged with the Royal Supremacy to create a
uniquely evangelical preoccupation with obedience and submission to
civil rulers. Historians have assumed that it took a series of extraordinary
circumstancespersecution under Henry in the 1540s and under Mary in
the 1550sto rouse the rebellious spirit of evangelicalism. This chapter
has argued, instead, that the doctrine of obedience was as prevalent
amongst early Swiss reformers as it was amongst Lutherans. Thus, while
evangelicals certainly employed Lutheran ideas in their writings, they
nonetheless adopted arguments from Zurich and other Reformed sources
when it suited them. The preoccupation of some historians with the early
influence of Lutheran obedience, therefore, is dubious at best. Not only
do these claims misrepresent Swiss Reformed teachings on obedience in
the 1520s and 1530s, they ignore the fact that Luther and his followers had
begun to develop resistance theory in 1531, three years before the
Supremacy was enacted in Parliament.
 CHAPTER TWO

ENGLISH EVANGELICALS, PERSECUTION,

AND OBEDIENCE, 15401547

During the last seven years of Henrys reign (15401547) the situation for
evangelicals was dire. Cromwell had sheltered evangelicals for years. But
with the Act of Six Articles in 1539 and Cromwells execution the following
year, conservatives returned to power. Conservative leaders, backed by
the king, quickly went to work reinforcing traditional elements of Catholic
worship that were under pressure in the 1530s, such as clerical celibacy
and the seven sacraments. Moreover, the great victory for evangelicals
under Cromwellthe official publication of the English Biblemet with
resistance. Restrictions were now placed on scripture reading amongst
laymen. In the end, the small groups of reformers in and around London
were confronted with the likelihood of persecution and exile.1 After over a
decade of evangelical teachings on obedience, Henry was in fact becom-
ing a tyrant.
The rapid change in English religion was a constant source of anxiety
for evangelicals during the 1540s.2 The rhetoric used by evangelicals dur-
ing these years often dwelt on the tragedy of Englands return to Babylon,
or the egregious persecution of Gods people. Picking up on this language,
historians have stressed how evangelicalism was marginalised during
these years. Haigh and others argue that evangelicalism was largely irrel-
evant after 1540. Other scholars are less pessimistic about the role of evan-
gelicalism in England, but nevertheless admit that Protestant voices were
little more than a noisy minority group. In terms of political thought,
recent studies of Henrys final years have emphasised the tensions within
evangelical political theology as it struggled to come to terms with Henrys
oppression of the gospel. Alec Ryrie, for example, writes that the 1540s
created conundrums for evangelicals and that it was after 1540 that

1Evangelical influence was not entirely thwarted, however. Cranmer still remained in
the kings graces and survived a number of similar attacks (e.g. the so-called Prebendaries
Plot in 1543). Duffy rightly points out that Henry often turned to Cranmer for religious
matters after the fall of Cromwell (Stripping of the Altars, p. 430). See also MacCulloch,
Cranmer, pp. 297325.
2For a fresh look at the enforcement of obedience in 1540 and beyond, see Shagan, Rule
of Moderation, pp. 110.
62 chapter two

significant divisions in the evangelical attitudes towards the Royal

Supremacy became evident for the first time.3 Likewise, Gunther and
Shagan argue that Henrician evangelicals were growing increasingly more
radical and were beginning to adopt ideas that would lead to Puritan
separatism.4
Yet as we have seen, evangelicals did not blithely profess unreserved
obedience to the king in the 1530s. Woven into evangelical teachings on
obedience was an acceptance of the possibility of martyrdom, as Christians
owed a higher obedience to God. Indeed, one might describe Tyndales
political theology as an apology for obedient sufferingone must accept
any temporal burden, no matter how onerous, but should the king contra-
vene the word of God one must submit to death rather than disobey God.
Evangelical emphasis on suffering, in particular, was a call to remain obe-
dient even under tyranny. Through suffering, they argued, the believer
becomes like Christ who suffered under Roman tyranny during his cruci-
fixion. Suffering, then, becomes the ultimate test of ones obedience to
the king.
The purpose of this chapter is to reconsider evangelical political theol-
ogy from the fall of Cromwell to the end of Henry VIIIs reign and to clarify
evangelical involvement in 1540s politics in the light of recent historiogra-
phy. It will argue that evangelical commitment to the Royal Supremacy
was not dependent on naivety or political optimism. There was no dis-
cernible loss of confidence in royal authority per se during the 1540s, only
a growing awareness that Henry was not their Solomon. Evangelical writ-
ers continued to wed the doctrine of political obedience to the concepts of
martyrdom and suffering under tyrannya link made by evangelicals
from the start. Thus, despite recent claims by historians, evangelicals were
not shaken awake by persecution and forced to face the revolutionary
nature of their doctrine of Christian liberty.
This chapter will argue that the recent quest for the Henrician origins of
radical political ideasresistance theory and separatism in particular
rests on a misunderstanding of the overtly theological dimensions of
evangelical political thought, obedience, and persecution. Resistance
theory was neither natural to evangelicalism nor did it creep into evan-
gelical minds as Henry VIIIs executioners lit their fires. Rather, in the

3A. Ryrie, The Gospel and Henry VIII (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003), pp. 58, 61.
4Gunther and Shagan, Protestant Radicalism, pp. 3574. This article draws some of its
material from Gunther, The Intellectual Origins of English Puritanism, c. 15251572 PhD
dissertation (Northwestern University, 2007).
 english evangelicals, persecution, and obedience63

1540s, the grim realities of martyrdom often served to reinforce the very
terms of political obedience. We shall first turn our attention to evangeli-
cals within England, harassed and hunted during the 1540s, but still vocally
committed to the Supremacy. In particular, we will examine the writings
of key evangelical authors, such as William Turner, John Bale, and Henry
Brinklow. Secondly, we will examine the works of Thomas Becon, perhaps
the most vocal evangelical supporter of obedience during the 1540s.
Finally, we will trace evangelical teachings on the Supremacy up to Henry
VIIIs death in 1547.

The Word of God Against the Pope

In Cromwells years, evangelicals could afford to be optimistic. They had

endured hardship, but England had changed, and was changing.5 The dif-
ferences between the church in 1529 and 1539 were obvious. In only ten
years, and despite the disproportionately large number of conservatives in
England, evangelicals had witnessed the king sweep away pieces of the
traditional church that they abhorred. This would have been unthinkable
prior to the Supremacy, as the English church was stronghealthier than
in most other parts of Europeand was led by a clergy that stood united
against Lutheranism.6 By 1539, however, its foundations were under
attack. Henry had sacked a large number of Englands monastic houses
and radically pruned the cult of the saints. Evangelicals interpreted
Henrys actions as a sign of Gods providence. We cannot allow our under-
standing of Henrys generally conservative theological outlook to distort
how his actions may have struck evangelicals.7 It would have been diffi-
cult for evangelicals to see Henry as a conservative, particularly from out-
side of court. The vociferousness with which he attacked traditional
Catholicism made it evident that he was not a loyal son of the church.

5For background, see S. Brigden, London and the Reformation (Oxford: Oxford UP,
1991); MacCulloch, Cranmer, pp. 173236; on suffering in early modern England,
see T. Freeman and T.F. Mayer (eds), Martyrs and Martyrdom in England c. 14001700
(Woodbridge: Boydell, 2007).
6See Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, pp. 379423; R. Rex, English Campaign Against
Luther in the 1520s, T.R.H.S. 5th series, 39 (1989): 85106.
7Historians continue to disagree as to the nature of Henrys personal religion. It is suf-
ficient here to point out that none would claim he was a committed evangelical. On the
debate over Henrys theology, see D. MacCulloch, Henry VIII and the Reform of the
Church, in D. MacCulloch (ed), The Reign of Henry VIII: politics, policy, and piety
(Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995); G. Bernard, The making of religious policy, 15331546:
Henry VIII and the search for the middle way, HJ 41/2 (1998): 32149.
64 chapter two

Thus, if only in evangelical minds, the word of God was going forth and
not returning empty.8
Perhaps no one better reveals the entanglement of evangelical theol-
ogy and the Supremacy than John Pylbarough, whose adoration of
Cromwell and Henry can be found in his A commemoration of the inesti
mable graces (1540). This was one of the last evangelical tracts printed
before Cromwells arrest in June and it reveals how evangelicals linked the
doctrine of obedience with gospel faith. The papal Sathan of Rome
abused Englishmen and desired that we shulde not blowe out his errours
and abuses, nor kynges & temporall rulers shulde be lerned of their godly
auctorities over their subjectes.9 Heresy and sedition are linked in
Pylbaroughs mind. The pope spread heresy in England only after magis-
trates were deprived of theyr princely regymentes, since the due obedi-
ence of subjectes was converted into rebellion. Yet Pylbarough thanked
God for sending the lyght, whiche is sprong in us, upon thy holy worde to
correct these errors:
thou hast raysed up to us thy peculyar people, a godly dewe power of helthe,
our naturall most soveraygne lorde kynge HENRY the VIIIwhose majestie
we recognise and beleve through thy sayde worde, to be thyne holy enoyn-
ted, immediate minyster, and vicar over us.10

Henry is now the chiefe herdeman of England, who has led them away
from Rome by the diligente serche and labour of our sayde moste lovynge
kynde and holy pastour.11
For Pylbarough, as for many evangelicals, it was the word of God that
restored the English monarchy and removed the tyrant of Rome. Thus, he
derived his teaching on royal authority largely from the Old Testament
imagery of monarchy. He contends that the residue of the olde testament,
if due application be put thereunto reveals a godly model of government
by which to remove theusurpation of the byshop of Rome. The scrip-
tures teach that godly rulers ever from the begynnynge of the worlde
have had jurisdiction in both spiritual and temporal matters. For this rea-
son Christ, beinge of two differente naturesand being kynge of kynges,

8This is not to say that evangelicalism was winning large portions of elite and lay per-
sons to their side. Ryrie, Gospel and Henry VIII, p. 39, also notes the optimism of evangeli-
cals during these years.
9J. Pylbarough, A commemoration of the inestimable graces (London: T. Berthelet, 1540;
STC 20521), Biv.
10Pylbarough, A commemoration, Biiv.
11Pylbarough, A commemoration, Biii.
 english evangelicals, persecution, and obedience65

and the supreme power, refused to accept worldly honour and was the
moste poore and mooste obedient subjecte to the worldly powers.
And his obedience was so great, as none coulde be more. For he was obedi-
ent unto his fathers wyll, and to wordly powers wyl, also even unto the moste
shamefull death of the crosse, by the judgement of the ruler Ponce Pilate.12
Pylbarough, thus, takes a firm stance against any form of resistance to civil
rulers. Biblical patriarchs and prophets never resisted civil rulers, but
rather taught
what honourable and humble obedyence the subjectes of every kynde and
sorte, owe [ought] to use and beare towards theyr kings and rulers, and that
god was the onely setter up and putter downe of them: And that god toke,
and assuredly wyl take, sore and grevouse vengeaunce upon such, as dys-
turbed the royall seate of any kynge or prynce.13
Magistrates are accountable to God alone, who raises them up and casts
them down according to his own plan; godly subjects are never to seek
vengeance by their own power.
Such fulsome descriptions of royal kingship were all too Henrician. But
evangelical optimism would not last. Many of the hopes of Henrician
evangelicalism were shattered in July 1540 when first Cromwell and then
three of Englands leading evangelicals were executed.14 To use Haighs
blunt phrase, the first Reformation was over.15 Yet the fallout of these
executions was much larger and more pervasive than such personal
appeals might suggest.16 Over the next several years, evangelicals were
forced to take defensive manoeuvres as conservatives rolled back a num-
ber of evangelical advances in royal policy. In 1543, the Act for the
Advancement of True Religion (34 & 35 Henry VIII, c. 1) along with the
Kings Book, delivered a two-pronged thrust at evangelical exploitation
of the Supremacy.17 Amongst the policies directed against evangelicals

12Pylbarough, A commemoration, Biiiv-Bivv.

13Pylbarough, A commemoration, Biiiv-Biv.
14G. Redworth, A Study in the Formation of Policy: The Genesis and Evolution of the
Act of Six Articles, JEH 37 (1986): 4267; see also Brigden, London and the Reformation,
pp. 299324; MacCulloch, Cranmer, pp. 23796. Shagan, Rule of Moderation, ch. 2.
15Haigh, English Reformations, p. 154.
16G.R. Elton, Thomas Cromwells Decline and Fall, in Studies in Tudor and Stuart
Politics and Government, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1974); for recent works, see
Brigden, London and the Reformation, ch. 7; MacCulloch, Cranmer, pp. 23796; Ryrie,
Gospel and Henry VIII.
17The text can be found in Formularies of Faith (ed.) C. Lloyd (Oxford, 1825), pp. 212
377; for background, see S. Brigden, London and the Reformation, pp. 346347; and L.B.
Smith, Tudor Prelates and Politics, 15361558 (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1953), pp. 244249.
66 chapter two

was the restriction of most lay reading of the Bible for fear that it incited
sedition.18
Evangelicals now found themselves in a new situation, though it was
not entirely unimaginable. For all their lucubration on royal authority,
evangelicals never taught that the king could enforce heresy or ungodli-
ness. Such a notion of blind obedience would have been absurd. But they
had assumed all along that England was beginning to accept the gospel at
the kings command, which in part explains why criticism of Henry VIII
was rare in the 1530s. If there was a single weakness in evangelical teach-
ing at this point, it was the shared belief that the elimination of papal
authority in England necessitated the elimination of papal worship. Henry
never saw it this way, and with Cromwell gone, elements of traditional
worship and theology were preserved by the kings authority.19 Thus,
evangelicals were increasingly forced to deal with the fact that Henry had
rejected their vision of an English reformed church.
The tension this created can be seen in William Turners first volume of
the Huntyng and fyndyng out of the Romishe fox (1543). Turners interest in
the study of botany had previously carried him to and from the continent
in order to observe and document plant life.20 During one of his trips, he
stopped in Zurich, where he met Bullinger and Gwalter and became a life-
long admirer of Swiss theology.21 For years, Turner had quietly supported
the Supremacy and welcomed religious reform. Shortly after the fall of
Cromwell, however, he began work on Huntyng and fyndyng out of the
Romishe fox in hopes of salvaging the evangelical cause in England. Turner
envisioned the treatise partly as a critique of Gardiner and partly as a
defence of the claim that the Bible alone is the source of true obedience.
Its language is rather coy, playing on Henrys well-known love for hunting;
Turner requests the kings permission to join in the hunt for the Roman

18Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 347.

19Duffy, Stripping of the Altars, pp. 42447, rightly notes that the 1540s were still a
deviation from the medieval pattern of worship and not a restoration of Catholicism
in toto. For evangelicals, it was nevertheless described as a return to Rome.
20For background, see W.R.D. Jones, William Turner: Tudor Naturalist, Physician and
Divine (London: Routledge, 1988). Turner later lamented that he involved himself to
quickly in theological debate as it repeatedly drew him into heated debates with conserva-
tives and Anabaptists and away from his other studies. Cf. W. Turner, A preservative
against the poyson of Pelagius (London: S. Mierdman, 1551; STC 24368), Aiii.
21Under Elizabeth, for example, Turner regularly corresponded with Bullinger and
Gwalter over the vestiarian controversy. Cf. J.H. Primus, The Vestments Controversy
(Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1960), pp. 149, 152. Turner also translated the moderate Reformed tract
of Rhegius, A comparison between the olde learnynge and the newe (Southwark: J. Nicholson,
1537; STC 20840).
 english evangelicals, persecution, and obedience67

fox. Its argument, however, was uncomplicated: to restore conservative

religion is to restore the pope; ergo, those who seek the restoration of con-
servative religion reject the Supremacy.
On these terms, the Huntyng and fyndyng out of the Romishe fox was
only a slight adaptation of the rhetoric from the 1530s, still grounded in the
claim that gospel faith is a requirement for submission. Turner wrote that
the popes authority in England was a result of Catholic teachings on wor-
ship and doctrine; thus, the pope that the kyng commanded yow to dryve
out of England, was not the popis person whiche never cam[e] to Englond,
nether hys name alone, nether hys purse alone.22 Turner claimed instead
that the king had commanded his subjects to drive out Roman doctrine,
and those who claim otherwise run in daunger of treason. He assumed, in
other words, that the Henrician reformation was inspired by real evangeli-
cal commitment and that the king was on his side. Yet for Turner, the
recent restoration of conservative influence went against a decade of anti-
clericalism that interpreted the pope as the source of Englands troubles:
the Pope is the hede of every popishe chirche, and by your sayng the
church of Englond is a popish chirche, therfor the Pope by your saying is
the hede of the chirche of England.23 He believed that most of the tradi-
tions taken from Rome were evil, and he heaped scorn on the claim that
Catholic worship could be maintained merely by the authority of the king:
it is not the name of the pope that maketh the pope but the popes actes
& dedes, just as the bokes of a zwinglian heretike had and red make a
zwinglian heretic, so the bokes of a popishe heretic had and red make a
popishe heretic.24
It was not long before Turners defence began to erode. Shortly after
completing his work, Turner received word that parliament had enacted
that none but gentle men and gentle wymen might rede the scripture and
certayne rychmen.25 Turner was crestfallen. His argument that the king
had originally wanted to replace Catholic worship with evangelicalism
and biblical preaching was undermined even before he published Huntyng
and fyndyng out of the Romishe fox. In desperation, he quickly scribbled an
addition to the manuscript, later affixed to the end of the book, which
claimed that conservative bishops had drawn up legislation against the

22W. Turner, Huntyng and fyndyng out of the Romishe fox (Bonn: L. Mylius, 1543;
STC 24353), Avv.
23Turner, Huntyngof the Romishe foxe, Bvi.
24Turner, Huntyngof the Romishe foxe, Ci-Civ.
25Turner, Huntyngof the Romishe foxe, Fiii.
68 chapter two

Bible and that the king was misinformed, but this only served to sap the
work of its strength. It was impossible to escape the fact that the Henry
himself had backed the return of leading conservatives.26
Growing increasingly pessimistic, Turner soon devoted himself to writ-
ing a sequel, which would be published as Rescuynge of the Romishe Foxe.27
The change in title is explained in the preface, where Turner writes that as
soun as my houndes had founde out the fox and held hym at a bay, his
fellow bishops rescued him.28 Turner was forced to alter his strategy; his
wry humour was gone and he was now on the counterattack. He singles
out Gardiner and maligns him for seeking with wepyng teares to restore
papal authority in England so that he might be Cardinal as fissher was.29
On the issue of obedience, Turner openly rebuked what he believed to be
a conservative take-over of the Supremacy. Obedience to Henry, he argues,
did not require adherence to traditional papal worship.
More importantly, Turner was nervous that his habit of referring to
Henry simply as Supreme Governor, rather than Supreme Head, could
be viewed as a rejection of Henry VIIIs authority in the church. Turner
stressed that his intention was only to clarify the kings authority in the
church, as conservatives had distorted the Supremacy beyond its original
intent: as I named hym supreme governour under god, I excluded bothe
emperour & pope & all other that myght seme to have any hy autorite, or
myght derogate any thyng from the kyngis supremice; thus, in Turners
mind, supreme governour semed unto me a more honorable title and
more becomly for a kyng then to be called hede of the chirche as [the
papal] antichrist callethe hymself.30 To make his point clear, Turner
admits that he fully supports the Supremacy:
I hold as well as ye do that he is supreme hede of the chirche of Englond and
ireland, if ye understande by thys worde chirche an outward gathering
together of men and wymen, in a polytike ordre. But if ye take thys worde
chirche in the signification that it is taken in the xvi. of MatthewI deny
that the kyng or any erthly man, may be called hede of the chirche save only
Christe.31

26The addition begins at Fiii.

27W. Turner, Rescuynge of the Romishe Foxe (Bonn: L. Von der Meulen, 1545 STC 24355).
28 Turner, Rescuynge of the Romishe Foxe, Aiiv.
29 Turner, Rescuynge of the Romishe Foxe, Aiv.
30Turner, Rescuynge of the Romishe Foxe, Ciiv. Earlier he writes: supreme governoure in
earth under god, betokeneth as myche as supreme hede dothe. (Cii)
31 Turner, Rescuynge of the Romishe Foxe, Ciiv.
 english evangelicals, persecution, and obedience69

Turners decision not to use the title Supreme Head, therefore, stems
from his desire to undermine recent attempts to enforce conservative
worship based on the Supremacy. He is concerned that conservatives
have bylded the kyngis supremeci upon the popis traditiones or on the
opinions of a multitud of men.32 Turner then reiterates the evangelical
position that the kings authority is based on the Bible. His only criticism
is that no prynce be a mysticall or spirituall hede of Christes mysticall
body, a point that was uncontroversial.33 Turner concludes with an
emphatic declaration of his support for the Supremacy:
To conclud I hold that the kyng our master is the suprem polytike hede
under god both of all the spiritualti, and also of the temperalty of England
and irelande and that there is nether spirituall nor politike hede in earthe
above hym, nether bisshop kyng nor emperour. If thys be not enoughe that
I gyve unto the kyngis hyghnes tell me what more is to be gyven by the scrip-
ture and I shal be glad to byve hym it.34

The focus of this treatise, then, should be read in context. Turner is not
attacking the Supremacy or denying the kings jurisdiction in the church.
(Even Henry would never have claimed to be head of the church in the
same respect as Christ is head of the church.) Turners goal here is to issue
a competing conceptualisation of the Supremacy, one that better fits
evangelical convictions, and which undermines conservative perspec-
tives. He states that the Bible supports obedience, since the king has auto-
rite enoughe of the scriptures for to manteyn hys supremeci.35 In other
words, the battle in Turners mind was still between evangelicalism and
Catholicism, not over the validity of the Supremacy. He argues that he
never wrote against temporal law but only those elements of Catholic
worship that were propagated under the kings authority by rogue bish-
ops. But he stresses that Gardiner had fallaciously attempted to maketh
the popis ceremonies the kyngis polytike lawes:
Marck also how that he wold make the pope the kyngis frende while he
maketh the popis ceremonies mantyners of the kyngis supremeci, for when
as the pop[e] and hys doctrine ar[e] al on[e], if the popis ceremonies man-
teyn the kyngis supremeci, the pope doth the same.36

32Turner, Rescuynge of the Romishe Foxe, Cii.

33Turner, Rescuynge of the Romishe Foxe, Ciii.
34Turner, Rescuynge of the Romishe Foxe, Civ.
35Turner, Rescuynge of the Romishe Foxe, Biv.
36 Turner, Rescuynge of the Romishe Foxe, Bii.
70 chapter two

Historians have had a great deal to say about Turners ideas on the Suprem
acy. Ryrie, for example, argues that Turner harboured doubts about the
Supremacy when he taught that Henry could not enforce h eresy.37 Turner
was one of several evangelicals in the 1540s that had profound objections
to the kings role in the church.38 It is difficult to go along with this. Turners
primary reason for writing Rescuyng of the Romishe Foxe was to proclaim
his support of the Supremacy, making it hard to see this as a fundamental
critique of royal authority. Turners argument was that conservatives had
falsely accused him of sedition, not that the Supremacy was inherently
wrong. In another approach, Gunther and Shagan have argued that the
mode in which Turner articulated his support for the Supremacy ultimately
limited his support for the Supremacy, which is plausible, though harder to
justify based on Turners comments. Turner had certainly rejected the
notion that the Supremacy might be used to prop up Catholic worship.
They further contend, however, that Turners ostensible royalism was in
fact a disguise for a blistering attack on worldly authority, and they sug-
gest that his teachings can be seen as a case-in-point of the views that
would later become Puritanism.39 Their support for these claims rests on
two points. First, Turner argued that parliamentary authority did not legiti-
mise the church, as only God and scripture grounded the church. Secondly,
they note that Turner denied that the king could declare priestly marriage
a sin, since it was never forbidden in the Bible. Gunther and Shagan take
the general sweep of his arguments to mean that non-scriptural laws and
ceremonies were by definition anti-scriptural, and allege that Turner
explicitly denied the king any authority to make laws within the Church.40
Such claims, however, run against the grain of Turners overarching
argument. For one, while Turner would never have conceded that parlia-
mentary authority legitimised the church, this was not a potentially radi-
cal idea. The fact is that no figure (Catholic, evangelical, or otherwise)
would have argued that the church derives its legitimisation from parlia-
ment. Secondly, and more importantly, Turners arguments on clerical
marriage were not concerned with the problem of church ceremonies
or adiaphora. The central issue for Turner is not the use of royal authority
in the church itself, as Gunther and Shagan suggest, but a more basic

37Ryrie, Gospel and Henry VIII, pp. 612. For another critique of Ryrie on this point, see
Gunther and Shagan, Protestant Radicalism, p. 56n.
38Ryrie, Gospel and Henry VIII, p. 62.
39Gunther and Shagan, Protestant Radicalism, p. 58; they refer to this totalising use of
scripture as negative biblicism, or the belief that even civil laws must be derived from
scripture.
40Gunther and Shagan, Protestant Radicalism, p. 56.
 english evangelicals, persecution, and obedience71

c oncern to define heresy and orthodoxy. Throughout the 1540s, Turner is

dealing with what he believes are essential issues of the faith, which
should not immediately be read in connection with later debates amongst
Puritans. At issue was the reaffirmation of several of the most traditional
Catholic ceremonies, the restoration of the seven sacraments, the revoca-
tion of lay Bible reading, and the declaration that priestly marriage was a
sinall of which are of a different order than later debates over the use of
vestments during the prayer book service.41
Turner never once suggests that resistance was a possibility. His affilia-
tion with the theology of Bullinger and Zurich suggests, in fact, that he was
a strong supporter of the doctrine of obedience. He consistently argued
that all non-essential issues were, by definition, under the jurisdiction of
the civil magistrate. It was also the kings prerogative to purify the church.
We find evidence for this in Turners A new dialogue of the masse (1548), a
mock debate between Catholic and evangelical figures, written shortly
after Henrys death. While this is an Edwardine text, Turner offers a crisp
recapitulation of the debate over royal authority that had been fought
during Henrys final years. He does not hesitate to call the higher powers
manteyners of all truth and honesty and calls for the king to repress the
Mass and remove conservative clerics.42 In this regard, should the king
enforce evangelicalism, Turner is quite happy to grant the king authority
in the church:
The kynges intent & purpos is nowe at the beginning of his reygne to purge
and clense the churche of al abuses and enormities, & to examine and try
with the touch stone of goddes word all sacrifices & ceremonyes, whych are
in the church.43
Appealing to the word of God is still the foundational principle in Turners
doctrine of obedience. He argues that it is the role of the king to examine
the scriptures, discern Gods intent for the church, and to enforce truth
within his realm. The king is to purge the church of the heresy of Rome,
and those who say otherwise intend to resist the kings most godly
purpose.44

41Numerous evangelicals differed on whether vestments or ornaments of worship

were adiaphora; none held that traditional ceremonies and Catholic teachings on the Mass
were non-essential issues.
42W. Turner, A new dialogueof the masse (London: W. Hill, 1548; STC 24363), Aiiiv.
43 Turner, A new dialogue, Aviiv.
44 Turner, A new dialogue, Aviiv; the judge who studied the common law also reads in
the Psalms that he shall not need to have the matter devolved unto an other judge as he is
competent enough to judge matters according to scripture (Bv-Bvv).
72 chapter two

In the dialogue itself, Turner turns to a discussion on obedience that is

crucial for interpreting his earlier political theology. The evangelical
Knowledge stands against Catholic Porphiry on the issue of worship.
Turner takes the opportunity to correct the notion that evangelicals
taught that obedience is owed to the king in all matters, including heresy.
Porphiry mocks that evangelicals proclaim their obedience but still reject
the Mass, asking whether almyghty God requyreth in thys commaunde-
ment, honor thy father and mother, as well obedience of subjectes, unto
magistrates and ruelers, as he requyreth obedience of chyldren to theyr
fathers and mothers. Knowledge agrees with this quintessentially
Protestant notion of obedience. Porphiry then retorts that rulers have
commaunded all us, that be theyr subjects, to believe that the Messe is of
Godtherefore all men are bounde in payne of dampnation to believe
that the Messe is goddes ordynaunce, and to come to it.45 Porphirys argu-
ment here plays on the evangelical argument that one must obey the king
on payne of dampnationa statement that appears in nearly every
evangelical text on non-resistance in the 1530s. Turner very clearly though
rejects the essential argument that obedience was due in cases of heresy,
and stresses instead that one should disobey evil commands and suffer
the consequences.
Turners main concern is the manner in which conservatives were using
the doctrine of obedience against evangelicals. He says that conservatives
under Henry claimed that yf we are bounde to obey our polytike fathers,
we muste beleve that the messe is of god.46 The focus of this argument,
therefore, is with whether the king may bind the consciences of his sub-
jects to believe heresy. In Turners mind, then, the obvious conclusion is
Then ar[e] not al subjectesbounde to beleve, what soever the rulers com-
maunde them to beleve exceptthat [their] commaunde be conteyned in
the expressed word of god: But ther is no mention made in the scripture of
the messe, therefore though the magistrate should commaunde men to
believe, that the masse were of god, yet they ar[e] not bound to obey them
in that case.47

Turner describes here the basic notion that royal authority has its limits
and does not extend to essential matters. He states that the king kepeth
him self with in his boundes; he may not bind his subjects contrary unto

45 Turner, A new dialogue, Divv.

46 Turner, A new dialogue, Dv.
47 Turner, A new dialogue, Dvi.
 english evangelicals, persecution, and obedience73

the worde of God.48 But he does not thereby condone resistance or sug-
gest that the Supremacy is against scripture. Turners argument again and
again is that no man is so mad as to believe in unqualified obedience
in all matters of doctrine and faith without considering the scriptures.49
It should be stressed again that the Supremacy itself was based on this
very same doctrine of non-resistance and disobedience only in matters of
conscience. For Turner to embrace these ideas, then, is not an indication
of his dissatisfaction with Henrys reformation.
For Turner, obedient subjects accept the kings commands in all non-
essential matters. Should the king command evil, one must willingly die as
the ultimate example of ones submission to temporal authority. Turner
cites the example of Daniel and the Israelites in Babylon who obeyed in all
things except idolatry, ultimately suffering persecution and death. The
Apostles also in civile matters, obeyedbut when the rulers forbad the
apostles to preach any more in Christes name, they would not obey their
commaundement.50 All of these examples, however, deal with essential
matters of faith in Turners scheme. When it comes to issues of adiaphora
or civil law, Turner strongly sides with the doctrine of obedience:
Howbeit, in other cases we are bounde to obey them, in payne of dampna-
tion: for he that resisteth them in any such matters, as they have auctorite of
commaundement over, resysteth god and so purchasseth himselfe the wrath
of god.51
This same logic is found in Tyndale and others who taught non-resistance
during the 1530s. If the king makes demands on issues that fall within his
proper jurisdiction (taxation, use of private property, civil laws and adi
aphora in the church) the subject is bound to obey them. Those who resist
the king receive eternal damnation.
Turners qualms may hint at later developments in evangelical outlooks
on worshiphe certainly envisioned a purified service along the lines of
Zurichbut we must be careful not to misconstrue his original argu-
ments. His critiques are aimed at a predominantly Catholic English clergy
who were attempting to preserve key elements of the traditional church.
He never considers the problem of half-measure reforms that would

48 Turner, A new dialogue, Dvi. Turner appeals to the classic statement in Galatians 1
that But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
49 Turner, A new dialogue, Fiv.
50Turner, A new dialogue, Dvii.
51 Turner, A new dialogue, Dviiv.
74 chapter two

plague the reigns of Edward and Elizabeth. The only restriction he places
on the Supremacy at this point is the conventional assertion that the king
cannot enforce evil. This is hardly radical and casts doubt on the claim
that Turner stood opposed to the adiaphorist views of Thomas Cranmer
or that he opposed the reform of canon law.52 Turner never voiced opposi-
tion to Cranmers work in reforming canon law and he later worked tire-
lessly under Edward as an anti-Anabaptist propagandist, even describing
himself as an early disciple of Hugh Latimer.53 In the end, it seems that
Shagan and Gunther have read Turner through the lens of later Elizabe
than debates over vestments and church ceremonies, which, although
important, may obscure the political context of the 1540s. The only com-
ments Turner makes, in fact, on the issue of adiaphora seem to indicate he
would have worn the vestments, albeit grudgingly.
Setbacks did not prevent others from maintaining that the king had
simply been duped by conservatives. John Bale wrote his The epistle exhor
tatorye of an Englyshe Christyane with the sole purpose of transferring
blame from the king to conservative bishops. Bale writes that he com-
pyled this treatyse in the zele of God & my prince against the tyraunt of
Rome in order that the king maye have yt as a frute of my Christen obedi-
ence.54 The conservative resurgence in England confused Bale, as he had
always believed that the evangelical faith alone had made Henry an whole
complete kynge and the fyrst since the conquest.55 He believed that a
return to papal worship was, in some respects, a betrayal of the Supremacist
rhetoric of the previous decade. Henry was their Josias, and through their
teachings he had learned his duty to mainteyne the common welthe both

52Gunther and Shagan, Protestant Radicalism, p. 57; this argument implies that
Cranmers involvement with canon law revision was based on his conservative outlook,
which it was not. Conservatives were appointed to the committee under Henry, but under
Edward, it was renewed with vigour and was worked on by non-adiaphorist such as John
Hooper. Gunther and Shagan also fail to note the fact that the Reformatio Legum
Ecclesiasticarum was cherished by Elizabethan hot Protestants such as John Foxe and was
seen even then as a thoroughly evangelical document. Cf. G. Bray (ed), Introduction, in
Tudor Church Reform: The Henrician Canons of 1535 and the Reformatio Legum Eccle
siasticarum, Church of England Record Society (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2000); J.F. Jackson,
Law and Order: Vermigli and the Reform of Ecclesiastical Laws in England, in F.A. James
(ed), Peter Martyr Vermigli and European Reformations (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
53Turner, A preservativeagainst the poyson of Pelagius, Aiiv; Turners argument is on
the issue of baptism, and he supports his argument by appealing to church custom and a
spate of extra-biblical evidence.
54J. Bale, The epistle exhortatorye of an Englyshe Christyane (Antwerp: s.n., 1544;
STC 1291a), frontispiece and Ai. Bale cites Turner, Huntyngof the Romishe foxe at Aviiv,
calling him a faythfull subject to his prince.
55Bale, The epistle exhortatorye, Cv.
 english evangelicals, persecution, and obedience75

of soule and bodye.56 No amount of legislation, and certainly none that

supported papal religion, could sway Bale from the conviction that evan-
gelicals were the driving force behind the Supremacy. God had raised up
Willyam Tyndale, the fyrst true Apostle of Christ after Johan Wyclef who
published Christen Obedienceand diverse other [works], wherby the
people were then taught how to love God, and how to obey theyr princes
and magistrates.57 Bale acknowledges, however, that Tyndales doctrine
of obedience had matured, or intensified, during the 1530s. The work of
evangelicals established the authority of the king yet I trust by this tyme
they and soche other lyke have made him ten tymes so.58 In this view,
evangelicalism supplied England with godly virtues, and had even helped
halt the progress of the Pilgrimage of Graceyour trayterouse insurrec-
cyon in the northe. This rebellion would have been worse
had there not bene a great nombre which had [then] the feare of God writ-
ten in theyr hartes, wherby they knew they coude not ryse agaynst theyr
prince, but to theyr owne dampnacyon, and that they were bounde also to
defende him agaynst all soch popysshe and rebellyouse trayters.59
Yet the king was not an evangelical. Even Bale was forced to admit, as he
did in his introduction to the A brefe chronycle concernyngeJohn
Oldecastell, that evangelical reforms were only enacted under his permys-
syon, and he encouraged his readers to pray for the king to have increase
of knowledge.60
The tendency of evangelicals during the early 1540s, then, was to change
their tone but not their principles. They had always conceded the possibil-
ity that civil government might reject their faith, though they were confi-
dent that Henry was chosen by God to reform England. Even for Bale, the
Old Testament imagery of an elect nation and a godly king, idealised by
countless other evangelicals in the 1530s, was but one of several possibili-
ties. One could also be in subjugation to Nero or Pharaoh, but this did not
free a believer from the duty to obey.
Perhaps it is this change in tone that has led some to describe Henri
cianevangelicals as insincere and self-serving. The image of evangelicals

56Bale, The epistle exhortatorye, Aiiv. He refers to Henry as Josiah at Avii.

57Bale, The epistle exhortatorye, Avi. Bale continues that these works made the kynges
grace more faythfull fryndes in those dayes, than yow Bysshoppes and Prestes were wele
contented with.
58Bale, The epistle exhortatorye, Avi-Aviv.
59Bale, The epistle exhortatorye, Avi.
60J. Bale, A brefe chronycle concernynge the examinacyonJohn Oldecastell (Antwerp:
s.n., 1544; STC 1276), Biiv.
76 chapter two

grasping at political straws to salvage their reformation is demonstrated,

for example, in older characterisations of Thomas Becon. Until recently,
Becon has rarely been described as a committed evangelical.61 D.S. Bailey
wrote that one can find merely a note of protestant apologetic in Becons
writings and that they were mainly hortatory and devotional, rather than
polemical.62 Bailey further described Becons theology as moderate and
orthodox, stating that his works were sufficiently vague to fit within the
standards of the Six Articles.63 Yet it is difficult to find evidence to support
Baileys claims. For one, conservatives certainly believed Becon was a
committed evangelical. Twice he was the target of official investigation
and each time he was induced to recant. His capitulations were nakedly
insincere, however, as each time he slipped away to regroup and renew
his publishing campaign. Following his first recantation in 1541 he fled to
East Anglia and began the most prolific phase of his long career, publish-
ing over a dozen works under the pseudonym Theodore Basille in the
hopes of escaping further prosecution. Becons evangelical credentials are
easily discernible throughout his many popular workssecond to none
for their popularity in the 1540sand he was a close associate of evangeli-
cals within Henry VIIIs regime.
Recognising Becons evangelical commitments helps to interpret his
political writings from the 1540s. He was, in fact, one of the most outspoken
evangelicals on the topic of obedience and non-resistance. His devotional
treatises continued to underscore the connection between obedience and
justification by faith in ways consistent with previous arguments made
during Cromwells viceregency. Indeed, Becons approach to obedience in
the 1540s can be summarised as an attempt to stay the course: preach obe-
dience and the gospel and pray that it might bear fruit. But his theological
commitment to obedience was as strong as it had been in the 1530s.
Obedience, for Becon, served as a comprehensive term, embracing
both faith in Christ and submission to those placed in authority. Devotion

61Ryrie, Strange Death of Lutheran England, pp. 701, has argued that Becon was a
moderate Lutheran during this time who only later turned to a more radical Reformed
position. Ryrie notes but does not take into account the fact that Becon provided a preface
to Bullingers Der Christlich Eestand in the early 1540s, which at least suggests Becon is
drawing from an eclectic sampling of Protestant texts. It is also rather dubious seeing
Lutheranism as a moderate voice in England.
62D.S. Bailey, Thomas Becon and the Reformation of the Church of England (Edinburgh:
Oliver and Boyd, 1952), p. 23.
63Bailey, Thomas Becon, p. 44. There is certainly an element to this in Becons descrip-
tions of the Eucharist. Becon had no qualms describing it as the Sacrament of the Altar,
only to reedit his works later to express a generally Swiss interpretation.
 english evangelicals, persecution, and obedience77

to Christ leads to civil obedience. In his 1542 work, A Potacion, he describes

the ideal Christian believer as one who to oure moost soveraygne Lorde &
excellent kyngeshewe themselves unfaynedly obedient both in words
and dede with all submission and humilyte. Potacion focused broadly on
the Christian life of faith, but the devotional fixation on the doctrine of
obedience is the core of Becons writings; at the heart of the gospel is a
fundamental posture of obedience that shapes ones orientation to exter-
nal authority. He argues that Christian obedience extends, not only to the
king, but to all civil and ecclesiastical leaders appointed by the king,
whom they hold
in no lesse honour, than true & faythfull chyldren have theyr naturall paren-
tes. Yea they esteme them as the servauntes of God, and dispensatours of the
divyne misteries.64
This, of course, is the evangelical-Lutheran reading of the commandment
regarding honouring parents, but Becons choice of language manages to
entangle the gospel and temporal authority rather than simply acknowl-
edge obedience to ones superiors. Above all things, Becon concluded, as
I have ever exorted you, be obedient to the kynges graces majeste.65
Stronger language connecting the gospel with obedience and non-
resistance can be seen in Becons subsequent publications, A pleasaunt
newe Nosegaye66 and New pollecye of warre,67 written in quick succession
in 1542. New pollecye of warre constructs a broadly evangelical foundation
for nationalistic devotion and sketches the foundation of a theological jus-
tification for war. Our countrey, Becon argues, is a blessing for Christians,
since it engraffethe in us the true knowledge of our selves, the fear of God,
the love of God and of oure neyghbour, the true fayth of Gods promises,
the unfayned obedience toward our superiors. The commonwealth also
maketh the earthe of our hartes so fine, pure, pregnant, and fertile, that it
is ready to receave any manner of good seed.68 His pride was stirred upon
seeing local Kentish soldiers gathering, leaving wife and children, and
marching off for war: My joye was surely greater than I can here expresse,
to se this faythfull obedience in them toward the Kynges graces majeste
this harty affecte toward the common weale of Englonde.69 Recent claims

64Becon, A Potacion (London: J. Mayler, 1542; STC 1749), Avii-viiv.

65Becon, A Potacion, Lviv.
66Becon, A pleasaunt newe Nosegaye (London: J. Mayler, 1542; STC 1742).
67Becon, New pollecye of warre (London: J. Mayler, 1542; STC 1735).
68Becon, New pollecye of warre, Aii-Aiiv.
69Becon, New pollecye of warre, Biiv.
78 chapter two

that Becon was a pacifist,70 or an Erasmian uneasy with Henry VIIIs

armongering, have overlooked his vocal support of Henrys war policies
w
during the 1540s. His express goal in this treatise is to apply biblical teach-
ing on war to Henrys regime. Far from challenging war in general, or the
right of the sovereign to issue troops for an overseas campaign, New polle
cye of warre describes Englands campaigns as holy war. This is illustrated
in a provocative pair of woodcuts at the start of the original text (sig. Bviv),
which depict a powerful king donning war-gear and wielding a shield
emblazoned with a lion atop a throne; at his feet the Tudor double-roses
are sprouting while in his right hand he brandishes a halberd, the weapon
of a front-line soldier. A second woodcut on the following page (sig. Bvii)
depicts this same warrior-king leading his troops into battle, plunging
headlong into the ranks of his enemies. This is anything but a critique of
Henry VIIIs war efforts in the early 1540s.

The British Library Board (C.21a.26, pg Xlllv and Xllllr). Thomas Becon, New policy
on ware.

70B. Lowe, War and Commonwealth in Mid-Tudor England, SCJ 21/2 (Summer 1990);
see also B. Lowe, Imagining Peace: A History of Early English Pacifist Ideas (University Park:
Penn State Press, 1997).
 english evangelicals, persecution, and obedience79

The theological framework of Becons political thought is further

revealed in A pleasaunt newe Nosegaye. Here the focus moves away from
the images of war and battle to an articulation of the gospel. Applying his
usual blend of everyday imagery and plain style71 Becon portrays the ideal
evangelical Christian using the metaphor of a bouquet of five flowers,
each of which is ascribed a particular virtue: humility, pure innocence,
faithful obedience, ready assistance, and Christian charity.72 The central-
ity of faithful obedience within Becons treatise is easily spotted, and is
supported by the texts opening poem which extols the virtue Becon most
hoped to instil in his readers: To knowe thy selfe thou mayst learne here /
God and thy kynge truely to obeye.73
The text itself is straightforward, and Becon never veers from his five
facets of evangelical righteousness. Humility is used as a trope for dis-
cussing human sinfulness, inflicted on humanity in Adams fall, while
pure innocence leads to a discussion of salvation and how, through faith
alone, Christ restores the righteous to innocence before God. Thus far,
Nosegaye is a simple recapitulation of the evangelical message, human
depravity and justification. What is remarkable, however, is Becons third
section (Faythfull Obedience), by far the books longest and most sus-
tained discussion, taking up almost one-third of the text. By acknowledg-
ing their frailty and sin, as well as their justification before God, believers
are drawn to a proper reverence for obedience, both to Christ through
faith and, thereafter, to the prince. Indeed, faith and obedience are inti-
mately connected: internal obedience to Christ is the source of charity
that leads to outward obedience to all temporal authority. The Christian is
charged to seek Faythfull Obedience & [it] shall aspire and breath unto
you suche redolent & swete odoure that ye shal therby receave strength &
knowledge to do your duty unto our moost victorious & moost vertuous
Prince withe all submission & lowlynes of herte.74 Here evangelical faith
and submission to royal authority are linked, not because the king himself
is righteous, but because the gospel has inflamed the heart, through faith,
to submit to all external authority, good or evil. Thus true belief leads to
true submission in all aspects of life; obedience is the fruit of divine grace.

71A similar rhetorical strategy is employed in Davids harpe (London: J. Mayler, 1542;
STC 1717), where Becon expounds Psalm 150 as eight strings of the harp. Becons intended
audience is almost always lay readership, hence his proclivity to structure his books in
ways that might be easily remembered.
72They are listed at Becon, Nosegaye, Biii.
73Becon, Nosegaye, Aiv.
74Becon, Nosegaye, Ciiv.
80 chapter two

Ones willingness to honour the civil magistrate constitutes an entire life

of obedience, and the Gospel ensures that that affecte maye be in you,
that was in Christ Jesus.75
Rhetorical indicators in the text reveal Becons intentions more clearly.
The character Philemon, the main advocate in several of Becons works,
typically delivers a monologue to his guests, who are more-or-less mute
bystanders. After Philemon concludes his initial discourse on submission
to temporal authority, however, the guest Christopher begins a lengthy
speech, in which he presents an idealised response:
Who hathe ever had so precious a Nosegay, as this shall be, which shall teach
us to be humble, lowly, gentle, meke, and replete with all submission,
whiche also shal aspire and breath unto us suche savours, as wherby we
shalllearne to do our duties both toward God, our kynge, & our christen
brothers, which thynge is the very whole summe of all christianite. Who so
ever shal have this nosegaye continually in his hande, and small well of it, he
maye be sure to be preserved from all pestiferous ayres, so that he shall ney-
ther offend god, nor his Prince, nor yet his neyghbour, but worke all thynges
accordynge to Gods moost holy plesure.76
Becons words here should not be downplayed. It would be difficult to find
bolder language in early modern political thinking than Becons claim
that obedience to God, king, and neighbour is the very whole summe of
all christianitie. This triad was a regular part of Henrician rhetoric from
the 1530s, and Becon continues to align his teachings with the royal
agenda. Becon deliberately ties these themes into his understanding of
godliness: obedience, submission, humilitythe Christian life is epito-
mised by these virtues. Since a believer is entirely destitute save for the
mercy of Christ, the life of faith is read through the lens of humility lead-
ing to obedience, which engraffeth in us all kynde of vertues. So that it
maye ryghte well be named, the mother & nurse of al goodnes & hon-
este.77 Becon reproaches Anabaptists who deny the office of the magis-
trates & hyghe powers to be the ordinance of God, and affirme that it can
by no meanes stonde with the Gospell of Christe; the new authorities
granted to the king in all poyntes consent with the moost holy worde of
God. He continues that the office of the magistrate is entirely necessary,
because

75Becon, Nosegaye, Ciiv. Rexs comments (Obedience, pp. 8701) are helpful in this
regard; the fruit of obedience was a consistent theme in the medieval church, but its focus
was primarily on monastic obedience, and thus spiritual obedience, and rarely concerned
with civil authority.
76Becon, Nosegaye, Ciii-Ciiiv.
77Becon, Nosegaye, Di.
 english evangelicals, persecution, and obedience81

withoute this regiment and governaunce of the hyghe powers, no publique

weale can remayne in safe estate, no frendshyppe canne be mayntayned, no
fayth can be regarded, no order can be kepte, no propriete of goodes can be
saved, no vertu can reigne, no tranquilite can consist, nor any goodnes con-
tinue, but all must nedes growe out of order.78

Christ, in particular, serves as the supreme example of meekness, obedi-

ence and submission even to the point of death. His willingness to pay
tribute to Caesar, to submit to heinous injustice at the crucifixion, and his
teaching on the radical distinction between the kingdom of heaven and
the kingdoms of the earth, each serve to increase evangelical obedience.79
The apostles rejected civil power and were contente with theyr offyce,
which was to preache Gods worde; thus, the gospel destroyeth not, but
rather magnifieth the authorite of the hygh powers, seinge Christ wylled
them not to take upon them the office of temporal regiment contrary
to equite, but only to be as servuauntes and dispensatours of the misteries
of GOD.80
Becons construal of political rule and, above all, his concern for main-
taining order in a sinful world, certainly fits within a broadly Henrician
stream of thought. His affirmation of the role of the magistrate to restrain
sin and guarantee order, peace and harmony through the use of force
even his division between internal/external obediencewas hardly new.
But his teachings were nevertheless moulded by evangelical and conti-
nental interpretations of key biblical texts, particularly from the Old
Testament. He holds the Israelite theocracy as the model for contempo-
rary government: To shewe that the authorite of the magistrates & com-
mon officers is the ordinaunce of God, whereof maye I rather take a
begynnynge, than of the publique weale of the Israelites?81 Moses is
described as the divinely appointed king of Israel, and he serves as a typo-
logical norm for Tudor kingship, appointing lesser magistrates to rule
Israel effectively as well as providing a biblical warrant to prove,establysh,&
corroborate the authorite of kynges and other civile magistrates.82 The
role of the king, while not sacralised tout court, is nevertheless drawn into
Gods salvific work as civil government is sustained by Gods providential
will, providing the context in which the church ministers. Becon, echoing

78Becon, Nosegaye, Gv-Gvv.

79A lengthy list of biblical citations showing Christs ultimate obedience can be found
at Becon, Nosegaye, Ciii-Ciiiv.
80Becon, Nosegaye, Hiii.
81Becon, Nosegaye, Gvi.
82Becon, Nosegaye, Gviiv.
82 chapter two

Tyndale, even used Zurichs argument from Psalm 82: Gods power is
installed in kings and, thus, they are a direct manifestation of divine
authority on earth:
god him self also sayth by the mouth of David, ye are Gods, ye are al the
sonnes of the moost hyghest. Dothe not god here playnly saye, that the mag-
istrates are gods, that is, such as beare the offices of GODIf they be the
officers of God, & exercyse his offyce, so that he approveth & alloweth their
state and manner of lyvinge, howe can any man righteously condemne and
rejecte theyr authorite & power[?] Cursed be they, that knowlege not from
the very herte the hygh powers to be ordened of God, and that therfore they
oughte to be obeyed & had in perpetual reverence and honoure.83
This argument appears here unchanged from its original articulation in
1528 in Tyndales Obedience.

Obedience, Civil Disobedience and Evangelical Suffering

Energy and self-confidence now restored, conservatives in the 1540s

moved to root out pockets of heresy in England. Naturally, though, evan-
gelical wellsprings did not dry up overnight. Even after the execution of
several leading evangelicals, heretical ideas were still a source of worry.
Bonner and Gardiner were rightly concerned about the subversive pres-
ence of these underground evangelical networks which, though small,
could have had a deleterious effect on ecclesiastical discipline.84 If Bonner
and Gardiner set the pace, then officials in London and throughout
England consistently moved to enforce these terms. In London, nearly
two hundred evangelicals were arrested and questioned, most of whom
(all but two, according to Foxe85) were later cleared of any charges. A slap
on the wrist appears to have been sufficient. Despite overly zealous
descriptions of a wave of terror sweeping London, efforts to suppress lay
involvement in evangelicalism were designed to beat the bushes in the
hopes of scaring out a few names. It also served to embarrass those who
had previously been known to associate with evangelicals.
While persecution was sporadic amongst lay evangelicals, conserva-
tives nevertheless focused heavily on the evangelical leaders. As a result,

83Becon, Nosegaye, Hi. The discussion of evil kings is at Gviiv-Gviii.

84Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 308324. See also, Brigden, Popular
Disturbance and the Fall of Thomas Cromwell and the Reformers, 153940, HJ 24/2 (1981):
2578.
85Quoted in Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 422.
 english evangelicals, persecution, and obedience83

gospel preachers increasingly found themselves accused of sedition and

treasona shrewd tactic by conservatives designed to undercut the obe-
dience rhetoric of the 1530s. Even after his death, Barnes reputation was
substantial enough that he was targeted in a semi-official refutation by
John Standish, in which he was described as a traitor and disloyal to Henry
and the Supremacy.86 The shock of these claims was certainly intentional
given that Barnes was a regular voice in London pulpits in the years pre-
ceding his death. Now he was persona non grata and outfitted with all the
accessories of a first-rate heresiarch. Standish wrung every drop of mean-
ing from Barnes works, picking up on traces of deviance wherever possi-
ble. Notably, he claimed that Barnes sympathised with Anabaptism (an
ironic charge given Barnes earlier appointment to root out sacramentar-
ians and Anabaptists in London in 1538 and his involvement in the trial
and execution of John Lambert).87
The sting of these accusations was intolerable to Coverdale, now living
abroad, and he worked quickly to restore Barnes reputation by issuing a
point-by-point rejoinder vindicating Barnes life-long submission to royal
authority.88 Coverdales Confutacion of Standish was a balancing act, offer-
ing a critique of Standishs work and seeking to revive Barnes image as a
supporter of the Supremacy. While his sparring with Standish was
standard farescathing remarks about conservative theology and prac-
tice are found throughoutCoverdales descriptions of political authority
were unambiguous. Through studying the Bible, English evangelicals
knew that God abhorred sedition and required Christians to move no
insurrectionto confute the false opinion of the Anabaptistes, to deteste
and abhorre all such sects, to set forth the glory of god, obedience to the
hyer powers, and the true religion of Christ.89 Barnes, he argues, consis-
tently affirmed the Supremacy; to deny this would be to lead believers
unto deedly sinne, contrary to S. Paul Roman. XIII.90 His obedience,

86J. Standish, A lytle treatise composyd by Johan Standysshe against the protestacion of
Robert Barnes at the tyme of his death (London: R. Redman, 1540; STC 23209). Standishs
career was quite dependent on the vicissitudes of Tudor politics, moving first towards an
evangelical position under Edward VI, even becoming chaplain to the king and Bishop of
London, while later returning to a conservative stance under Mary and writing a lengthy
refutation of the Supremacy which he dedicated to Reginald Pole: The triall of the suprem
acy wherein is set fourth ye unitie of christes church militant geuen to S. Peter and his succes
soures by Christe (London: T. Marshe, 1556; STC 23211).
87Rex, Henry VIII and the English Reformation, p. 153.
88M. Coverdale, Confutacion of that treatise, which one John Standish made againste
D. Barnes (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1541; STC 5888).
89Coverdale, Confutacion, Aviii.
90Coverdale, Confutacion, Bvi.
84 chapter two

owever, did not keep him from speaking as an Old Testament prophet
h
who censured unbelief and moral failure.91 Just as prophets served and
supported Israels monarchy, so too did Barnes serve Henry well by
preaching against false teaching. Coverdale insists that Barnes protest
(and his own) is only necessary insofar as royal policies run contrary to
scripture. Barnes Supplication to Henry VIII makes it
manifest also thathe confesseth that no man in England is excepte from
the subjection of the Kynges power, nether bisshoppe ner other. He confess-
eth also, that the Kynges prerogatyve is alowed by gods worde. He saieth like
wise in the nexte leafe, that it is not laufull for the spiritualtye to depose a
Kynge. Is not this trueth?92

Coverdale states that Standishs work is a naked attempt to blaspheme

the Kynges highnesse, chefe and suppreme head nexte under god of this
saide church of England, without whose auctorite no execucion maie lau-
fully be done within his dominion.93
Theologians and churchmen were not the only ones to come under
heavy scrutiny. In one notorious instance, records of the examination and
execution of Anne Askew, a Lincolnshire noblewoman whose family was
intimately connected with the royal household, were redacted and pub-
lished in two volumes with running commentary by John Bale.94 He writes
that Askew was personally racked and tortured by Rich and Wriothesley
during her examination, a claim that may be true but was certainly
designed to discredit conservatives within the regime. Bales early career
as a playwright served him well in this enterprise as he wove together a
number of literary elements: medieval sainthood, Protestant martyrology,
and grisly descriptions of Askews torture and death.
Persecution was a powerful image for Bale, and the execution of Anne
Askew ranked foremost in his mind as an outrageous perversion of justice.
In both texts, Bale places Askews death in the context of an apocalyptic
struggle between Christ and Antichrist. Askew was murdered by the

91Coverdale, Confutacion, Bvv.

92Coverdale, Confutacion, Civv-Cv.
93Coverdale, Confutacion, Diii.
94Cf. O. Wort, Reformation conversion: an essay on John Bale PhD dissertation
(University of Cambridge, 2010); E. Beilin (ed.), The Examinations of Anne Askew (Oxford:
Oxford UP, 1996); T. Freeman and S. Wall, Racking the body, shaping the text : the account
of Anne Askew in Foxes Book of Martyrs Renaissance Quarterly 54.4.1 (2001): 11651196;
D. Loewenstein, Writing and the persecution of heretics in Henry VIIIs England : The
Examinations of Anne Askew in D. Loewenstein and J. Marshall (eds), Heresy, Literature,
and Politics in Early Modern English Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006).
 english evangelicals, persecution, and obedience85

Romysh popes upholders.95 Bale argues that Satan will dominate king-
doms and princes in the last days, as Christ and hys Apostles have suf-
fered lyke tyrannye.96 Sufferings brought about by Antichrist, then, are to
be expected since the servaunt is no better than her mastre.97 More
important is Bales intention in publishing such graphic descriptions of
torture and martyrdom.98 Askews death was not merely designed to com-
memorate an evangelical martyr; Bale sees in her death a typology of godly
submission. Though he is outraged over Askews examination, he never-
theless holds that such evils are ultimately in the hands of God:
As he is of power to cease the storme and to make the wether caulme, Psalm
105. So is he able to change a kynges indignacyon (whych is but deathe) into
most peaceable faver and lovynge gentylnesse, Proverbiorum 16. For the
hart of a kynge is evermore in the hande of God, and he maye turne it whych
waye he will, Prover 21. Hys eternall pleasure it is, that ye shuld honoure
your kynge as hys immedyate mynyster concernynge your bodyes and lyves
1 Petri 2 and that ye shuld with all gentylnesse obeye the temporall rulers.
Romano. 13.99
Bale consistently draws a connection between Askews suffering and her
adherence to the New Testament teachings on civil authority found in
Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. His message is simple: through reading Gods
word, Askew has found true obedience.
In a world still saturated with chivalry and honour, Bales descriptions
of the torture of a noblewoman were more than provocative. This was the
image of an evangelical woman dying under tyranny. Askews torture
serves as a tangible expression of evangelical obedience, as her death and
submission are held as the expression of gospel faith:
She is not here dejectedBut standynge up strongelye in the lorde, most
gentyllye she obeyeth the powers, she blesseth her vexers & pursuers &
wysheth them the light of Gods necessarye knowledge, Luce 6. She consy-
dereth the powers to be ordayned of God. Romanorum 13. And though their
autoryte be sore abused, yet with Christ and hys Apostles, she humblye sub-
mytteth herself to them, thynkynge to suffer undre them as no yll doer but
as Christes true servaunt, 1 Peter 4.100

95J. Bale, The first examinacyon of Anne Askewe (Wesel: D. Van der Straten, 1546;
STC 848), Ai.
96Bale, The first examinacyon, Bviiiv.
97Bale, The first examinacyon, Eiv.
98On this, see D. Loewenstein, Writing and the persecution of heretics in Henry VIIIs
England : The Examinations of Anne Askew.
99Bale, The first examinacyon, Fvv-Fvi.
100J. Bale, The lattre examinacyon of Anne Askewe (Wesel: D. Van der Straten, 1547;
STC 850), Eiv-Eivv.
86 chapter two

Bale contends that Askew put her defence before Henry and his council,
not as a challenge to their authority, but in full submission to their pre-
rogative to put them in remembryaunce of their offyce concernynge the
swerde, whych they ought not vaynelye to mynystre, Roma 13. It was her
willingness to submit to outrageous persecution, in Bales mind, that
allowed her to prove her obedience to temporal rulers. In the ende, he
concludes, she commytteth her cause and quarell to God, wherin she
declareth her onlye hope to be in hym, and no man. Psalm 145.101
This stark juxtaposition of persecution and submission to royal author-
ity is characteristic of evangelicalism throughout the 1540s, though the
theme of suffering has not been given its due by historians. But in terms of
the doctrine of obedience it played a greater role in evangelical writings in
Henrys final years and shaped evangelical opposition to conservative leg-
islation. Some of the harshest critics amongst evangelicals, in fact, regu-
larly taught that suffering was the outcome of preaching the gospel
message. Echoing a long-standing tradition of martyrdom in Christian
theology, evangelicals interpreted their immediate suffering as a test of
their submission to external authority. Their goal was not to undermine
obedience by refusing to comply with the kings demands but to prove
their obedience by their willingness to receive corporal punishment.
George Joye made much of this idea. From 1541 to 1543, he published a
number of rebuttals of conservative teachings, principally on the sacra-
ments and clerical marriage. These issues were non-negotiable for Joye,
even if they were propagated by the kings authority. If their articles and
actes, concerne Crists religion, shewe us some one worde of Crist to con-
firme them, or if they be of Cristes religion, so must thei be made inCrists&
his apostels tyme.102 He maintained that civil and ecclesiastical laws
must in general be checked against the word of God: And if they be
agenst Godis wordeso ar[e] they not onely unadvysedly made, but also
ungodly.103 Joye nevertheless continues to proclaim his desire that Henry
would look to the scriptures for obedience:
Oh ye princes of the worlde, cleve to goddis worde of peace & power, & fere
ye no insurreccion of your subjectes, preche them the worde of peace, & in
peace shall ye raigne over them, but presse the worde of peace, persecute &
slaye the preachers therof, and what ye fered the same shal come upon you,
make ye never so stronge castels and brason walles to defende you.104

101Bale, The lattre examinacyon, Eivv.

102G. Joye, The defence of the mariage of preistes (Antwerp: J. Troost, 1541; STC 21804),
Aviv.
103Joye, The defence of the marriage of preistes, Biiv.
104Joye, The defence of the marriage of preistes, Diiv.
 english evangelicals, persecution, and obedience87

Joyes writings from the 1540s are filled with increasingly gloomy predic-
tions about the reformation in England. But his point is not that evangeli-
cals will rise in rebellion if they are oppressed, but that by granting power
to conservatives the king implicitly weakens his own authority, as they
will move to usurp the throne. In other words, the disjunction between
seditious Catholicism and obedient evangelicalism remains.
From 1544, Joyes attention turned almost exclusively to the issue of
persecution. He wrote A present consolacion as a result of his anxiety over
Englands opposition to evangelicalism. He begins with an acknowledge-
ment that English elites fear that yf this newe learninge and Lutherane
gospell (for so call they gods holy worde) shulde come in frely to be
preched, oh what an innovacionwhat sedicions, tumults and hurle bur-
lis shuld we have a none in this now so peacable region.105 His response to
those persecuted is that the gospel preched is the worde of the crosse.106
Suffering is a part of faith and unites the believer to Christs suffering.
Conservatives, on the other hand, proved themselves to be seditious to
their head and governer when they rose in the Pilgrimage of Grace:
Were they not the bysshops, abots & preists which were the autours of that
sediciouse insurreccion and persecucion of their owne kinge? And how say
you, my lordis, was it juste execution or persecucion that ye wold have pros-
ecuted ageynst our owne head & governer at that tyme if ye might have had
your daye so longe loked for?107
Joye confesses that conservatives persecute him for preaching two key
doctrines:
that onely faith justifieth before god, & good workis to declare owr faith, our
obedience to godand because I affirmed the pope, cardinalls, bisshops,
and all ecclesiastike sorte to be by gods worde subjecte to the seclare ordi-
nary powers as to their emprowr and their owne kings, for thus prechinge
and sayinge, thei had brent me to, if I had not fled out of the londe.108
Joye went further the following year when he published a compilation of
various commentaries on the book of Daniel drawn, the frontispiece tells
us, from the works of Melanchthon, Oecolampadius, and Pellican.109 The

105G. Joye, A present consolacion for the sufferers of persecucion for ryghtwysenes
(Antwerp: S. Mierdman, 1544; STC 14828), Aiiv.
106Joye, A present consolacion, Aiiiv.
107Joye, A present consolacion, Aviiv.
108Joye, A present consolacion, Avii.
109G. Joye, The exposicion of Daniel (Antwerp: s.n., 1545, STC 14823). Where Joye quotes
from these works is not altogether clear, apart from the preface, which was written by
Melanchthon. Joye extemporises quite a bit throughout the text and it is relatively easy to
spot his own comments on England, Gardiner and Henry VIII.
88 chapter two

choice to write on Daniel was already suggested in Consolation for the

s ufferers, where he noted that Daniel & the Apocalypse paynt forth
christes chirche in farre other blody colours of affliccion & persecution.110
Throughout the commentary, Joye highlights those areas in Daniel where
faithful Israelites refuse to obey ungodly commands and willingly suffer
persecution and death. When instructed to bow down to a royal statue of
the Babylonian king, the Old Testament teaches that to fall downe before
any ymage is contrary and against Gods worship. Thus, he argues, the
contemporary practice of creeping to the cross is the same as when
Nebucadnezar bid them faldowne to the ymage.111 In particular, Joye sees
an analogy between the attempted execution of Shadrach, Meshach and
Abednego (Daniel 3) and the burning of evangelicals in England:
I mervell emperours and princes be not afrayed, so boldely and so lyghtely at
every popisshe fryers & Bisshops complaynt and persuasion to burne so
many innocents as they have done of late in all realmes christend.112
The Babylonian king considered unwillingness to bow down before his
own image as an act of sedition. Despite these slanders, Joye praises the
Israelites for their willingness to die rather than commit idolatry. By refus-
ing to obey evil commands God spared their lives when they were thrown
into the fire. Thus, Joye argues, it is in their suffering that evangelicals find
an example of a cruel kinge converted. This proves that not onely the
kings herte but also al the hertes of his nobles and officers to be in the
hande of God.113 In other words, evangelicals could only change Henrys
heart by obedience and suffering. Joye certainly does not mollify his antip-
athy for tyranny, and he scorns European rulers who continue to perse-
cute the godly. But he restricts the punishment of kings to eternity: beware,
he says, those who burn Christians for for except ye repent with this kinge,
ye must nedis be brent your selves with all the devills in hell perpetually.
Joyes primary concern was to teach evangelicals how to respond to evil.
When Christians are confronted with tyranny, they respond by offering
their bodies rather to be brent then thei wolde worship or fal downe
before any thing then their owne god.114 Obedience is sacrifice.

110Joye, A present consolacion, Avi.

111Joye, The exposicion of Daniel, Eivv (fol. 36v). Joyes interpretation of Daniel is dis-
cussed in Ryrie, Gospel and Henry VIII, p. 65, though Ryries focus is on how evangelicals
criticise the king and not on Joyes preoccupation with suffering and persecution.
112Joye, The exposicion of Daniel, Eviv (fol. 38v).
113Joye, The exposicion of Daniel, Evii (fol. 39).
114Joye, The exposicion of Daniel, Eviii (fol. 40).
 english evangelicals, persecution, and obedience89

One of the harshest critics of the regime was Henry Brinklow, who was
inconsolable over the religious policies enacted after Cromwells fall.
Once Parliament was under way in January 1542, he published a pamphlet
under the nom de plume Roderyck Mors, detailing what he considered to
be the biblical teaching on the reformation of society. The themes pre-
sented in The Complaynt of Roderyck Mors115 cover a wide array of sub-
jects, from political policy and economics to theology. His work is of
particular importance to the doctrine of obedience as it served both as a
critique of government and as an articulation of an ideal commonwealth.
Each of these elements in Brinklows works has drawn the attention of
historians.116 More recently, however, Brinklows spirited language has
been read as evidence of general dissatisfaction with Tudor government.
Shagan and Gunther have drawn out several interesting points about
Brinklows scheme for Englands reformation and have suggested that his
desire was not to limit royal power but to make it more godly.117 Ryrie
goes further and describes Brinklow in stark terms, suggesting that he
challenged the Supremacy and issued a personal attack on Henry VIII.118
Two points within the document concern us here: what Ryrie alleges to
be an attack on Henry VIIIs divorce from Catherine of Aragon and a pos-
sible attack on the Supremacy itself. Both, of course, were essentially con-
nected in terms of royal policy. On the first point, it is clear that Brinklow
never addressed the king directly, but wrote to parliament. The Complaynt
of Roderyck Mors focuses on a number of policies that Brinklow found
repugnantcruel lawes and hevy yockys119which he hoped parlia-
ment would address to the king. It is doubtful, however, that this served
even as an indirect attack on Henry. Brinklows entire point is not to attack
government but to offer counsel as to how to proceed with the reforma-
tion of England.120 Brinklow alleges that lesser magistrates (presumably

115H. Brinklow, The Complaynt of Rederyck Mors (Strasbourg: 1542, W. Kpfel;

STC 3759.5).
116Brinklow was added to the ranks of the so-called Commonwealth men, as his criti-
cism of economic and social injustice fit perfectly within this school of thought. See for
example W.R.D. Jones, The Tudor Commonwealth, 15291559 (London: Athlone, 1970).
117Gunther and Shagan, Protestant Radicalism, p. 46. Their general interpretation of
Brinklow is certainly correct, though they stress certain points of Brinklows theology in an
effort to demonstrate his radicalism. For example, it is an overstatement to say that
Brinklows appeal for Parliament to listen to evangelical counsel meant that a preacher
would set the agenda of parliament (p. 45).
118Ryrie, Gospel and Henry VIII, p. 63.
119Brinklow, Roderyck Mors, Aivv.
120J. Guy, The Rhetoric of Counsel in Early Modern England, in D. Hoak (ed), Tudor
Political Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995).
90 chapter two

local officials and sheriffs) were oppressing true religion, but that the
cowncel of parlament is the head cowncel in these matters, for they be
called together of god.121 Brinklow, in other words, was assuming that
evangelical voices had not yet been stifled, and he hoped that, through
parliament, the king might be moved to enact reforms. Like William
Turner, Brinklow denied that a king or pope may dispense with biblical
law concerning marriage, stating that thow shalt not put away thy wife
but only for adultery. Ryrie claims that this is a jab at Henrys divorce. But
it would be difficult to see how this was directed at Henry, whose divorce
campaign was, in fact, based on the claim that scripture forbade marrying
your brothers wife. It is unlikely that Brinklow would drag up Henrys
divorce at this point, a fait accompli for over ten years, especially since
evangelicals in England were almost universally in favour of Henrys posi-
tion on the divorce. Brinklow, instead, explicitly states that he is targeting
legislation from 15401543 that forced recently married priests to separate
from their wives and return to clerical celibacy.122 He finds this repugnant,
as priests had entered into valid marriage, which legislation was declaring
void. The concern, in his mind, is that a number of divorces are being
forced upon clergy without the support of the Bible.
Secondly, Brinklows bitter language might seem to indicate that he
harboured some aversion to the idea of obedience to a reprobate govern-
ment. Indeed, there is certainly language that can be read as a denial of
royal authority: what so ever the parlament dothcan not erre, he
mocked, in which case have ye brought Rome home to your own dores, &
geven the auctoryte to the kyng and the parlament, that the carnal biss-
hops gave unto the pope.123 The choice to compare the Supremacy with
papal headship was a harsh judgment on government policy. But while
such language was abrasive, it would be an overstatement to say that this
is an out and out rejection of the doctrine of obedience.124 Like Turner and
Joye, Brinklow taught that the king could not impose heretical practices
by his own authority, but that the believers duty was to suffer. Brinklow
specifies that his criticisms were not directed at the Supremacy itself, but
at the manner in which conservatives were using royal authority to allow
lesser magistrates and priests to remain immune from criticism. He cites a
particular case where a vicar charged a layman with treason after he had

121Brinklow, Roderyck Mors, Aiv.

122Cf. Brinklow, Roderyck Mors, Fviiiv, where Brinklow cites clerical celibacy as the rea-
son for his discussion of marriage laws.
123Brinklow, Roderyck Mors, Dvv.
124Ryrie, Gospel and Henry VIII, p. 63.
 english evangelicals, persecution, and obedience91

censured the priest for immorality; the indignant cleric argued that his
appointment was from the king and thus to challenge his actions was an
implicit denial of royal authority.125 Brinklow scorns this extension of
royal authority to include anyone appointed by the king, so he is not
rejecting the Supremacy but rather demanding it not be used to support
idolatry. In short, he charged conservatives with attempting to make the
kyng [a] popethat is use the Supremacy to inforce conservative wor-
ship.126 At the very beginning of Complaynt, in fact, Brinklow argued in
favour of the Supremacy in language echoing most other evangelicals:
In as moch as there is no power but of god, and when so ever any persons be
grevyd, oppressyd or over yockyd, they must resort unto the hyer powrys for
remedy, whych be ordeynyd of god only for the same cause.
He states from the outset that, in rebuking evil laws, they are not advocat-
ing resistance of any kind as it is a sin against God:
And though they be agaynst gods word, yet may we not bodily resist them
with any warre, violence, or insurreccyon, under payne of damnacyon. But
now contrary wyse, as we may not resist the power of a prynce, evyn so may
we not observe nor walke in hys wyckyd laws, if he make any against gods
word, but rather suffer death, so that we may neyther observe them, nor yet
violently resist them in that case.127
He declares his full intentions later in the text, arguing that recent argu-
ments for the Supremacy make human law inerrant and thus render it
impossible to loke for any amendment of any thing.128 Yet the right to
counsel the king according to scripture was not a rejection of obedience,
and it openly and repeatedly rejects violent resistance of any kind. Like
many evangelicals, Brinklow argued that God used evangelical preaching
to restore the Supremacy in England:
And thorow the preaching of these poore wretchyshe hath wrought this,
that where as the kyng was before but a shadow of a kyng, or at most but
halfe a king, now he doth wholly raygne thorow their preaching, writing and
suffryng.129
In no sense is this language an appeal to resistanceindeed, it closely fol-
lows Tyndales Obedience. Tyndale states that it is better to suffer one

125Brinklow, Roderyck Mors, Dvv.

126Brinklow, Roderyck Mors, Dviv.
127Brinklow, Roderyck Mors, Aiiiv-Aiv.
128Brinklow, Roderyck Mors, Dvi.
129Brinklow, Roderyck Mors, Fviii-Fviiiv.
92 chapter two

tyraunte unto the kynge then a shadow, a passive kinge that doth noughte
himselfe.130 Papal usurpation, for Tyndale, makes kings shadows, while
evangelical truth leads to true obedience. Brinklows arguments endorse
the same point that one must allow persecution to continue and not
respond in violence or resistance. While it is true that Stephen Gardiner
was infuriated by this document,131 the source of his anger is more likely
Brinklows salacious claims that Gardiner was having a torrid love affair
with a married woman, whom Brinklow threatens to exposean empty
threat and undoubtedly a political assassination attempt for Gardiners
role in Barnes death. This does not seem to be a mere squabble over polit-
ical theory.132
Evangelical insistence on submission to civil authority is reflected in a
fascinating document published anonymously by the Dutch migr
Nicholas Hill in the final years of Henrys reign.133 The author is unknown,
though he is clearly an evangelical living in England at the time. An heav
enly acte portrays God the father, Christ and a number of biblical figures as
a heavenly kingdom, yet here the standard Henrician rhetorical order is a
mirror image: rather than describe Henry as a divinely-sanctioned, bibli-
cal monarch, God himself is depicted as the very epitome of a Tudor king.
God takes the role of the sovereign, Christ his vicegerent in spirituals.
God is said to have convened a parliament of his temporal and spiritual
houses, with Moses as the Speaker of Parliament, St Paul as Lord
Chancellor and St John as the Secretary. The text is written in the language
of an official act that has proceeded from this assembly in which God
speaks directly to his people, issuing his laws for Christian living.
After a preamble, the author turns to expound the Ten Commandments,
though clearly he has more than simple devotion in mind. Only two of the
commandments receive extensive attention: the prohibition against idols
and the charge to honour father and mother. The others are mentioned
only in a brief summary at the end.134 The vast bulk of the text, then, is
devoted to the Supremacy. Honouring ones parents is glossed, following
Luther and Tyndale, as a commandment to honour the prince. God

130Tyndale, Obedience, Eiv.

131The Letters of Stephen Gardiner, (ed) J.A. Muller (New York: Macmillan, 1933),
pp. 15963.
132Brinklow writes that he kepeth other mennys wyveswhich I could name, and wil
doo after, if he leave not his shameless whordom (Gvi). Cf. Brigden, London and the
Reformation, p. 342.
133An heauenly acte (London?: s.n., 1547?; STC 95). An identical copy of the text was
published that same year by John Day (STC 96).
134An heauenly acte, Aiiiv-Aiv.
 english evangelicals, persecution, and obedience93

charges his people to obey their kings in all matters, even in cases that
appear to contradict biblical norms that do not directly imperil the soul.
For example, though oaths are strongly forbidden, a Christian may take
the oath of the Supremacy if the obediens to your prince shal be required
of you by oath.135 Swearing obedience to the king in Gods name is inter-
preted as proper obedience to God himself, and does not constitute a sin-
ful act. Indeed, God is said to be the ground and author of all royal power:
we have constituted kinges & rulers to governe the erthe to whom we will
have dewe honor geven, for we have set them as oure commissioners under
us to execute our will for the whiche we will they be had in reverens, for the
coroboratinge of the same, our only son obeyd them, and also gave com-
maundement that tribute, toll, and custome shulde be given unto them.
Also lord chanceler Paul sayth, let every soule submit them selves unto the
higher powers and not to obey them only for fere but for consciens sake.136
The author states that the apostles taught submission to civil magistrates.
Even St. Peter, the superviser of Gods spiritual house, and the first to
reveal Christs divinity in the Gospels, taught full obedience to the king. As
evidence, he cites Tyndales translation of 1 Peter 2.13: submit yourselves
unto the kynge as unto the chefe head. Here again, obedience to royal
authority is at the heart of the Christian life since a believer must obey
them for our sake.137 Only in the most extreme casesif father or mother
commaunde any thinge contrarie unto our willis it considered better
to obey God rather than man. The right to passive resistance is thus main-
tained: only insofar as parents or kings supervene direct scriptural war-
rant is there any possible grounds for passive resistance. Such concessions,
however, are positioned within the entire context of a full and unalloyed
conceptualisation of royal authority.
An heavenly acte then moves seamlessly into a discussion of the cruci-
fixion, suffering and persecution. Christ, the vicegerent, came to provide
forgiveness to all who have rebelled. The redeemed enjoy both cleansing
from their sins and a return to obedience. They also enjoy temporal bless-
ings in the commonwealth: obedience to magistrates will tend to incur
Gods blessing on corn, livestock and all their activities, though it does not
guarantee such prosperity. God allows believers such as Job to suffer
under evil and wickedness.138 At times he even permits the wicked to

135An heauenly acte, Aiiiv-Aiv.

136An heauenly acte, Avv-Avi.
137An heauenly acte, Avi.
138An heauenly acte, Bivv-Bv.
94 chapter two

prosper since he is the potter that maye do what him lyst with the lumpe
of claye.139 Such persecutions, such injustices, come directly from God
and thus provide no warrant for supervening proper order and authority.
Yf man shall thus obedientlye prostrate his whole herte unto oure correc-
tion, then God will glorify the believers suffering in eternity, even should
he decide to take his temporall lyfe.140 Obedience, even to the point of
death, is unassailable, such that even tyrants are appointed by God and
cannot be actively resisted.

Conclusion

During the 1540s many evangelicals became painfully aware that Henry
VIII did not share their vision for a reformed commonwealth. The kings
idiosyncratic perspective on religion forced evangelicals to reconsider
their earlier rhetoric, which had been shaped by their assumption that
reform was taking root in England. The change in circumstances following
Cromwells death meant that evangelicals were suddenly pushed out of
governmental circles and were unable to preach their message. While the
1540s did not bring widespread persecutionconservatives were more
interested in silencing opposition figures than executing thema num-
ber of evangelicals chose to interpret these years in biblical terms as a
return to Egypt or captivity in Babylon.
But these were metaphors, not reality. Evangelical rhetoric during these
years was designed to counter the charge that they rejected the Supremacy,
that they were seditious, and that they refused to conform to the kings
will. The choice to express their obedience in terms of suffering was pro-
foundly important, then, as it allowed evangelicals to highlight their
commitment to the Supremacy without accepting the reintroduction of
conservative worship. The king cannot enforce evil; therefore he cannot
enforce conservative worship. There is nothing left to do, then, but obedi-
ently suffer for ones faith. In this respect, the doctrine of obedience did
not change during the 1540sevangelical opposition was still couched in
the language of obedience.

139An heauenly acte, Bv. The biblical citations referred to here are Jeremiah 18:6 and
Romans 9:21.
140An heauenly acte, Bvi.
 CHAPTER THREE

HENRICIAN RHETORIC AND GODLY JOSIAH:

OBEDIENCE AND EDWARD VI (15471553)

In Henrys last years, none could have imagined that Protestants would
take over the Privy Council. But the coronation of Edward was the apo-
theosis of evangelicalism. For the next six years, evangelicals and reform-
minded elites were in control of England, at least from the vantage of the
Council. The kings council would pursue a policy of reformation designed
to match Protestant movements on the continent. Evangelicals were over-
joyed. Within months of Henrys death, their macabre prophecies of the
destruction of England turned to praise for godly Josiah and Protector
Somerset. Not surprisingly, the differences in tone between these periods,
as well as the circumstances that brought them about, have provoked
scholarly debate.
Recent historiography has emphasised the role of the Royal Supremacy
in Edward VIs reign. After 1547, evangelicals wrote extensively on obedi-
ence and non-resistance. This renewed rhetoric of obedience can be
attributed to the sudden turn of events that occurred in Henrys final
months, as an evangelical establishment took control of the council and
imposed its will on England. MacCulloch has shown that this Edwardine
establishment knew from the start in 1547 exactly what Reformation it
wanted.1 Instances where the government appeared hesitant about its
next steps, he argues, were the result of heavy conservative opposition,
rather than indecision. The circumstances of Edwards reign, therefore,
required the council to emphasise the Supremacy, since the regime
needed to justify its own actions. Yet the king was a minor, and thus it was
dubious to use his authority as a basis for altering the Henrician establish-
ment. Gardiner and Bonner easily exploited this weakness and accused
the council of overstepping its authority. Thus, evangelicals used the doc-
trine of obedience to conceal the awkward fact that the king had little to
do with the reforms enacted in the English church.2

1MacCulloch, Cranmer, p. 365.

2On the kings minority and Edwardine rhetoric, see Alford, Kingship and Politics in the
Reign of Edward VI (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002), pp. 6599.
96 chapter three

Recent historiography nevertheless has fostered a misunderstanding

about evangelical obedience theory under Edward. Given the inevitably
collective nature of Edwards government, several historians have noticed
the themes of limited obedience and then interpreted these in the light
of later resistance theory. Catherine Davies, for example, writes that while
evangelicals wrote in favour of a godly prince the supremacy as such did
not bulk large in Edwardian polemic.3 Evangelicals wanted reform, not
the Supremacy. Limited obedience, she argues, was a dangerous idea
and, under Mary, Edwardian prophets became theorists of resistance.4
Richard Greaves and Gerald Bowler have argued that Swiss radicalism
contributed to this critique of the Supremacy and that resistance ideas
were beginning to enter English political vocabulary by the end of
Edwards reignnotably through the resistance of John Hooper in 1550.
Moreover, scholars who study the origins of the Elizabethan monarchical
republic have stressed the concept of dominium politicum et regale, and
have noted how, during the kings minority, English elites began to appre-
ciate the benefits of rule by consent and counsel. But this, too, has led to a
theory that resistance teachings are lurking in evangelical teachings on
obedience. John McDiarmid has recently argued that non-resistance texts
such as Chekes Hurt of sedition, somehow, gave tacit approval to later
resistance texts, such as Ponets Shorte treatise on political power. For
McDiarmid, the origins of resistance theory arose not from Swiss theology,
but from the Cambridge curriculum and the study of Cicero.5
This chapter will examine obedience rhetoric under Edward in the
light of these recent claims. It will argue that resistance theory hunters
have confused the doctrine of limited obedience with actual resistance
theory, and thereby assumed that disobedience or criticism of govern-
ment served as a first step towards rebellion. In fact, these themes were
part of the vocabulary used by Edwardine establishment, making obedi-
ence theory a vital part of the councils attempt to move England in a

3Davies, Poor Persecuted Little Flock or Commonwealth of Christians: Edwardian

Protestant Concepts of the Church in P. Lake and M. Dowling (eds), Protestantism and the
National Church in Sixteenth Century England (London: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 78. Davies
notes a tension in Edwardine evangelicalism between the image of the church as a perse-
cuted minority and the image of the commonwealth of Christians under a godly king
a tension that allowed evangelicals to develop ideas of separatist ecclesiology within the
framework of the Royal Supremacy. Similar arguments are found in Gunther and Shagan,
Protestant Radicalism.
4Religion of the word, p. 233.
5J. McDiarmid, Common Consent, Latinitas, and the Monarchical Republic in Mid-
Tudor Humanism, in J. McDiarmid (ed), The Monarchical Republic of Early Modern
England (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), pp. 6971.
 henrician rhetoric and godly josiah97

Protestant direction. An important element of their propaganda cam-

paign was the insistence that the government was following the word
of God.

Obedience and Reform During the Protectorate

Evangelicals understood what they gained from Henry VIIIs death on 28

January 1547: greater freedom for reform. If there is anything indisputable
about Edwards reign, it is that evangelicals were again at the centre of
powernot the only agents shaping government policy but an indispens-
able part of the Edwardine commonwealth. After Somerset assumed the
Protectorate, he rapidly consolidated power within the Privy Council and
opened the floodgates of English evangelicalism.6 Though attempts have
been made to cast doubt on Somersets commitment to evangelicalism,
there is little to commend such claims.7 His policies were more than a
cynical excuse to pillage church lands. Evangelicals such as Becon and
Hooper served as chaplains in Somersets home, and he read enough
Protestant theology to have been familiar with Calvins writings. From the
start of the Protectorate, he backed legislation against Catholic worship,
and in December 1547, it was reported that he had abandoned daily Mass
in his home.8 While Someset was in control, evangelicals were given free-
dom to publish (a freedom they quickly took advantage of), and Pauls
Cross was occupied by some of the most theologically uncompromising
evangelicals in England.9 As MacCulloch has argued, this was a Protestant
regime following a consistent vision of doctrinal reform.10
The governments resurrection of English reform meant that evangeli
cals turned their attention to the doctrine of obedience. Both sides ben
efited from this relationship. The council needed to enforce conformity

6On Somersets evangelical policies Cf. Brigden, London and the Reformation, 4267,
434; See also, MacCulloch, Cranmer, pp. 3656. For the view that Somerset supported
evangelical texts, see J.N. King, English Reformation Literature (Princeton: Princeton UP,
1986), ch. 2.
7Jordan (Edward VI: The Young King [Berknap, 1968], p. 125) sees him as a Protestant of
moderate and Erastian persuasion; an attempt to discredit Somersets evangelicalism is
J. Loach, Edward VI (New Haven: Yale, 1999), pp. 425, which rests primarily on the claim
that Somersets personal religion was conventional. No evidence as to why is religion is
conventional, or why Erastianism should be considered non-Protestant is given.
8Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 434; cf. CSP SP. ix, p. 221.
9P. Williams, The Later Tudors: England, 15471603 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1995), p. 43,
finds that, of the 160 texts printed in England under Edward, 159 were evangelical.
10MacCulloch, Cranmer, p. 365. See also MacCulloch, Tudor Church Militant: Edward VI
and the Protestant Reformation (London: Penguin, 2002), ch. 3.
98 chapter three

throughout England, and evangelicals were keen to spread their message.

Evangelical support for the councils decisions, then, was only natural.
A survey of Edwardine political writings reveals the extent to which evan-
gelicals connected the Supremacy with biblical reform. Cranmer signalled
this with his brief coronation manifesto before Edward on 20 February, in
which he rehearsed the familiar themes of the Supremacy, placing all
power to repress heresy and advance the gospel in the hands of monarchy.
Your majesty is Gods vice-gerent and Christs vicar within your own
dominionsto see, with your predecessor Josiah, God truly worshipped,
and idolatry destroyed, the tyranny of the bishops of Rome banished from
your subjects, and images removed.11
Cranmers appeal to the Old Testament monarchy was evocative. The
image of godly king Josiah allowed evangelicals to unite the Supremacy
to the biblical pattern of reform.12 Josiah was a boy king, yet he purged
Israel of idolatry, restoring Israelite worship. For preachers such as
Latimer, the story of Josiah scripturally immunised Edward from those
who would challenge reforms enacted by the council during the kings
minority. Josiah and other boy-kings ruled in the Old Testament, he
argued, yet had their realmes wel governed and raigned prosperouslye.13
Evangelicals were also pleased to note Edwards budding Protestant faith,
since Josiah receyved never the boke of gods wyl at the handes of Helkia
the hye prest, or the admonicion of Hulda the prophetesse, with a more
perfect and godly feare, then our most noble king dothe.14 They embroi-
dered this imagery. Anthony Gilby, future puritan and resistance theorist,
wrote of Edward that he was a good kyng Josias, beset by the papal pha-
raoh, who desired to lead England back into captivity.15 Preaching before
the king at Greenwich in 1552, Bernard Gilpin praised Edward: I wil desire
god, to assist your grace in the advancemente of his Gospell, which like
unto Josias you have helped to bring to lighte, where it lay hid;16 he even
refers to Edward as made of God a pastor, a Pastor of Pastors.17

11Quoted in Brooks, Cranmer in Context, p. 39.

12Cf. MacCulloch, Tudor Church Militant, pp. 623; C. Bradshaw, David or Josiah? Old
Testament kings as exemplars in Edwardian religious polemic, in B. Gordon (ed),
Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth-Century Europe (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1996), II,
pp. 7790; Alford, Kingship and Politics, ch. 3.
13H. Latimer, A moste faithfull sermon (London: J. Day, 1550; STC 15289), Eviii.
14H. Latimer, The fyrste sermon of Mayster Hughe Latimer (1549, STC 15270), Aiiiv.
15A. Gilby, A commentarye upon the Prophet Mycha (London: J. Day, 1551; STC 11886),
Hiiiv.
16B. Gilpin, A Godly sermon preached in the Court at Greenwich (London: H. Middleton,
1552; STC 11897), Civv.
17Gilpin, A Godly sermon, Bviv.
 henrician rhetoric and godly josiah99

Reform, obedience, and Josiah: these served as the focal points of

Edwardine obedience rhetoric. There is little evidence of deep-seated
evangelical dissatisfaction with the pace of reform. Even late in Edwards
reign, Edmund Becke could write:
Let us also geve thankes to god whiche hath sende [sent] /
Us a kynge to al princes a president and patron /
A counsell most catholike for a christian congregation/
To surcease al sedicion to punyshe false teachers/
And to stablishe true doctrine god sende us good preachers.18

There is no reason to see these as new themes, brought to life only after
evangelicals had gained power. Such teachings were present under Henry
in the early 1530s. The flood of evangelical writings on obedience that
appeared after 1547, then, had more to do with the revocation of Henrician
censorship than with a sudden need to justify evangelical involvement in
government.
During the first two years of Edwards reign there was a sharp increase
in the number of attacks on conservative religion, particularly the Mass,
the real presence of Christ in the elementsthe heart of conservative
worship.19 Even if the Protector responded coyly to Gardiner that radicals
set forth somewhat of their own heads which the magistrates were
unaware of,20 he did little to halt these publications. Between 1547 and
1549 nearly forty evangelical texts were published on the Mass, idolatry, or
in defence of the gospel; over thirty of these texts appeal to the doctrine of
obedience, praying for the king and council to enact further reforms.21
Evangelicals were particularly ferocious against the Mass. As the author of
The olde fayth of Brittaygne put it, many in England esteme the same
abuse called the Masse to be the principall poynt of Chrystianitie, to
whom the alteryng therof apeareth very straunge.22 But the motive of
such attacks involved a wider consideration of political obedience. Since

18E. Becke, A brefe confutacion of this most detestable and Anabaptistical opinion
(London: J. Day, 1550; STC 1709), unpaginated.
19Reformers began the reign with bursts of iconoclasm. Cf. Brigden, London and the
Reformation, pp. 42647.
20J.A. Muller, Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction (New York: Macmillan, 1926),
p. 153.
21This material is surveyed in J.N. King, English Reformation Literature. A comprehen-
sive list of evangelical texts published under Edward is found in Davies, Religion of the
word, pp. 24751. On the evangelical vision for a godly commonwealth, see Brigden, London
and the Reformation, ch. 11.
22R.V., The olde fayth of greate Brittaygne (London: A. Scoloker, 1549; STC 24566), Aviii.
100 chapter three

the king and council had enacted reforms, any resistance to liturgical
change would be seditious.
The importance of this should not be underestimated, as it provides an
ideological bridge between Henrician and Edwardine evangelical political
thought that is not always appreciated.23 Conservatives were accused of
treason because they rejected Edwards reforms, and the now established
rhetoric of obedience was deployed to justify doctrinal, not simply juris-
dictional, change. After 1547, the full force of obedience rhetoric came to
bear on Catholics reluctant to conform to the councils decisions regard-
ing worship. These changes were only grudgingly accepted throughout
England, and in several notorious instances were openly resisted. In 1547,
conservatives in Cornwall protested the kings Injunctions, and the fol-
lowing year they murdered William Body during his inspection to ensure
the destruction of images in churches.24 The conservative John Resseigh
was placed on trial for his involvement in Bodys murder, but this allowed
him the opportunity to voice the widely held belief that the council did
not have the authority to alter the Henrician church.25
The council nevertheless continued to enact legislation against Catholic
worship. As a result, evangelical tracts against the Mass almost invariably
invoke obedience discourse in an effort to stifle criticism. This can be seen
in nearly every text on the Eucharist published after 1547. We find it in
Peter Moones refutation of all things abused by the pope, which extols
how the scriptures, the light of our salvacion, corrects each of these
abuses. Central to his critique of Catholic worship is the Mass: the chiefest
thinge they set by, is almost fallen awaye. I meane their masking Masse, by
so many Popes devised. By the end of the text, however, Moone moves
away from purely theological debates and raises the issue of the kings
supremacy in the church. In the past, he argues, the Catholic church led
them astray: for kynges and Princes were disceyved that to her dyd con-
sent, Persecuting Gods worde.26 He praises the zeal with which Edwards
counsellors pursue reforms, and he hopes for a full reformation of the
English church. Moone sees a godly monarch as a necessity to achieve

23The protestantizing of the Supremacy under Edward has, of course, been recog-
nized, though historians often assume that such developments occurred only after Henrys
death once evangelicals had seized power, or they discuss Henrician and Edwardine politi-
cal tracts in isolation from one another.
24A. Fletcher and D. MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions (London: Longman, 5th revised
edn., 2004), pp. 501.
25Alford, Kingship and Politics, pp. 6599.
26P. Moone, A short treatyse of certayne thinges abused in the Popysh Church (Ipswich:
J. Oswen, 1548; STC 18055), Aiv, Biv.
 henrician rhetoric and godly josiah101

this; without the Tudor monarchy, the church in England would be lost.
He thus offers the most ironic prayer that Mary and Elizabeth of the same
stock and lynage[would do] even as their noble father dyd, all Popery to
deface.27
Anonymous tracts such as The faule of the Romyshe churche (1548) com-
bined their vision for evangelical reform with obedience to Edward. The
author seeks to determine whether these Heretikes doo take auctorite
upon these wordes: Hoc est corpus meum[and] dothe it folow by the
holy scriptur.28 What followed was a standard, Protestant attack on
the real presence of Christs body and blood in the elements, in which the
author advances a more or less Zwinglian reading of the Gospel of Johns
teaching that Christ is the bread of life. The second half of the discussion,
however, turns to the issue of loyalty to the crown and obedience to
Edward. Conservatives stand against the kings Injunctions and harass
faithful subjects for reading the scriptures. The reader is told to marke
thys as a generall rule, whosoever loveth the scryptures, they hate hym.
Those who adhere to scripture and the gospel message, then, truly offer
themselves to the king as obedient subjects:
Everi Christen hart, and every true subjecte knoweth that god hath com-
maunded all men to obey the ordynaunce of man, as to the kyng, as supreme
head of the primative church, that is to say, over the congregation of christes
people knyt in a chrystian communion, of the which church Christ is the
heed. Secondly the kinges excellent majesty, here in earth immediately
under god is our heed governour: expulsyng pope with all his trumpery, syt-
ting in Christes place wher[e] Christ hath set hym, and as I sayde afore we all
to be in brotherly love unfaynedly to obey hys grace with honoure and rever-
ence, the whyche is dewe by the doctrine of scripture.29
A similar attack can be seen in A caveat for all Christians, which derides
Gardiner, the subtle Sophister, who managed to disclose either his her-
esie or ignoranciebefore the chiefe in earth of Christes churche.30 The
author implores his readers to no longer usurpe nor practice the dark
termesthe words of consecration. I praye you for Jesus Christes sake to
forgo such popyshe termynge.31 This attack on Gardiner was widened by
the unidentified R.V. to include Smythes, Perynes & other lyke, and to
declare that Catholic adherence to the Mass could lead to the destruction

27Moone, A short treatyse, Biiv.

28The faule of the Romyshe churche (London: N. Hill?, 1548; STC 21305.3), Aiiv.
29The faule of the Romyshe churche, Cvv-Cviv.
30A caveat for Christians (London: N. Hill, 1548; STC 5195), Aii-Aiii.
31A caveat for Christians, Bvv.
102 chapter three

of the realm. Those who hear the gospel, however, marvill not at the
Kynges Maiestyes procedynges, so longe as [they] hath the scrypture.32
Others such as Thomas Gybson, the erstwhile printer of reform tracts
under Henry, returned to the tactics used under Cromwell in the 1530s. In
A breve cronycle, Gybson traced through a selection of English kings,
recounting places where the pope insinuated himself amongst temporal
rulers. The usual suspects are all here: King John was undermined by
Stephen Leighton of Canterbury alas, alas // that ever he was borne;
Henry V sought reforms in his kingdom but His mynde to turne they dyd
assaye // With money to conquere fraunce // So into fraunce the kynge
dyd go;33 and the list culminates with Henry VIII, who cast down the
Catholic church in this kynges tyme ye do well know. Church leaders
under Henry, gladly agreyng, recognised the kings authority as in earth,
supreme Heade of the Churches of this realme, and they restored the
word of God in order to teach his subjects obedience:
We must obey and knowe // And all such that in autorite // His grace hath
assigned to be // We must obey in eche degre // Or elles we get damnacion
// Unto ourselves, this is no ly // The power is gods mynyster to us truly //
Yf we do evyll he revengeth frely // and all for oure salvacion.34
John Mardeleys The power of Gods word, echoed these themes in a verse
lampoon of those who fought against the word of God and the kynges
maiesties most godly proceadynge; conservatives stand against our
Josias, by holding on to their unbiblical Masses and refusing to conform to
the policies established by royal authority. Repeated at the end of each
stanza, as a drumbeat to evangelical obedience, is the charge that conser-
vatives oppose Edwards attempts to reforme hys church and seek
hys godly reformacyon utterly to delay.35
English evangelicals under Edward expressed obedience as the fruit of
the word of God. Their overall approach to obedience, then, was still
Henrician. Even in a text as uncompromising as John Champneys The
harvest is at handa text saturated in eschatological hope for the immi-
nent apocalypse and the conversion of the Jews to Christianity36the role

32R.V., The olde fayth, Bi.

33T. Gybson, A breve cronycle (London: J. Day, 1548; STC 11842.a), Aiiiv, Av.
34Gybson, A breve cronycle, Avi-Aviv.
35J. Mardeley, A declaration of thee power of Gods worde (London: T. Raynald, 1548;
STC 17317), Aiv-Aiiv.
36Champneys, The harvest is at hand (London: H. Powell, 1548; STC 4956), Biv.
Champneys falls somewhere between modern categories of evangelical and Anabaptist.
He was forced to recant his view of the sinlessness of true Christians and was later ordained,
only to change his mind again and attack predestination. Cf. MacCulloch, Cranmer, p. 424.
 henrician rhetoric and godly josiah103

of the king in matters of religion was supreme. Champneys appeals directly

to Edward, calling on him to reform the church and to expel all conserva-
tives remaining in England.37
The interpretation of the rhetoric and arguments used in The harvest is at
hand is important, as there has been confusion over Champneys intended
target. Susan Brigden suggested that, when Champneys denounced the
clergy, his enemies were not antichristian Roman clergy[but] rather the
licensed preachers of the Edwardian commonwealth.38 Catherine Davies
adopts a similar interpretation and suggests that he conflated the papist
tyranny of keeping the Bible from the laity with the new intellectual elit
ism of the protestant learned ministry.39 Davies thus concludes that
Champneys critiqued the evangelical establishment that was working
closely with the council. This censure of Edwardine church leaders, then,
is evidence of a more radical expression of evangelicalism that would frac-
ture the Elizabethan church.40
An analysis of the text, however, does not support these interpreta-
tions. At the outset, the preface states that the contentes of this boke deal
with the policy of popyshe Prestes, and what we oughte to praye for.41
Catholic priests are described as markt mene or marckt monsters, not
onely because they are marcked in their bodies and somtimes weare dis-
guysed monstrus garmentes, but because their doctrine is marked also.42
The marked men, then, cannot be the established evangelicals preachers.
Champneys is not castigating evangelicals for worldliness, but Catholics
for heresy. His hope, like other evangelicals, was that Edward might finish
the reformation begun under Henry and pull the rotten teeth of Catholi
cism from the civil body; the hyghe powers have soughte as muche
the reformacion of them as may be, and yet they be as craftye as ever
they were.43 In terms of political ideas, this was hardly radical. While

37He offers a humble peticion desyred of the kynges majestie (The harvest is at hand,
sig. Aii). The text mistakenly gives the page number Bii, when the page, in fact, comes
after the frontispiece and subsequent pagination is Aiii-Aviii.
38Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 442. For support, Brigden cites J.N. King,
English Reformation Literature (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1986), pp. 912.
39Davies, Religion of the word, p. 70.
40Champeneys was brought up on six counts of heresy and appeared before Cranmer
on 27 April 1549, and he bore a faggot to Pauls Cross the following day. Champneys was
later ordained decon by Coverdale. Cf. Brigden, London and the Reformation, p. 443.
41Champneys, The harvest is at hand, Aii.
42Champneys, The harvest is at hand, Aiiv. Brigden (London and the Reformation,
p. 443) states that the marked men are, in fact, godly Christians, though no citation is
given. But Champneys consistently refers to conservative priests as marked men.
43Champneys, The harvest is at hand, Fii.
104 chapter three

Champneys appeals to the story of Elijah challenging the prophets of Baal,

we must not thereby conclude that he presents himself as a latter-day
Elijah44 or that his theological radicalism would lead to political resis-
tance.45 For Champneys, the entire point of the story is that the battle
between Gods true prophet and the Baal priests was in front of the king
and that it turned King Ahabs heart and vindicated the true faith before
the nation. More importantly, Elijahs demonstration led to the expulsion
of pagan religion from Israel. In actuality, then, Champneys calls for a
public trial (sig. Ei) before Edward in order to prove that Catholic sacri-
fices should finally be abolished and to restore the people of god within
his realmes and dominions, again frely in to the true libertie of the gosple
of christe, lyke as the godly kyng Josias.46 For Champneys, the liberty of
the gospel leads to obedience.
Philip Gerrards A godly invective is perhaps the fullest treatment of
evangelical obedience produced under Edward before the 1549 rebellions.
In fact, its arguments are almost identical to those presented in Tyndales
works. Gerrard sets up the vernacular Bible as the source of true civil
peace: For this cannot be denied, that weale publique is made sure and
perpatuall, where the word of GOD is thanckfully receaved, and the kyng
faythefully obeyed of his lovyng subjects.47 This is purely Henrician in
form but overwhelmingly evangelical in content. The true church is
grounded in piety and obedience, not superstition and corruption: Of late
we were obedyent unto al damnable rites and wicked supersticion, nowe
we be taughte to obey onely the Gospell which is salvacion unto al them
that believe it, by the authority of vertuous kyng Josias.48 Gerrard insists
that only preaching from the Englishe Byble is capable of creating a godly
commonwealth for then shal sedicion and discorde take their leave and
enter no more in place.49
Wherof whosoever hath tasted [of the scriptures] wil never grudge against
his king or Prince, for the knowledge of it adjuigneth the hertes of al

44ODNB, John Champneys. Davies (Religion of the word, p. 71) agrees that Champneys
is speaking metaphorically, but again construes his argument to be an attack on Protestant
clergy.
45Shagan has noticed similarly with respect to Clement Armstrong, a Henrician radical
who nevertheless championed the Supremacy. Cf. Shagan, Clement Armstrong and the
godly commonwealth: radical religion in Tudor England.
46Champneys, The harvest is at hand, Avii.
47P. Gerrard, A godly invective (London: R. Grafton, 1547; STC 11797), Avv.
48Gerrard, A godly invective, Ciii, Civ.
49Gerrard, A godly invective, Div, Dviii. He argues (Cviv) that the Preachyng of the
Gospell farre surmounteth baptysme, Masse and all other vertuouse thynges under heaven.
 henrician rhetoric and godly josiah105

subjectesthat it wil never suffre any sparke of treason to dwell in a sub-

jectes hert. It planteth such love & faithful obedience where it goeth, that
the corrupcion of treason can find no place to enter. Treason is a thyng so
horible unto it, that it cannot endure to thinke on the plagues that it justly
deserveth. Yea, it is of this nature, that al synne & wickednes is noisome
but of al other[s], treason is the noisomest.50
Gerrard explicitly rejects any notion of resistance, and he reiterates the
classic position that evangelicals (those who taste the scriptures) are
obedient subjects.

Obedience and Rebellion in 1549

In the summer of 1549, England erupted in rebellion.51 In the West, the

rebels of Cornwall and Devonshire burned prayer books, marshalled an
army, and besieged Exeter. This rebellion was driven by conservative prin-
ciples, and its leaders demanded that traditional worship be restored and
changes to the liturgy be put on hold during the kings minority. In East
Anglia, another uprising arose around Robert Kett, a Norfolk tanner and
landowner, though in this case the rebels issued economic and social
grievances to the council. That all this occurred after years of evangelical
preaching on obedience is at least a little ironic. But for Cranmer and
other evangelicals it served as a reminder that true obedience was a fruit
of the gospel. What took place in western England and East Anglia drove
home the fact that many did not have ears to hear the evangelical mes-
sage. As a result, from 1549 until Edwards death in 1553, evangelicals
responded to the 1549 rebellions with a renewed chorus of texts and ser-
mons on the doctrine of obedience.
In response to the uprisings, Cranmer, Peter Martyr, and Ochino
worked closely devising a biblical critique of rebellion. The collaboration
of Cranmer and Swiss Reformed thinkers on the subject of rebellion again
shows the extent to which non-resistance and obedience were assumed to

50Gerrard, A godly invective, Eiiiv.

51The socio-economic and theological contexts have been surveyed in D. MacCulloch,
Ketts Rebellion in Context, Past and Present 84 (1979): 3659; S.T. Bindoff, Kets Rebellion,
1549 (London: Historical Association, 1949); Fletcher and MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions,
pp. 6480; and recently has been the cause of a intense debate between Ethan Shagan,
G.W. Bernard, and M.L. Bush in the EHR (found in Feb., 1999 and Feb., 2000, respectively).
Each of these works, in their own way, is concerned with the cause(s) and effect(s) of Ketts
Rebellion, particularly in relation to the gentry and populace, while our concern here is the
evangelical rhetoric in reaction to the rebellions.
106 chapter three

have been consensual Protestant teachings. Martyr had arrived at Oxford

in 1548 and ruffled more than a few feathers when he replaced Richard
Smyth as Regius Professor of Divinity. When the rebellions began, Martyrs
unpopularity forced him to flee to London.52 Cranmer gathered Martyr
and Ochino to organise a theological counter-offensive against the rebel-
lions.53 Their first line of defence was to go to the pulpit. On 21 July,
Cranmer delivered a sermon at St Pauls that was a programmatic response
to the uprisings, describing the rebellions as a moment of national sorrow
and reiterating the biblical foundations of royal authority. Historians,
following the judgment of Gilbert Burnet, have assumed that Cranmer
wrote the sermon on his own.54 Yet we now know, thanks to Torrance
Kirby,55 that Peter Martyr had drafted a prcis for Cranmer on the subject
of rebellion that served as the backbone to his sermon. In the margins of
Martyrs original notes Kirby has found a note in Cranmers hand, which
adds an approving comment subditis non licet accipere gladium.56
In the sermon itself we hear reiterated the virtue of obedience and,
according to Wriothesley, the claim that the plage of sedition and divi-
cion among ourselues is the greatest plage, and not like heard of since the
passion of Christ.57 The sermon begins by criticising the government for
not having punished sedition more harshly, thinking this clemency for
the tyme expedient for the common wealth.58 From this vantage, we are
led through a bevy of evangelical arguments against resistance even under
the cruellest of tyrants: Let not man charge the governours and excuse
them selfes; the wisdom of god esteems obedience above all thynges.

52The story is recounted by Martyrs biographer, J. Simler, An Oration of the Life and
Death of..Peter Martyr Vermilius (1583), Qq iiv. (cited in Kirby, Zurich Connection, p. 125n).
On Richard Smyth, the original target of the Disputation, see J.A. Lwe, Richard Smyth and
the language of orthodoxy: re-imagining Tudor Catholic polemicism (Leiden: Brill, 2003).
Martyrs time in England is covered in P. McNair, Peter Martyr in England, in J.C.
McLelland (ed), Peter Martyr and Italian Reform (Waterloo, 1980), 85105; M. Anderson,
Rhetoric and Reality: Peter Martyr and the English Reformation, SCJ 19/3 (1988): 45169.
53On Ochino, see P. McNair, Ochino on Sedition, Italian Studies 15 (1960): 3649.
54Cf. The History of the Reformation in England, vol. 2, p. 244 states that the Parker
Library manuscript was in Cranmers own hand, when in fact the majority of the text is in
a secretary hand. See. Kirby, Zurich Connection, p. 126.
55Kirby, Zurich Connection, ch. 3. According to Kirby, the error of attributing the ser-
mon to Cranmer first began with Strype and Gilbert Burnet and thus was subsequently
adopted by Jenkyns in the Parker Society edition of Cranmers remains, though Jenkyns
did express doubts and even noted that Matthew Parker had scribbled hic sermo prius
descriptus Latine a Petro Martyre in the CCCC MSS.
56Kirby, Zurich Connection, p. 138.
57Wriothesley, A Chronicle of England During the Reigns of the Tudors, from a.d. 1485
1559, (ed) W.D. Hamilton (Camden Society, 187577), p. 18.
58Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 417; Kirby, Zurich Connection, p. 132.
 henrician rhetoric and godly josiah107

The sermon links Christs work on the cross with non-resistance, for with
this sacrifice of obedience Christ did reconcile us unto the fatherand he
hathe commanded all them, that profess to be his disciples to follow this
his example.59
In London, evangelicals redoubled their efforts. The cluster of ministers
enlisted to preach at Pauls Cross over the next few years offered their sup-
port for Cranmers liturgical reform and they rebuked those who refused
to submit to the kings reformation. The common theme of these sermons
was civil obedience. Alford rightly notes the extent to which the Lenten
preachers proclaimed their obedience to the king after 1549, as they
employed a dizzying number of Old Testament images in order to encour-
age the king and council to continue the work of reform.60 It is unlikely
that these sermons would have shocked those in attendance. The Lenten
sermons were designed to rebuke the nations sins and lament the nations
faults. Edward and the council thus listened while evangelicals rebuked
their sin, but this was a staged scenecaptured idyllically in a series of
woodcuts that accompanied the published sermons. Pauls Cross was the
leading edge of the governments propaganda efforts to restore order to
England. In August, for example, the council had forced Bonner to preach
in favour of obedience to the king and to encourage the new rite. The
Lenten preachers, therefore, were yet another reiteration of Edwardine
reform: the government wanted to be seen listening to biblical council, to
let it be known that the Privy Council was obeying the word of God, and
that these evangelical preachers were showing them scriptural warrant
for further reformation. It is thus no surprise that several of the court
preachers from 1549 to 1550 were rewarded with bishoprics.61
Almost to a man, court preachers followed the basic arguments first put
forward by Cranmer and Peter Martyr. John Ponet and Thomas Lever
went to great lengths to condemn the rebellions.62 Hoopers sermons on
Jonah struck the same chord by dividing England into two camps, obedi-
ent Christians and treasonable papists. One must choose sides: promote
God rather than the devil; favour Christ than antichrist; agree with the
king than conspire with the pope.63 Jonah was a fitting metaphor for

59Kirby, Zurich Connection, pp. 1546.

60Alford, Kingship and Politics, pp. 3264.
61MacCulloch, Cranmer, pp. 4401.
62Cf. T. Lever, A Sermon preached the third Sondaye in Lente before the Kynges Maiestie
(London: J. Day, 1550; STC 15548); J. Ponet, A notable Sermon (London: G. Lynne, 1550;
STC 20177). Their arguments are explored in Alford, Kingship and Politics, pp. 32ff.
63EW, p. 549.
108 chapter three

England. According to Hoopers reading of the story, Jonah was unwilling

to travel to lands infected with barbarous paganism, yet when he preached
the word of God to the king, it was decreed that Nineveh would obey
the Lord.
John Cheke issued perhaps the most vitriolic response to the 1549 rebel-
lions in his The hurt of sedition. Chekes position as Edwards tutor sug-
gests that this text was part of the official response to the rebellions. The
argument itself, however, lacks sophistication. For the most part, Cheke
resorted to pouring scorn on the braynlesse rebels:
Ye which be bound by gods word, not to obeye for feare, like men pleasers,
but for conscience sake like christians, have contrari to gods holy wyl, whose
offence is everlasting death, & contrari to the godly order of quietnes, set out
to us in the kings Majesties laws, the breach wherof is not unknowen to you,
taken in hand uncalled of god, unsent by men, unfit by reason, to cast away
your bounden duties of obedience, & to put on you agaynst the magistrates,
goddes office committed to the magistrates, for the reformation of your pre-
tensed injuries.64
Cheke offers subjects only two options: submit under even the harshest
realities, as scripture teaches, or face damnation for resisting Gods
appointed king. Ye rise for religion, he scoffs, what religion taught you
that? If ye were offered persecution for religion, ye ought to flie, so christ
teacheth youif ye would stande in the trueth, ye oughte to suffer lyke
marters.65 Vengeance against a tyrant is reserved to God alone.
Consequently, the rebels have usurped Gods providential order: be ye
called of God?Goddes worde teacheth us, that no man should take in
hand, any office, but he that is called of God.66
For he sayeth, leave the punishmente to me, and I wyl revenge them. But the
magistrate is the ordinaunce of god, appoynted by hym wyth the swerde of
punishementeAnd therefore, that, that is done by the magistrate, is done
by God, whom the scripture often tymes doeth call God, bycause he hathe
the execution of Goddes offyce67
Chekes argument here is taken almost verbatim from Tyndales Obedience
of the Christen man.68 He cites the Swiss Reformed argument that kings
are called gods in the scriptures (Psalm 82), and he reiterates that even

64J. Cheke, The hurt of sedition (London: W. Seres, 1549; STC 5109), Aiii-Aiiiv.
65Cheke, The hurt of sedition, Aivv.
66Cheke, The hurt of sedition, Aiv-Aivv.
67Cheke, The hurt of sedition, Aiv.
68Compare Chekes words to those found in Tyndale, Obedience of the Christian Man,
Dvi, Dviiiv. For discussion of these, see above chapter 1.
 henrician rhetoric and godly josiah109

tyrannical actions are orchestrated by Gods providence. He quotes

Exodus 22:28 that ye oughte not to speke evil to any Magistrate of the
people.69
Chekes unalloyed doctrine of obedience is important to note, as it has
come under scrutiny in the ongoing pursuit to identify the intellectual ori-
gins of the Elizabethan monarchical republic. Stephen Alford first noticed
an interesting phrase in The hurt of sedition, where Cheke defends reli-
gious reforms that had been enacted by the kings maiestie etc. (sig. Eviii;
Fiii)a possible indication that Cheke believed authority was not derived
solely from royal authority.70 Expanding on this argument, McDiarmid
writes that Cheke is implying that government includes more than the
king alone and that England is a mixed government.71 Chekes ideas,
thus, suggest that English government is based on the consent of the com-
monwealth rather than autocratic monarchy. McDiarmid alleges that
these ideas were derived from Chekes involvement with the Cambridge
humanists and the study of classic antiquity. Indeed, he argues that there
was a bona fide school of Cambridge political thought, based largely on
the study of Cicero, and that this coterie of thinkers would be a potent
example for Milton a century later.72 A crucial passage in The hurt of sedi-
tion is Chekes comment to the Norfolk rebels that they had available to
them waies to redresse their grievances.73 McDiarmid sees a dangerous
possibility in this teaching: if these waies had not been available to the
rebels, would Cheke have inferred that their rising might have been justi-
fied? McDiarmid believes so. He argues that, though Cheke was hesitant
about this step towards resistance theory, nevertheless his ideas were
carried on in Ponets Shorte Treatise on Politike Power.74
McDiarmids argument here is straining against the text. By positing
the existence of a school of Cambridge political thoughta group alleged
to have read the classics uniformly as a sourcebook for republican ideas
McDiarmid homogenises a diverse group of political teachings.75 Though

69Cheke, The hurt of sedition, Aviiv. He writes later, If wee ought dutifully to shewe al
obedience to heathen kings, shall we not willingly and trulye be subjecte to christen
kings(Biv).
70Alford, Kingship and Politics, pp. 623.
71J. McDiarmid, Common Consent, pp. 6971. There are in fact two different state-
ments in the text. The first (Eviii) says The kynges majestie by thadvise,et cet. entended a
juste reformation; the second (Fiii) simply says The kinges majestie, &c. hath.
72McDiarmid, Common Consent, p. 73.
73McDiarmid, Common Consent, pp. 701.
74McDiarmid, Common Consent, p. 71.
75Lake The Monarchical Republic, offers a similar critique of those who take monar-
chical republican ideas beyond Collinsons original essay.
110 chapter three

Cheke and Ponet were both humanists, and both Cambridge men, they
nevertheless developed radically differing opinions on the subject of resis-
tance. Chekes comments on obedience were steeped in the Tyndalian
rhetoric of obediencehence his use of Psalm 82 as a justification for
non-resistance. In contrast, Ponets later political thought developed dur-
ing the Marian exile and, more importantly, served as a critique of this
earlier rhetoric.76 It is unwarranted, then, to connect their teachings on
obedience, and it is misleading to suggest that Cheke was hesitant about
condoning violent resistance.77 In fact, he states that all rebellion leads to
eternal damnation. The hurt of sedition abounds in vivid imagery of how
Christians ought to submit in all circumstances. What death, he asks, can
be devised cruel inoughe for those rebelles.78 He writes that Christian
subjects must submit as a dogge stoupeth when he is beaten of his master,
not for lacke of stomacke, but for natural obedience.79
On the issue of republicanism, Chekes reference to the the kings maj-
esty &c provides little evidence of his view of government itself, though it
is tantalizingly vague. But to conclude from this phrase that Cheke sees
England as a mixed monarchy is to place far too much weight on an ellip-
sis. In fact, Cheke specifically states elsewhere that ther can be no just
execution of laws, reformation of fautes, geving out of commaundemen-
tes, but from the kinge. For in the king only is the right hereof, and the
authoritie of him derived by his appointmente to his ministers.80 One
could argue that the phrase the kings majesty etc is simply a description
of fact, since Edward had very little to do with the reforms enacted by the
council and Parliament. But even if Cheke did support a mixed theory of
government, it is unnecessary to conclude that his views tacitly allowed
for resistance.
When read in context, Chekes teachings on obedience are identical to
those of other Edwardine evangelicals. Although less antagonistic than
Cheke, Latimer also confronted the issue of rebellion directly, blaming
laymen for misunderstanding the true gospel of obedience: Our rebels
which rose about ii. yere[s] ago in Northfolke & Devonshiere[did not
know that] almighty god hath reveled his will as concerning magistrates,
how he will have them to be honoured and obeyed. Latimer uses the same

76On Ponets critique of Psalm 82, see chapter 4.

77McDiarmid, Common Consent, p. 71.
78Cheke, The hurt of sedition, Bvv.
79Cheke, The hurt of sedition, Bviv.
80Cheke, The hurt of sedition, Bvv.
 henrician rhetoric and godly josiah111

logic as Cheke: the common laws have been made by the kings majestie
and his honorable councel, or by a common parliament. But subjects
must nevertheless be subjecte unto them, obey them saieth god. Latimer
admits, of course, that unbiblical laws are not to be obeyed, but he strongly
rejects any notion of resistance:
And here is but one exception, that is, againste god. When lawes are made
against God and his woorde, then I ought more to obey god then man. Then
I maye refuse to obey, with a good conscience: yet for all that I may not rise
up against the magistrates, nor make any uprore. For if I do so I synne dam-
nablye: I muste be content to suffer whatsoever god shall laye uppon me, yet
I maye not obey their wicked lawes to do them. Only in such a case, men
maye refuse to obey, els in all the other matters we oughte to obey.
Latimer could not have been clearer as to his opinion about rebellion,
and his teachings outline the basic difference between passive disobedi-
ence and active resistance. When commanded to do evil, he states that
Christians are called to suffer at the hands of tyrants:
What lawes soever they make as concernyng outewarde thinges we ought to
obey, and in no wise to rebell, although they be never so hard, noisome and
hurtfull: our duetye is to obey, & commit all the maters unto god, not dout-
ing but that god will punish them when they do contrary to their office &
callyng. Therfore tary till god correct them, we may not take upon us to
reforme them. For it is no part of our duety.81
The punishment of tyrants is reserved to God alone. No temporal power
can hold the monarch accountable for his actions. Latimer, thus, finds the
source of the rebellion in the ignorance of the rebels, for I thinke that
ignoraunce was a great cause of it, truly I thinke if this had bene opened
unto them they wold never have taken such an enterprise in hand. When
properly educated, every faithful Christian will not disdayne to reade the
actes and the kynges majesties procedynges, so that he may know what is
allowed or forbidden in the same actes.82
Richard Finch, a minister in East Ham and an admirer of Ridley, penned
his Epiphanie of the Church not long after the rebellions in 1549. Catholic
resistance to the removal of altars and images, Finch argued, was essen-
tially the same as when the doctrine of purgatory was assaulted under
Henry:

81H. Latimer, Certayn godly Sermons [27 Sermons] (London: J. Day, 1562; STC 15276),
Dviiv-Dviii.
82Latimer, Certayn godly Sermons, Dviii-Dviiiv.
112 chapter three

I do well remember that many were as loth to forgoe theyr purgatory, as they
be now unwilling to take downe their altars, the monuments of the same.83
God has granted England grace, he argues, and he hath wrought among us
by a little and a litle to bring us to knowledge, that at length we might will-
ingly embrace his holy word. Finch finds it unsurprising, therefore, that
the Prayer Book was now being met with similar resistance, even though
it was stablished by act of parliament; the root cause was that conserva-
tives failed to embrace the gospel:
if they loved obedience, quietnesse, and had but one sparke of reverend
feare either toward God or their prince, or anie desire of godly knowledge,
there hath inough and inough bin saidthere be articles inough, injunc-
tions inough, proclamations inoughif they were understoode, willingly
embraced, reverently obeyed.84

Connections between English and Swiss Political Teachings

This book has noted several instances where Henrician evangelicals uti-
lised the teachings of continental Protestantism. It has suggested that,
while the Royal Supremacy was indeed unique for sixteenth-century Europe,
the commitment to non-resistance and obedience was commonplace for
the Zurich reformers and thus served as another source for evangelical
political thinking. The rising influence of Reformed voices within England,
therefore, did not in the least undermine the doctrine of obedience.
After Henrys death, the balance of evangelical opinions swung in
favour of the Swiss perspective on the Eucharist. This shift was inspired,
in part, by Melanchthons efforts to achieve a rapprochement between
German and Swiss Protestantism.85 A drift in evangelical theology was
already at work on Cranmer, who cooled to Luthers views on the sacra-
ments and began to forge a new sacramental theology.86 More impor-
tantly, after Luthers death in 1546, Lutheranism turned inward, as
Melanchthon spent much of his time dealing with controversies sur-
rounding his fidelity to Luthers teachings.
The Swiss, however, were eager for allies. Bullinger desperately sought
out English friends, and, by the late-1540s, Calvins influence was b eginning

83R. Finch, The epiphanie of the church (London: R. Ward, 1550, published 1590;
STC 10877.5), Aiiv.
84Finch, Epiphanie of the Church, Aiiiv-Aiv.
85Cf. P. Benedict, Christs Church Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism
(New Haven: Yale, 2002), pp. 7466.
86MacCulloch, Cranmer, p. 357.
 henrician rhetoric and godly josiah113

to extend beyond Geneva.87 The growing relationship between evan

gelicals and Reformed leaders has led J. Wayne Baker to argue that
Edwards reign established a Zurich Connectiona direct, ideological
link between Bullingers Erastianism and English arguments used to
support the Supremacy.88 There is indeed merit in such a characterisa-
tion. While it would be going too far to say that the English evangelical
doctrine of obedience was a Reformed invention, Zurich was the leading
voice amongst the Swiss cantons, and Bullinger consistently championed
the doctrine of obedience. There is no evidence to suggest that Eng
lishevangelicals saw any difference between Zurich and Geneva on the
relationship between spiritual and temporal authority. In January 1551,
Cranmer solicited Calvins help, asking the Genevan leader to write for
Edward a biblical defence of his duty as a godly king. In his reply, Calvin
turned to the image of good king Josiah who ought to be a great confir-
mation to animate and spur you onLet me entreat you then, Sire, to
reach forward to the mark which is set before you in the example of this
godly king.89
The widespread belief that non-resistance was a basic Protestant truth
can be seen in the deliberateness with which English printers selected
Reformed political texts for publication. In almost every instance, these
texts taught the doctrine of obedience in full. Indeed, a mini-campaign
was underway in Ipswich by the printers Anthony Scoloker and John
Oswen, who specialised in translating the works of Oecolampadius,
Zwingli, Melanchthon, Ochino, and Calvin.90 The presence of a Reformed
printing shop within England is intriguing and they may have, in fact,
coordinated the release of these publications with London officials.
Stephen Alford has recently noted the theme of godly kingship in Ochinos
subsequent works.91 Within months of Ochino arriving in London in
1547,92 an edition of his sermons was translated into English and published

87P. Benedict, Christs Church Purely Reformed, ch. 2.

88J.W. Baker, Erastianism in England: The Zrich Connection, in A. Schindler and
H. Stickelberger (eds), Die Zrcher Reformation: Ausstrahlungen und Rckwirkungen (Bern:
Peter Lang, 2001); see also T. Kirby, The Zurich Connection and Tudor Political Theology
(Leiden: Brill, 2007).
89Letters of John Calvin, 2 vols., (ed and trans) J. Bonnet (Edinburgh, 1857), 2:2848.
90The translator of these works was often Richard Argentine, an ideological flexible
figure who was a committed evangelical under Henry and Edward, a devout Catholic
under Mary, and a conformist under Elizabeth. Cf. ODNB, Richard Argentine.
91Alford, Kingship and Politics, pp. 467.
92Ochino was an Italian ex-friar who apostatised and fled to the Swiss confederations
with Peter Martyr, and was warmly received by Swiss reformers such as Bullinger and
Calvin. Cf. P. McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1967).
114 chapter three

by Scoloker.93 Ochino and Martyr were staying with Cranmer in London

at the time, and the publication of Ochinos sermons appears to have
served as his official introduction amongst English elites.94 Scolokers
preface stressed the doctrine of obedience above all else. The relationship
between king and subject, he argues, is written into the creation of the
world. Man was created and made Prince and Lorde, and a kynge imme-
diately under him over all. Adam, thus, reigned in Gods place, because he
was not parsonaly present before our eyes.95 In a similar fashion, the king
reigns in Gods place:
And therefore of just cause Kynges, Prynces ande Gouvernoursmoost
lyvely and notably represent unto us the divine maieste of God, being indued
with a large porcion of the same, are called Goddes in the scripture.96
Here again the new Swiss reading of Psalm 82 is used to frame the entire
message of Ochinos sermons. This suggests that one of the primary goals
of the printing circle in Ipswich was to reinforce the notion that
Protestantism in general accepted the Supremacy.
We find a more explicitly political application of obedience, but no less
rooted in Reformed teaching, in Jean Verons Five Abominable Blasphemies
(1548). Veron was a French migr and Anglophile, best known for his
English translation of Bullingers works against Anabaptism. In his Five
Abominable Blasphemies, Veron calls for evangelicals to muster them-
selves for the fight against popery. He informed his readers that he had
originally intended to write a book against the Mass, but that certayne
papists are slandering evangelicals and saye, that we renne before the
kyng and his counseill.97 Veron therefore fell back into a defensive pos-
ture and turned to the underlying question of obedience to the kings
demands. He argued that conservatives wanted to influence the king and
council by their claim that the kyng and his honorable counceill have not
yet disannulled and put downe the Masse.98 He counters this with sev-
eral meditations on the kings right to enforce biblical truth throughout
his realm. Since all power is of God, there were sufficient grounds for

93On Scoloker, see J.I. Freeman, Anthony Scoloker, the Just reckoning printer, and
the earliest Ipswich printing, Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society,
9 (198690), 47696.
94MacCulloch, Cranmer, pp. 3801.
95B. Ochino, Certayne Sermons (Ipswich, A. Scoloker, 1548; STC 18765), Aii-Aiiv.
96Ochino, Certayne Sermons, Aiiv.
97J. Veron, The five abhominable blasphemies conteined in the Masse (London: H. Powell,
1548; STC 24679), Aii.
98Veron, The five abhominable blasphemies, Aiii.
 henrician rhetoric and godly josiah115

b asing Englands liturgical reform solely on the authority of king and

council. Obedience was a quintessential evangelical virtue: calumni-
atynge the true preachers therof, as though in this matter, thei shulde
renne before the kynge & his honorable counceil surely is nothyng els, but
which to accuse their prince & governour, with all his honorable coun-
seilours of playne blasphemy against god and his worde, whiche to dooe is
no less than deadly treason.99
In his preface to Bullingers Dialogue (nearly as long as the text itself),
Veron reduces the problem of obedience to a single issue: the problem of
evil. Obedience under a godly monarch, he argued, was easy. Questions of
resistance, then, only come to life in the presence of suffering. Those lan-
guishing under tyranny begin to wonder:
Is the power of tyranouse and ungodlye Prynces of God? Noo man (saye
they) wyll ryse agaynst a godlye Prynce, whych without doubt is of god. But
we do ryse agaynst most wicked & ungodly rulers, whiche dailye do so sore
oppresse us, that we can suffer noo longer, excepte we and oure children
wyll go hereafter a beggyng.100
Yet Veron repudiates the notion that suffering grants subjects the right to
resist their king: Syth then that there is no power but of God, it followeth
by good consequence that the tyrannycal power is of god, and that whoso-
ever doth resist it, doth resyst the ordinaunce of God, therby purchasing
unto him selfe everlasting dampnacyon.101 Gods providence necessitates
that evil means, including evil government, is used for our good. As the
text later proclaims:
That thing wych semeth evyl unto us, god doth ordeyn it to the good of his
elect. Did not the cross and death of somany martyrs, which were slaine and
put to death by tyrauntes and cruel persecutours, serve to the glory of god,
and to the increase of their own felycitie and beatitude?102
The central issue was whether Gods providence over evil government
meant that God, in some way, served as the author of tyranny. Veron never
suggests this, but does state that God allows a tyrant to reign for a time,
and that resistance, therefore, usurps Gods providential will.
In Swiss writings from this time, we find no significant challenges to the
doctrine of obedience. Calvins work against Anabaptism, published by

99Veron, The five abhominable blasphemies, Bvii-Bviiv.

100Bullinger, A most necessary & frutefull dialogue [hereafter: Dialogue] (Worcester:
1551, J. Oswen; STC 4068), Aiii.
101Bullinger, Dialogue, Aiii.
102Bullinger, Dialogue, Dviiv.
116 chapter three

John Day in 1549, caught the eye of Protector Somerset.103 In it, Calvin
categorically states that kings are protectours of the christen churche.
This is undoubtedly true, he claimed, when one considers that Pauls com-
ments in Romans 13 were written when the most part of the princes were
morall enemies of the Gospell.104 Because Paul wrote these words under
severe persecution, Calvin argues that Christians must endure under simi-
lar circumstances. If the implications of this were not clear enough to
English readers, Calvin concludes his argument against resistance with
an appeal to Psalm 82:
For the Lorde sheweth thys favoure to Prynces, as to call theym GoddesMe
thynke that God canne not geve a more expresse testimonye, for the appro-
bation of anye estate, then when he communicateth hys name unto that
man which is constituted in the same, as if he called hym hys Lieuetenaunt,
whyche representeth hys person.105

Calvins arguments are indistinguishable from those of Tyndale, Latimer,

and Ridley. Thus, even if Calvins political thought was more nuanced
than these few sentences suggest, his English readers would have had little
reason to suspect it.
The most eminent Swiss voice on these matters, however, was Bullinger,
whose political teachings from the Decades were literally carried into
England by John Hooper in early 1549.106 While three of his works (all
dealing with Catholicism107) had been published under Henry, the appear-
ance of the Decades marked the start of Bullingers long involvement with
the Tudor church, which would later flower under Elizabeth. Bullingers
entre into the minds of English elites was his political teaching. Editors
such as Walter Lynn produced a number of stand-alone treatises extracted
from the Decades, the first of which was A treatise or Sermonconcernynge
magistrates and obedience of subiectes. The reason for publishing this text
was the 1549 rebellions. Lynn recommended Bullingers arguments to
English readers in the aftermath of civil unrest, because obedience was

103See the discussion on Calvin and Somerset in M.L. Bush, The Government Policy of
Protector Somerset (London: Edward Arnold, 1975), pp. 10110.
104Calvin, A short instructionagaynstAnabaptistes (London: J. Day, 1549; STC 4463),
Dvi, Dviii.
105Calvin, A short instruction, Dviv-Dvii.
106For a new intellectual biography, see David G. Newcombe, John Hooper: Tudor
Bishop and Martyr. Monographs Medieval and Modern (Burford: Davent Press, 2009).
107These works were his commentary on 2 Thessalonians, The olde fayth, and The
Christen state of Matrimonye (the latter two translated by Coverdale).
 henrician rhetoric and godly josiah117

expedient for all tymes[and] I think to be so necessary for these daies.108

This was followed by his Dialogue betwene a seditious libertine or rebel
Anabaptist, & the true obedient Christian.109 Bullingers comments on obe-
dience are largely repetitive throughout these works, so we need only
focus on one: the Dialogue.
Throughout the Dialogue, the character Libertine highlights the obvi-
ous problem with the providentialist interpretation of civil government:
what if we are commanded to do evil? On this question, Bullinger states
that a tyrannouse power is also of god, gyven of god, as a rodde wherewith
the people is bothe tryed and punyshed.110 Next, Bullinger offers a clear
distinction between active resistance and passive disobedience:
Shall I obey an ungodly magistrate? Shal I obey ungodly lawes, statutes and
commaundementes? Thou dost not aske all one thynge. Thy question &
demaund is not al one. For to the first question, I do auswere that we are
bound to obey, to the second again I say, that we ought not to obey.111
Bullinger was careful to clarify that a magistrate does not forfeit his author-
ity by commanding wickedness: I did not say, that an ungodly and tyran-
nous magistrate is not a magistrate.112 The qualification he allows, then, is
only with respect to the Christian response to tyranny: The magistrate
bereth no rule over the soules, but over the bodies and outward substance, &
whatsoever doth perteyn to the outward conversation of men; thus, a
Christian is bound to obey all commands except for those that directly
affect essential spiritual matters: [things] whiche perteineth to outward
thingesdone by the, without losse of the truth & righteousnes. Subjects
are bound to obey though it semeth never so hurtful to thy body and sub-
staunce, though it semeth never so uncomely for the). Bullinger con-
cludes, Therefore we owe obedience to the tirant, and again we owe hym
not obedience.113
Bullinger then comes to the question of resistance itself: if a tyrant
oppresses the truth and punishes believers unjustly, were it not lawful to

108Bullinger, A treatise or Sermonconcernynge magistrates and obedience of subiectes

(London: W. Lynne, 1549; STC 4079), Aiii-Aiiiv. This text is originally from the ninth sermon
in the second Decade.
109 H. Bullinger, A moste sure and strong defence of the baptisme of children (Worcester:
J. Oswen, 1551; STC 4069); idem, Dialogue, both of these were not part of the Decades,
but separate tracts.
110Bullinger, Dialogue, Dvii.
111Bullinger, Dialogue, Dviiiv.
112Bullinger, Dialogue, Dviii.
113Bullinger, Dialogue, Dviiiv-Ei.
118 chapter three

resist him?114 Bullinger maintains the evangelical opinion that whoso-

ever doth resyst the power, doth resist the ordinaunce of god. But they
that resist, shal receive to them selves dampnation.115 Again, he states
that while the faultes & wicked dedes of a ruler are to be shewed that he
may turne from them, kings are under no obligation to obey this coun-
sel.116 A godly preachers duty is to set the biblical example before the king,
yet in the end, the king is under no immediate obligation to obey the
preacher. Bullinger says that, when reading Pauls words on obedience in
the New Testament,
I heare that fredom and libertie is [sic] to be wished for, and also (yf it may
be done conveniently) to be embraced, but I do not heare, that it oughte to
be desired & sought, by sedicions, by tumultes, by evyl waies, by violence,
bloude, & warres. Nor the apostles did ever use such meanes, for to be
made free, or to get them selves to libertie, therefore we muste abstayne also
from them.117
For Bullinger, rebellion was an offence against God. He admits that it is
good to see a tyrant removed, but here be ii. questions. The firste is:
whether the tyraunte must be removed from his roume, or not? The sec-
onde: howe, and by whom.118 Bullinger states that a tyrant must be put
down through spiritual means,
I do not deny, but that a wycked magystrate must be put downe, but not the
same way that thou wylte. Noo man ought to kyll hym, nor to styre up war
and sedition against himfor god hath called us to peace.119
For Christians, the means for dealing with tyrants is prayer, obedience,
and suffering.
Bullinger does affirm the general principle that lesser magistrates may
resist an ungodly magistrate. The tyraunt must be taken away (that do
I not denye).120 His teaching are based largely on the Lutheran theory of
constitutional resistance, but he inserts an important condition: magis-
trates may be removed only if they have been made by the common
assente of all the people or chosen by the election of fewe princes.121

114Bullinger, Dialogue, Eiii.

115Bullinger, Dialogue, Eiii.
116Bullinger, Dialogue, Eiii-Eiiiv.
117Bullinger, Dialogue, Eiiiv-Eiv.
118Bullinger, Dialogue, Eviii.
119Bullinger, Dialogue, Eviii.
120Bullinger, Dialogue, Eviii.
121Bullinger, Dialogue, Eviii.
 henrician rhetoric and godly josiah119

These methods of resistance are non-violent, he argues, as lesser magis-

trates remove the tyrant through the same process by which they were
elected. This is an important qualification for Bullingers English readers,
for he denies that anyone may overthrow a hereditary monarch:
Finally, yf he hath invaded or come into the kyngedome by anye other
chaunce, as by strengthe or by enherytance, we muste beare hym, till the lord
vouchsafe to delyver the oppressed, lest any commotyon and tumulte be
styred up by us.122
The importance of this qualification for Bullingers political thought
cannot be overstated. Bullinger allows for constitutional resistance in
Germany and the Swiss confederations (as long as a constitutional process
is followed). But governments where the ruler has been appointed by suc-
cession, he argues, lack a non-violent process by which to remove a tyrant.
As such, they must be endured.
In the end, there is little to suggest that Swiss Reformed texts, whether
from Bullinger, Calvin, or others, introduced radical political ideas
amongst English evangelicals under Edward. As Skinner has shown,
Reformed circles during the 1540s and early 1550s hardly wavered on the
doctrine of obedience and continued to teach that popular resistance,
even to a tyrant, was a sin.123 Indeed, the main expression of resistance at
this time comes from Bullinger, who nonetheless argued that England was
unable to use these means under their monarch.

Hooper, Zurich Erastianism, and the Bishopric of Gloucester

In the mythic history of Tudor resistance theory, there is perhaps no event

more emblematic of evangelical resistance than John Hoopers protest
over the Ordinal in 1550.124 His dissent began to take on greater signifi-
cance almost as soon as Marian exiles reached Frankfurt and began to
tussle over further reforms to English liturgy. It was John Knox who first
refused to see the Hooper affair as merely an unfortunate disagreement
between evangelical kinsmenas Cranmer, Peter Martyr, and Bucer had
doneand saw it instead as a failure of Edwards reign.125 Traditionally,

122Bullinger, Dialogue, Eviiiv-Fi (emphasis mine).

123Skinner, Foundations, II, pp. 206ff.
124Hoopers theology has drawn attention from historians and theologians ever since
his martyrdom in the courtyard outside the cathedral of Gloucester in 1555. Recent works
on Hooper include E.W. Hunt, The Life and Times of John Hooper (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen,
1992); Trueman, Luthers Legacy; David G. Newcombe, John Hooper.
125MacCulloch, Tudor Church Militant, pp. 1789.
120 chapter three

historians have supported Knoxs judgment. In the twentieth century,

M.M. Knappen enshrined this interpretation of Hooper as a catalyst for
non-conformity.126 He argued that Edwards reign was marked by a
division between the Anglican Party and the Continental Partythe
former preaching tolerance and compromise, the latter led by Hooper, a
violent and erratic partisan.127 This interpretation was adopted by
A.G. Dickens, who asserts that the quarrel surrounding Hoopers acces-
sion foreshadowed the great rift within the Elizabethan Church.128 By
rejecting Hooper, Anglican elites refused to allow theological radicals to
upset the theological balance established by the kings authority and
maintained the English via media (a point that Professor Opie described
as the Anglicizing of Hooper).129
The collapse of the whiggish narrative of the English Reformation has
had little impact on this conventional view of Hooper. Historians still see
Hooper as a maverick, a Swiss radical unwilling or unable to cope with
theological compromise. Robert Greaves concludes that Hoopers time in
Zurich exposed him to radical Swiss ideas.130 Bullinger, it is claimed, uti-
lised a political theory of the covenant, which necessitated the right of
lesser magistrates, or even the commons, to depose a tyrant in the event
that they overstepped their authority. Raath and de Freitas allege that
Hooper developed a similar theory from his years at Bullingers feet in
Zurich, and that his time in Zurich led to a radical view of the nature of
political authority. Hooper, they go on to argue, had a profound influence
in England and Scotland and helped to bring Bullingers federalism to
Britain during the Edwardine period.131 More recently, Hooper has been
described as a political radical, though not necessarily an outright resis-
tance theorist. Catherine Davies writes that he was the most consistent
advocate of the theme of limited obedience, and he believed that when a
magistrate commanded evil he repudiated his office and broke the ties of

126Knappen, Tudor Puritanism (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1939).

127Knappen, Tudor Puritanism, p. 82. His discussion of Hooper is found on pp. 72102.
128Dickens, English Reformation, p. 271. Elton wrote that Hooper was an example of
men who were to become the bane of moderate reform (Elton, Reform & Reformation,
p. 361). Later studies on adiaphora by J.H. Primus and Bernard Verkamp added nuance to
this portrait, but left it relatively unchanged.
129J. Opie, The Anglicizing of John Hooper, ARG 59 (1968): 15075.
130Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation, pp. 1416, 38, 43, 1012,
1234, make reference to Hooper as a potential influence on John Knox, though he men-
tions the influence of Bucer, Bullinger and others.
131Raath. and de Freitas, From Heinrich Bullinger to Puritanism, pp. 208; See also
Scales, Bullinger and the Vestments Controversy in England.
 henrician rhetoric and godly josiah121

duty binding his subjects to him. Hooper was not countenancing rebel-
lion, she continues, but he made resistance a necessity. Because of this,
Hooper was exceptional in putting these principles into practice, and
ultimately his teachings would serve as a springboard for later theologies
of revolution under Mary.132
Despite the popularity of this interpretation, there is no evidence to
support it. At the outset, the debate centred on Hoopers contempt for the
oath of Supremacy, administered to bishops at their consecration.133 The
bishops were made to swear to obey the king by God, the saints, and the
holy gospels. Hooper proclaimed that the invocation of the saints was
unbiblical and undermined the oath. The controversy, in other words, did
not begin as a vestiarian controversy.
Hoopers earliest account of the crisis to Bullinger makes no mention of
vestments, focusing instead on the Ordinal. Hooper tells Bullinger that the
oath was inserted by conservatives to promote the kingdom of anti-
christagainst which form I brought forward many objections in my pub-
lic lecture before the king and the nobility of the realm.134 Historians have
pointed to this statement as evidence that Hooper condemned the
Protestant establishment and rejected Cranmers liturgical reforms. But
there is no evidence to support these claims. Hooper wrote to Bullinger, for
example, testifying to the purity of Cranmers doctrine. In February, just
weeks before the controversy erupted, Hooper described Cranmer, Ridley,
and several other bishops are all favourable to the cause of Christ; and, as
far as I know, entertain right opinions in the matter of the eucharist.
Hoopers impression of leading evangelical bishops, then, was favourable.
He tells Bullinger that Cranmer is at the head of the kings council, and
that his leadership is commendable. He even sends certain articles to
Bullinger, so that he can see Cranmers doctrine is the same as that which
you maintain in Switzerland.135
Before the controversy over the Ordinal, Hooper never complained of
Cranmers orthodoxy. Indeed, Hoopers only criticism was that Cranmer

132Davies, Religion of the word, p. 160. Davies goes on: More radically, he included con-
travention of the law of nature as justifying disobedience, citing the example of the
Egyptian midwives refusal to carry out pharaohs command to kill all the male children
of the Israelites. However, there was little radical in the claim that the king could not over-
rule natural law; Hooper is making a conventional point that the king may not make
murder a virtue.
133Background is covered in MacCulloch, Cranmer, pp. 47184; Pettegree, Foreign
Protestant Communities, pp. 3642.
134OL, I, p. 81 (Hooper to Bullinger, 5 March 1550).
135OL, I, p. 76 (Hooper to Bullinger, 5 February 1550).
122 chapter three

was too cautious in the political realm, that he is too fearful about
what may happen to him.136 Understanding Hoopers opinion of Cranmer
is crucial: when he claimed that the Ordinal promoted the kingdom of
antichrist, he was not attacking Cranmer or the other evangelical bishops.
Instead, he believed that he was standing against conservatives in govern-
ment, who had smuggled Catholic teachings into the bishops oath.137 His
dispute, therefore, was designed to safeguard the Supremacy because
bishops were swearing to traditional saints, and he assumed that evangeli-
cals supported his conclusions.
In the end, it was Cranmer who decided to make an example of Hooper.
Cranmers motives for doing so are not altogether clear, but MacCulloch is
certainly correct to suggest that he wanted to stifle criticism of the Prayer
Book after the previous years rebellions.138 He had voiced a minor com-
plaint to the council over Hoopers vehement preaching the previous
yeara charge that embarrassed the archbishop as he was responsible for
inviting Hooper to deliver his sermons on Jonah in the first place. But the
council had agreed that his preaching was useful. Now that Hooper had
criticised the oath, however, Cranmer brought charges of sedition before
the Star Council. Hooper appears to have been nonplussed by this. He
wrote that the archbishop spoke against me with great severity on account
of my having censured the form of the oath.139
The charges levelled against Hooper were nevertheless difficult to
maintain. Hooper had censured the invocation of the saints during the
oath, but Cranmer insisted that, because the oath involved the Royal
Supremacya bishop swore to hold the king of England to be the supreme
head of the church under Godcriticism of it was an attack on the
Supremacy itself. This was a useful hook on which Cranmer could hang
the charge of sedition, but it was untrue. Hooper had not argued that the
oath was inherently wrong, only that its form was unbiblical and a plot
from antichrist. In traditional evangelical fashion, he argued that the
Bible alone gave the king his authority. After a heated debate, the session
sided against Cranmer.140 Convinced that the episode had passed, Hooper
wrote triumphantly to Bullinger in March that at length the end and issue

136OL, I, p. 712 (Hooper to Bullinger, 27 December 1549).

137MacCulloch (Cranmer, p. 472) notes that Hooper is unsure who wrote the prayer
book but believes he is feigning ignorance in order to legitimise his criticism. It is hard to
imagine Hooper hiding his criticism, however.
138Cf. MacCulloch, Cranmer, pp. 4712.
139OL, I, p. 81.
140MacCulloch, Cranmer, pp. 4712.
 henrician rhetoric and godly josiah123

was for the glory of God, and he prays that the ensuing summer should be
free from disturbancesa prayer, it seems, that went unheard.
Hooper even won the approval of Edward. An anecdote that comes to
us by Peter Martyr (repeated in a letter from John ab Ulmis to Bullinger)
describes a crucial victory for Hooper: after being chosen to receive the
bishopric of Gloucester, Hooper was called before the king to confirm the
oath when, we are told, Edward chanced to notice that the saints were
mentioned by the bishops in such sort, as though they were to swear and
be confirmed by them.141 Edward was angered by this and declared: Are
these offices ordained in the name of the saints, or of God?a frank
admission by Edward that it was improper to use Catholic saints to
endorse the jurisdiction of the king as head of the church. Thus, the story
continues, as soon as Hooper had declared his opinion, the king immedi-
ately erased with his own hand the error of the bishops.142 The call for
reform is heard by young king Josiah himself. Hoopers actions, therefore,
must not be mistaken for active resistance. He had placed his counsel
before the king, shown him the word of God, and it was the king who,
by his royal authority, unilaterally crossed out the offensive portion of
the oath. This is Josiah in action, the very epitome of godly obedience to
the monarch.
By mid-summer, Hooper was somewhat reassured that his unease over
the Ordinal was catching on in London. At the very least, his success with
Edward was proof that he was on solid ground. In time, however, Cranmer
managed to convince the council that he was a dangerous figure. Buoyed
by the kings support, Hooper continued to criticise unbiblical practices in
England. Over time, his barrage of criticisms alienated his allies. It is per-
haps no coincidence that support for Hoopers protest over the Ordinal
and the use of vestments vanished by December. His opponents easily
marked him as a disturber of the commonwealth, and Cranmer and Ridley
seized the opportunity to take this evidence before the council. By autumn,
the majority now shared Cranmers opinion that Hooper was a dangerous
zealot. Early in the new year, he was placed under house arrest and forbid-
den to preach or publish, and he was eventually placed in the Fleet. It was
only after Peter Martyr and Bucer were enlisted to bring Hooper back in

141OL, II, p. 416.

142OL, II, p. 416. MacCulloch (Cranmer, p. 472) is certainly correct that such brash inter-
vention by the boy-king reveals that this was a Henry VIII in the making. Hoopers own
account of these events is nearly identical, and Hooper tells Bullinger that the king under-
stood that the causes which I have mentioned above altogether withdrew me from it.
(OL, I, p. 87).
124 chapter three

line that he conceded defeat. On 8 March 1551, Hooper was installed as

Bishop of Gloucester.
Despite Hoopers challenge to the Ordinal, there is very little to com-
mend the notion that his actions marked the first manifestation of resis-
tance theory, or that his criticisms blurred the distinction between passive
disobedience and active resistance. Hooper never once expressed opposi-
tion to the Supremacy or the kings authority in the church. Even if other
evangelicals disagreed with his exegesis of scriptures teaching on vest-
ments, Hoopers actions fell very much within the bounds of evangelical
political thought at this time: when he felt that the Council had ordered
him to sin, he demurred, he argued his case from the Bible, but he never
resisted. We must note that Hooper took his concerns before the king, who
agreed that the oath was erroneous. For months, Hooper had every reason
to assume that Edward would listen to his counsel.
Hoopers political theology is spelled out in his commentary on Romans
13, which defended the traditional view of non-resistance. Romaynes was
first printed on 13 May 1551 at Worcester by Tom Oswen; only two months
after Hooper finally submitted and was released from prison. It is rather
conspicuous that Hoopers first treatise as bishop dealt explicitly with the
authority of the king and the duty of a Christian to submit to his rule. In
the preface, Hooper addresses William Jenins, the dean of Gloucester, and
John Williams, a local lawyer. He sets his Romaynes in the overall context
of the Edwardine reforms and states that his ultimate concern is for the
well-being of those in his diocese. He then instructs his readers on godly
living:
The office and duetye of a christian man, is conteined in twoo partes. The
firste, that he use himselfe aryght and reverently with God. The second, that
he use hym comely and honestly with man.143
He thus divides the message of Romans into the beginning, where Paul
deals with God and salvation and the end, particularly chapter 13, where
he discusses duties to man. It is clear from this introduction that Hooper
had two goals in mind. First, he wanted to defend himself against any
claims of sedition, as he was perhaps worried that zealous reformers might
use as an example to eschew submitting to proper authority. Secondly, he
hopes to revisit the issue of political authority as a whole to reaffirm
the power of the king, ordained by God to rule and reform according to

143J. Hooper, Godly and most necessary annotations in ye .xiij. chapyter too the Romaynes
(Worcester: J. Oswen, 1551; STC 13756), Aviii.
 henrician rhetoric and godly josiah125

the Bible. Due to these concerns, it is not surprising that Hooper defended
the authority of the king without reservation. From the start, he drives
home the point:
There be, and ever hath bene, some publike persons, & some private per-
sonsThese two persons must be diversely used, and the duety that is due
unto the one is not due onto the other in civell respectes.144
This basic division between rulers and subjects leads him to conclude that
everyone, including the clergy, is bound to obey the one kyng appointed
by godNo man in a kyngdom is or ought to be privileged or exempt from
the obedience of the kyng, which is the higher power.145
Next Hooper turns to the issue of resistance, making his antipathy for
rebellion manifestly clear. Indeed, Hoopers argument is one of the harsh-
est condemnations of resistance during the Edwardine period. He notes
that Paul categorically rejects resistance against higher powers, and, fol-
lowing this logic closely, he argues that resistance of any kind, under any
circumstance, is evil. The apostle Paul
sayth symple and playnly, we should obey the hygher powers to confute,
argue, & reprehende those that cloke and excuse their inobedyence, eyther
for the age of the rulers, or else for the condytyons and maners of the rulers
For Paule byddeth us loke upon the power and autoritie of the hygher pow-
ers: and not upon theyr mannersSo Joseph obeied Pharao, and Christe our
savour Pilate, Saint Paul, the Emperours of Rome, Caligula & Nero.146
We should note that Hoopers words here are nearly identical to Cranmers
arguments during his trial in 1555: Paul was obedient unto Nero and would
raise no resistance against him in temporal matters.147 Hooper goes so far
as to maintain that obedience cannot be trumped by the Acts 5 command
to obey God rather than man. A tyrant might attempt to enforce evil, he
argues, but subjects are to suffer obediently in such circumstances. Indeed,
Hooper adds a proviso to the command from Acts 5: when commanded
to do evil
then must we obey more god then men, & yet not to strive and fight with the
magistrates: but suffer pacientlye death rather than to offende God: or els
oure obedience is nothinge but hipocrisie and dissimulation.148

144Hooper, Romaynes, Biv.

145Hooper, Romaynes, Biiv.
146Hooper, Romaynes, Biii-Biv.
147Brooks, Cranmer in Context, p. 105.
148Hooper, Romaynes, sig. Biv-Bivv (emphasis mine).
126 chapter three

The basis for this argument is a distinction between human positive law
and divine law. Hooper admits that the magistrate can and should make
laws within the church; he does not restrict royal authority to temporal
matters:
The lawes of a magistrate be of two condytyons and sortes: eyther they con-
cerne God, or man. If they concerne or appertayne to god, either they be
according to the word of god, or contrary to the word of god.149
Hooper examines both types of law. Those that comport with scripture
upon payne of dampnatyon, they muste be obeyed.150 Hooper next
instructs his readers on how to deal with evil magistrates. On laws touch-
ing spiritual matters, Hooper states that they must be obeyed only if they
are based on scripture:
Yf they be repugnaunt to the worde of god, they shoulde not be obeied. Yet
rather shuld a man suffer deathe, then to defende him selfe by force and
violente resysting of the superyour powers, as Christ, his Apostles and the
prophets dyd.151
Subjects therefore must never resist wyth hand, hearte, and tonge.152
Similarly, on laws touching temporal matters (things Civil), Hooper
states that they must simpl[y] without exception, be obeyed, except they
repugne and be contrary to the lawe of nature.153 If they go against the
laws of nature, again, subjects must not resist, though they abstain from
carrying out the kings wicked commands.
The basic principle driving Hoopers political theology is, in fact, the
same political teaching of Bullinger and other Swiss Reformed leaders
from Zurich. Hooper repeats the argument from Psalm 82, which by now
was becoming a standard feature in the evangelical doctrine of obedience:
And therefore the Magystrates be called goddess [gods] in the holy scrip-
ture. For no man can come too the offcie [sic] of a magistrate, but by the
permission and sufferaunce of God.154 The magistrate is god on earth, or
a direct manifestation of divine providence, and therefore subjects must
obey him. Subjectes maye not, nor upon payne of eternall dampnatyon
ought not by force nor violence to resyst the offycer in hys high power.155

149Hooper, Romaynes, Bivv.

150Hooper, Romaynes, Bivv-Bv.
151Hooper, Romaynes, Bv.
152Hooper, Romaynes, Bvv.
153Hooper, Romaynes, Bv.
154Hooper, Romaynes, Bviv.
155Hooper, Romaynes, Bvii-Bviiv.
 henrician rhetoric and godly josiah127

Tyrants themselves are ordained of God who suffereth and appointeth for
the synes of the people, such evell and discemblyng hypocrites to reign.
But let the king & Magistrate be as wicked as can be devysed and thought,
yet is his office & place the ordinaunce & appointment of god, and therefore
to be obeyed.156
Hoopers political teachings on obedience show the connection between
evangelical and Swiss Reformed theology: their deep commitment to obe-
dience. However, the confessional preoccupation with the 1550 contro-
versy has largely obscured Hoopers place in Edwardine England. He was
perhaps a maverick, and certainly a nuisancea boisterous preacher who
appears to have been unconcerned with propriety. He wanted immediate
reform and was willing to declare his opinions before king and council.
But he was no resistance theorist. In fact, his teachings on obedience likely
compelled government elites to employ Hooper in the first place: they
gave him the Gloucester bishopric, in part, so that he would drive home
the doctrine of obedience in an area hostile to reform. In this sense, he
was in the inner circle of Edwardine evangelicalism.

Conclusion

This chapter has shown that there was a consistent call for obedience and
non-resistance during Edwards reign and that a close relationship existed
between continental reformers and English evangelicals at a number of
crucial points. Reformed leaders such as Martin Bucer, Bernardino Ochino,
and Peter Martyr immigrated to England during Edwards reign and col-
laborated with Cranmer and governmental elites. It is certainly valid to
conclude that such connections were not superficial. Traditional interpre-
tations of Edwardine theology, then, must account for the sheer number
of Swiss influences at work in England by 1550. More importantly, none of
these Reformed voices in England subverted the doctrine of obedience.
When this is taken into account, Hoopers place amongst evangelical
elites hardly appears out of place: he was not a radical amongst moder-
ates, but an evangelical very much at home amongst his theological
kinsmen.

156Hooper, Romaynes, Bvii.

 CHAPTER FOUR

THAT OUTRAGEOUS PAMPHLET:

OBEDIENCE AND RESISTANCE, C. 15531558

In this chapter we turn to the reign of Mary and the political teachings of
evangelicals who opposed her regime. The previous three chapters have
made it clear that, prior to Edwards death in 1553, the doctrine of obedi-
ence was widely accepted and vigorously defended. Yet historians have
rightly noted that resistance theory featured in a number of Marian texts.
These new ideas require explanation, and historians have devoted a sub-
stantial amount of time to searching for the origins of English evangelical
resistance theory.
The most common theory alleges that during the Marian exile evangeli-
cals were drawn towards continental radicalism, and that the doctrine of
obedience was purged as a result of exile and suffering. Marian resistance,
then, is traditionally seen as an appropriation of Calvinist political
thought, or of Protestant theology in general.1 Though such theories have
come under scrutiny, historians continue to endorse the basic view that
English evangelicals radicalised under Mary as a result of their contact
with continental Protestant leaders. The exile is depicted as a pilgrimage
to the radical Reformed centres of Europeto Geneva and Zurich.2
Examples of this trend can be found in Gerald Bowlers work on resistance
theory and Richard Greaves study of Knox and Bullinger, both of which
endorse, at least in part, this account of Marian resistance theory. Greaves,
in particular, repeats some of Walzers conclusions, though he focuses on
Bullinger and Zurich. Bowler, on the other hand, distorts resistance theory
by confusing the relationship between passive disobedience and active

1A thesis originally defended in M. Walzer, Revolution of the Saints; C.H. Garrett, The
Marian Exiles (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1938); W. Hudson, John Ponet (15161556):
Advocate of Limited Monarchy (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1942); W. Muss-Arnold,
Puritan Efforts and Struggles, 15501603: A Bio-Bibliographical Study. I, American Journal
of Theology 23/ 3 (July 1919): 35152.
2Cf. D. Danner, Pilgrimage to Puritanism: History and Theology of the Marian Exiles at
Geneva: 15551560 (New York: Peter Lang, 1999); S. Lucas, Let none such office take, save
he that can for right his prince forsake: A Mirror for Magistrates, Resistance Theory and
the Elizabethan Monarchical Republic in D. McDiarmid (ed), The Monarchical Republic of
Early Modern England (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007); R.M. Vander, Anglican Against Puritan:
Ideological Origins During the Marian Exile, CH 47 (March 1978): 4557.
130 chapter four

resistance, and by misunderstanding the wider European context of resis-

tance during the 1550s.
This chapter seeks to reassess resistance theory under Mary and to
explore the fate of the doctrine of obedience during the 1550s. Its argu-
ment is that Tudor historians have misunderstood the nature of English
evangelical radicalism under Mary. The problem lies not in the claim that
English evangelicals adopted resistance theory in the 1550s, but in the mis-
reading of the context of these developments and their relationship to
Calvinism. The goal here, then, is to set Marian resistance theory in its
immediate political and intellectual context. I will argue that evangelicals
who adopted resistance theory were going against the grain of Reformed
political thought during the 1550s, and they were diametrically opposed to
the thinking of Tudor evangelicalism. These resistance writers were more
radical, more populist, and more revolutionary than most of their
European counterparts. First, we will examine the earliest teachings on
obedience and resistance under Mary, in an effort to determine their
provenance. The earliest arguments for resistance, I will argue, relied
heavily on Lutheran ideas, or were developed independently. Secondly,
we will examine the Frankfurt troubles and the rupture between the
Knoxians and Coxians over resistance theory. Thirdly, we will study the
political ideas of Peter Martyr and John Ponet, both published in
Strasbourg. And finally, we will look at Goodmans work in Geneva and his
influence on the Geneva Bible.

The Continental Context of Marian Resistance

Before we examine resistance theory from the 1550s, however, it is neces-

sary to understand the context of evangelical political thought during
Marys reign. The vast majority of evangelical leaders who fled to England
settled in Swiss cantons or in imperial free cities along the Rhine, areas
most influenced by Reformed theology and increasingly hostile to
Lutheran influence. This was due in part to the close relationship between
evangelical and Reformed leaders. But it is often underappreciated the
extent to which Lutheran cities rejected the Marian exiles and refused to
shelter them. Marys choice to marry Philip of Spain, Charles Vs son and
heir, meant that evangelicals were at odds with the Holy Roman Empire,
and thus, the exile community was a political liability for German princes.
Many Lutheran rulers were unwilling to accept English refugees who
openly opposed the Anglo-Habsburg alliance, and who published tracts
against Mary and Philip. In one case, when a group of evangelicals arrived
 that outrageous pamphlet131

in Denmark in 1553, the Protestant king Christian III expelled them from
the country for fear that it might anger Charles.3 Often this meant English
Protestants were required to subscribe, among other things, to the
Lutheran views on the presence of Christ in the sacrament before being
allowed to enter Lutheran territories. In most cases when confronted with
this demand the Marian exiles chose instead to settle in Swiss areas.
Evangelical resistance theory, then, took shape within Reformed cir-
cles. But there is a misconception about this. It is often claimed that the
Swiss cantons were hothouses for radical political thought. In fact, there is
little evidence of widespread acceptance of resistance theory amongst
Reformed leaders in the mid-1550s. Luther, of course, had accepted a basic,
constitutional form of resistance in 1531, and the Lutheran theory of resis-
tance was reiterated in 1546 during the Schmalkaldic Leagues struggles
with Charles.4 Reformed cities had been excluded from the Schmakaldic
League from the start, though, due to the hostilities between Luther and
Zurich, and so these Lutheran resistance writings had no effect in
Reformed circles by the time of the Marian reign. Indeed, the Reformed
community was entirely cut off from many of the discussions over anti-
Imperial resistance during the 1530s and 1540s. Most of the political teach-
ings within the Reformed community focused more on internal cohesion
and civil obedience, and so they tended to focus more on non-resistance
and stressed lay obedience to magistrates. At the outset of the Marian
reign, then, Reformed leaders continued to champion a strong theory of
obedience.5 As Kingdon and Skinner have shown, it was not until 15545
that Reformed regions in Europe finally began to adopt elements of the
Lutheran theory of resistance through lesser magistrates. Bezas The
Punishment of Heretics (1554), for example, the earliest Reformed discus-
sion of resistance theory published in Geneva, appealed directly to
Lutheran theories of resistance from the city of Magdeburg.6 Other
Reformed leadersCalvin and Bullinger in particularwere more
reserved about such arguments, and they only began to accept resistance

3Benedict, Christs Church Purely Reformed, p. 75.

4The re-evaluation of Lutheran theories of resistance began with R.R. Benert, Inferior
Magistrates in Sixteenth-Century Political and Legal Thought, PhD dissertation (University
of Minnesota, 1964); Benerts thesis influenced a number of subsequent works on resis-
tance such as C.G. Shoenberger, The Development of the Lutheran Theory of Resistance:
15231530, SCJ 8/1 (April 1977): 6176; Skinner, Foundations, II, pp. 20638.
5Benedict, Christs Church Purely Reformed, p. 123. Benedict surveys how Calvinism dur-
ing this time championed zeal for purity and obedience to magistrates. Thus, in the early
1550s, these ideas were not yet antithetical.
6Kingdon, The first expression of Theodore Bezas Political Ideas.
132 chapter four

arguments in the late-1550s and early 1560s. True Calvinist resistance

theory, as it is characterised in many historical accounts, then, was estab-
lished only after Marys death, and so there could not have been a great
influence of resistance teachings during the Protestant exile.
Turning to England, it is necessary to reiterate that, prior to 1553, evan-
gelicals had fiercely defended the doctrine of non-resistance to higher
powers for over two decades. The Henrician and Edwardine regimes pro-
vided a context in which the rhetoric of obedience could flourish. But
English evangelicals were not unique in teaching the doctrine of obedi-
ence; their close relationship with continental reformers during these
years served to intensify the evangelical doctrine of obedience. Knox, for
example, can be found preaching an unwavering doctrine of submission
to his Berwick congregation just months before Edwards death:
Remembering always, beloved brethren, that due obedience be given to
magistrates, rulers and princes, without tumult, grudge or sedition; for how
wicked that ever themselves be in life, as how ungodly that ever their points
of religionnot to pretend to defend Gods truth or religion (ye being sub-
jects) by violence or sword, but patiently suffering7
Marys accession, however, brought new circumstances. She set out to
restore the English church to Roman obedience and eradicate evangelical
influence once and for all. It would be tempting to see evangelical opposi-
tion to Mary as the source of doubt about the doctrine of obedience. But
the doctrine of obedience can be found in several Marian evangelical pub-
lications. The earliest texts publishedsuch as An admonishion to the
bishoppes8 and Whether Christian faith maye be kepte secrete,9 both from
1553claimed that evangelicals were obedient subjects, despite their
refusal to commit idolatry. Neither of these texts supports resistance of
any kind; instead, they focus on the eternal punishment reserved for those
who persecute believers. The Marian bishops rayse a newe persecution for
the Wordes sake, but they are shedding the blood of the holye Martirs.10
God will bring these bishops into judgement and to accompt and wyl ren-
der to everyone his just recompence upon hys heade. Evangelical tracts
nevertheless taught evangelicals not to participate in idolatry. True beliv-
ers must confesse Christe and hys gospel in the time of persecution.11

7John Knox, Epistle to the Congregation of Berwick, in Peter Lorimer (ed), John Knox
and the Church of England (London: H.S. King, 1875), 25165.
8An admonishion to the bishoppes (London?: J. Day, 1553; STC 11593)
9Whether Christian faith maye be kepte secrete (London?: J. Day?, 1553; STC 5160.3)
10An admonishion to the bishoppes, AiivAiii.
11Whether Christian faith maye be kepte secrete, Aii.
 that outrageous pamphlet133

Such teachings did not challenge the doctrine of non-resistance. This

was a critique of Nicodemism, not obediencea call to profess ones faith
and suffer the consequences. As Robert Horne wrote in his preface to
Calvins sermons against Nicodemism, I had offended no lawe of the
Realme, but lived like an obedient subject. When Horne was charged with
heresy and sedition, he fled for his life, though he continued to proclaim
his innocence while abroad.12 In an effort to stress the emergence of radi-
calism in Tudor evangelicalism, these themes have been overlooked or
marginalised by historians. But they were a vital part of evangelical oppo-
sition to the Marian regime. This is evidenced in the series of texts pub-
lished by Michael Wood (probably a pseudonym for John Day13). In 1554,
Wood issued two anonymous texts that instructed evangelicals in their
duty to suffer obediently under Mary. A letter sent from a banished minister
appeals to those burthened with persecution. It pleads with readers to
understand that suffering, tribulation, and even death are the only soveri-
gne medicine by which to cure England of idolatry.14 The doctrine of obe-
dience, he argues, requires believers to submit to punishment inflicted by
the Marian regime. Evangelicals must avoyde murmurations against the
higher powers, who are Gods instruments, to worke his will: whether it be
life, or death, good or evil.15 If these words had been published under
Henry or Edward, they would be unremarkable. But this was said of Mary
herselfshe is Gods instrument, and evangelicals must not oppose her
authority. The demand to suffer could not be clearer:
the church of god obtaineth victoriebi suffering: not bi drawing out the
swerd with Peter, but bi having our heads striken of[f] with the same.16

The same argument was repeated in A soverigne cordial (1554), which

comforts its readers to be not afraid of the terrors of this world. Now
commeth the day of your trial, he writes, and you must take up your
cross.17 Tyrants may be abusive, but They are his roddes, and when he

12Certaine homilies of m. Joan Calvine (Wesel?: s.n., 1553; STC 4392), AiiiAiiiv.
13Cf. ODNB, John Day.
14A letter sent from a banished minister (London?: J. Day, 1554; STC 10016), Aviv.
15A letter sent from a banished minister, Av.
16A letter sent from a banished minister, Aivv. The sword of Peter is not the spiritual
sword, often associated with papal authority, but an allusion to Matthew 26, where Peter
strikes off a priests ear in order to defend Jesus from the civil authorities.
17A soveraigne cordial (London?: J. Day, 1554; STC 5157), AiiAiiv. The Short Title
Catalogue suggests that the text is by John Bale, but there is nothing to substantiate this
claim.
134 chapter four

hath worn them to the stumpes, then will he cast them into the fire.
Until then,
your duty is in the meane while patientli to abide the wil of godhe now
punisheth us with his fatherly correction in this world.18
The punishment of tyrants was Gods prerogative. Evangelicals must now
commit them unto the handes of GOD, [and] gyve him the vengeaunce.19
Moreover, the cause of tyranny was sin. We have deserved persecution,
begins An excellent and a right learned meditacion, and [we] yield our-
selves into thy handes. The author swears that we have not sinned
against the quenes highness and politik majestrates of the Realme. And
yet, despite their innocence, God mayest justly use them as thy fierce
rodde against us.20
There were of course several published tracts during Marys reign that
openly questioned the command to obey the monarch. But when com-
pared with the sweep of evangelical teaching up until this point the differ-
ences are relatively easy to discern. Turning to Marian resistance texts, we
notice significant differences for example between their teachings and
earlier arguments for obedience.21 The most glaring difference is that early
resistance texts denied that suffering was a Christian duty under tyranny.
This was a major development in evangelical political thought, as it under-
mined older teachings on passive disobedience. So long as evangelicals
taught that Christians must suffer passively it was impossible to ground a
sustainable doctrine of resistance. These differences are significant, if we
are to understand the context of Marian resistance theory: the duty to
resist an idolatrous monarch was not an expansion of passive disobedi-
ence into active resistance, but a rejection of passive disobedience
altogether.
The earliest treatise on political resistance appeared in 1554: an anony-
mous translation of Luthers Warning to his Dear German People, which
appeared under the title A Faithful Admonition.22 The Admonition is

18A soveraigne cordial, Bi.

19A soveraigne cordial, Biv.
20An excellent and a right learned meditacion (London?: J. Day, 1554, STC 17773), AiiAiiv.
21Bowler, English Protestant Resistance Theory, pp. 7273 and ff., attempts to connect
these oppositional texts to those that teach resistance theory. His argument, however,
rests on the idea that passive non-resistance was an ambiguous position, and that it could
easily lead to a defence of violent resistance to persecution. (p. 78).
22A Faithful Admonition (London: J. Day?, 1554; RSTC 16981), printed in May. The origi-
nal work is Luthers Warning to His Dear Germans (1531), (WA 30, 3 = LW 47). The Short Title
Catalogue is uncertain about the translator, but Gerald Bowler has argued that the tone of
the text suggests it was Bale. Cf. Bowler, English Protestant Resistance Theory, pp. 1167n.
 that outrageous pamphlet135

oteworthy as it is clearly drawn from Luthers earliest work on resistance

n
from 1531. Luther wrote the original text during the early months of 1531, as
he was abandoning his teachings on passive disobedience for resistance.23
The original context of the Admonition was Charles Vs threat to restore by
force the Catholic faith in Lutheran territories. Rumours had circulated in
the 1520s that Charles was planning to invade Lutheran territories, remove
existing magistrates, and place Spanyardes in authority.24 This attack on
Spanish encroachment in foreign territories fit naturally with evangelical
concerns over the Marys marriage to Philip. The Admonition makes it a
duty to take up arms to defend the church against tyranny. The crux of the
argument was not resistance per se, where evil magistrates are removed or
killed, but the duty of Germanys lesser princes to defend their territories
and repel unjust force with force (vim vi repellere licere). As Quentin
Skinner has shown, by 1531 Luther had accepted the view that Christian
princes have a duty to defend the church from violent oppression, even
against the higher powers.25
The translator, Eusebius, saw in Luthers treatise two key arguments
that could be applied to the situation confronting evangelicals. First, Luther
repudiates his own doctrine of obedience from the 1520s: his enemies think
that the Protestantes being diligently taught by our preachers the daunger
of sediciondare not styre against them; For the preachers have done wel
in so teaching generally. But Luther claims, secondly, that this is to teach
only one article of our doctrine. For it is another thing to be a Rebel, than
to be one of those, which stand in the defence of Goddes true religion, and
of their natural countrey.26 Luther, thus, distinguishes between unlawful
uproars and necessarye defence for lawfull considerations.27 A rebel, he
argues, is defined as one who will suffer no magistrate to ruleas the head
Captain of the Anabaptistes did at Munster in Westphalia. Protestants,
however, upheld the authority of magistrates in general, but refused to
stand passively as Charles threatened their church. The conclusion, then,
is that violence is permissible in matters of self-defence:
Now if the matter shuld come to a battle, as it is very likeI will not that
such as shuld stand in defence of gods true religionshould be taken for
rebels.28

23Cf. Skinner, Foundations, II, p. 2012.

24A Faithful Admonition, Biiv.
25Skinner, The Origins of the Calvinist Theory of Revolution, pp. 316320, which dis-
cusses both the development of Luthers resistance teachings and the Admonition.
26A Faithful Admonition, Cv.
27A Faithful Admonition, Di.
28A Faithful Admonition, Cviiiv. Luthers comments on Munster are found at Dii.
136 chapter four

Luther thus scores a blow against his own theory of obedience. The text
opposed Spanish influence in Europea point that is illustrated by one
ominous marginal note, which reads that Kepyng out or resisting of the
Spaniards is no rebellion.29
Lutheran resistance theory, thus, appeared in English within a year of
Mary taking the throne. But it did not take an exile to Geneva to convince
evangelicals to radicalise their political theology. Luthers influence on
English evangelical resistance theory, however, must not be overstated.
Despite Admonitions teaching on resistance, the translator jettisoned its
more radical teachings. The preface explains:
Let us not contemne such warnings and admonicions as this conteined in
the treatise folowynge. And speciallye let no man misconstrue it, but read it
wyth judgement as an instruccion not to styre any man to unlawful rebellion
but only as an advertisement that no man minister any aide or obedience to
such Tirannes as bend themselves against God and hys word, and to the
subversion of their natural country.30

The translator of Admonition understands the mindset of his English read-

ers. Even though the text clearly teaches the duty to resist tyrants with
force, the author attempts to soft-soap these teachings by claiming that
readers should merely disobey evil commands.
Yet it was not easy to apply the Lutheran theory of constitutional resis-
tance to the English context. The most obvious problem was the relation-
ship between king and parliament, and the question of whether individual
magistrates had the authority to restrain the king. There was nothing in
England that paralleled the Imperial Diet and the autonomy of German
princes. To develop legitimate resistance theory, then, English evangeli-
cals needed to establish parliaments authority to restrain the monarch.
These issues were raised in the anonymous Certayne Questions Demanded,
published in 1555, which offered a lengthy series of questions about royal
authority. The text itself was derived from the ongoing pamphlet war
between evangelicals and the conservative Miles Huggarde.31 The ques-
tions are posed by the personification of England, and they seek, above
all, to undermine Marys claim to the throne. The first question begins
boldly: Whether there be two kind of tresones, one to the kynges parsone,

29A Faithful Admonition, Div.

30A Faithful Admonition, AvvAvi (emphasis added).
31The frontispiece claims that it was printed in London at the request of Myles
Hogherde, an obvious parody on his name.
 that outrageous pamphlet137

and another to the body of the relme; the next question asks whether a
Prince can betray his own realme,
and whether as the subjects of a realme without the consent of the Prince
may not deliver up the right and title of the same realme (belonging unto
the Prince) unto a straunger, whom it belongeth unto nothing.32
Certayne Questions Demanded should be ranked as one of the most impor-
tant Marian resistance tracts. It is perhaps the most promiscuous mix of
constitutional, theological, and moral arguments produced against Marys
reign. The text reveals the extent to which evangelicals were aware of con-
stitutional and populist arguments for resistance. Indeed, the text served
as a sourcebook of all the possible grounds for resisting Mary. The final
result of this legal barrage is overwhelming: Mary is a bastard according to
Henrys Parliament and unable to take the throne as his heir; the Bible
condemns female rule as a woman is forbidden to beare a sword, or wear
spurs, as kynges do in theyr creacion;33 the prince wrongly oppresses the
people when he steals their private goods; by marrying Philip, Mary has
handed England over to a foreign power; and according to divine and nat-
ural law the commons may stand against such a tyrant. What is interesting
is that this jumble of arguments really only contains one argument for
resistance itself: the discussion of the commons standing against a tyrant.
The other tactics all seek to find a path to discredit Marys rights to the
throne based on her birth or gender. If either argument could be proven
then, logically, the biblical command to obey rulers would not apply to
Mary, as she would be merely a woman.
The text does raise the question of whether the commons and lesser
magistrates may overthrow Mary. It asks if the commons may not lawe-
fully by the laws of God, and of nature, stand against such a Prince, to
depose her which hath and doeth seeke all meanes possyble to geve away
the Realme forever.34 This is not simply a constitutional argument for
resistance, however, as alongside this is the question of whether laymen
need to obey the determinacion of such a parliament, as be all together
ignoraunte in matters of religion or whether actes made by a parcial
Parliament, chosen by craft and policy, for the compassing of the Princes
wilfull purpose, oughte to be obeyed or not.35 Ultimately, it is unclear

32Certayne Questions Demanded (Wesel?: s.n., 1555; STC 9981), Aii.

33Certayne Questions Demanded, Aiiv.
34Certayne Questions Demanded, Av.
35Certayne Questions Demanded, Aiiiv.
138 chapter four

what form of resistance Certain questions prefersperhaps any will do, so

long as Mary is removed from the throne.
Evangelical arguments for resistance, then, appeared before the major-
ity of the exiles settled in Swiss Reformed cities. For some, the source for
these ideas was Lutheranism, though evangelicals showed a willingness to
develop their own ideas on the subject. The best example of this is John
Knox. Within months of Edwards death, Knox changed his mind about
obedience and began to advocate resistance in cases of religious oppres-
sion. Knox developed several of his ideas about resistance on his own ini-
tiative, and he began a campaign to convince Calvin and others of his new
opinions. While a few of these ideas had been floated in Reformed circles,
there was nothing substantial that would have inspired Knoxs ideas
directly.36 An inflammatory comment in his Letter to the Faithful in
London, Newcastle and Berwick appears to have sparked a debate in
Geneva. Knox included a note on Jeremiah 27 which stated that the
prophets of God sometimes may teach treason against kings, and yet nei-
ther he, nor such as obeys the word spoken in the Lords name by him,
offends God. This was significantly more radical than anything Calvin,
Bullinger, or Beza believed in 1554. Knoxs editor was concerned about his
teachings, and these comments were quickly removed from the final
printed edition of the text.37
Knox would not back down, however, and he next posed a series of
questions to Calvin about political authority and resistance: 1) whether a
boy king possesses lawful authority and is to be obeyed as a divine right,
2) whether a female can preside over a kingdom, 3) whether obedience is
to be rendered to a magistrate who enforces idolatry and condemns true
religion, and whether town magistrates are permitted to repel this
ungodly violence from themselves and their friends, and 4) if a nobleman
should raise resistance against an ungodly magistrate, which side must
godly persons choose.38 Again, the notion that he is deriving radical politi-
cal ideas from Calvin is undermined by the fact that Knox poses such

36On the evolution of Knoxs political thinking, see R. Mason, Knox, Resistance and
the Royal Supremacy in R. Bowers (ed), John Knox and the British Reformations (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 1998); idem, Introduction, John Knox: On Rebellion (Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
1994). On the radicalism of Knox (and Goodman), see J.A. Dawson, Trumpeting Resistance:
Christopher Goodman and John Knox, in Roger Mason (ed), John Knox and the British
Reformations (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998).
37J. Ridley, John Knox (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1968), p. 177.
38The list appears in a letter from Bullinger to Calvin (26 March 1554). OL, II,
pp. 745747.
 that outrageous pamphlet139

questions in the first place; there was no source for Calvinist resistance
theory or Knox would certainly have drawn upon it.
Calvins first response was not recorded, but we know he opposed
Knoxs line of questioning, particularly regarding popular resistance.39
Several weeks later Calvin sent the questions to Bullinger and Viret, along
with a letter introducing Knox. Despite Calvins rejection of his teachings,
Knox hoped to find a better audience in Zurich or Lausanne. We have
no record of the meeting between Bullinger and Knox, but we do have
Bullingers answers, which he sent to Calvin. Bullinger affirmed that, as
with Edward, a monarch retains full sovereignty during his minority. He
also denied that the Bible excluded women from the throneadding the
sage advice that it is a hazardous thing for godly persons to set themselves
in opposition to political regulations [that allow female regency].40
Bullinger also refused to answer questions three and four on the grounds
that they were vague. He admitted that God might guide an individual
to slay a tyrant, as this had occurred in the Old Testament; some who fol-
low the impulses of the Holy Spirit, andare guided by circumstances of
place, time, opportunity, persons, and things. Yet Bullinger quickly reiter-
ated that these texts were not grounds for resistance. He was concerned
that a vague commitment to resistance would plunge Europe into anar-
chy: Other objects are often aimed at under the pretext of a just and
necessary assertion or maintenance of rights, he writes, and the worst
characters mix themselves with the good, and the times are full of
danger.41 Bullinger reiterates three times that Knoxs questions are
ambiguous.
While this exchange between Geneva and Zurich is well known, there
are various opinions as to why Bullinger was hesitant to answer Knoxs
questions. J.H. Burns, Quentin Skinner, and Carlos Eire have argued that
Bullinger sided with Calvin against Knox.42 Richard Greaves, on the other
hand, has argued that Bullinger supported Knoxhe even suggests that it
was Bullinger (and not Calvin) who prompted Knox to develop his ideas
further.43 The debate is inconclusive as it is nearly impossible to deduce

39Skinner, Foundations, II, pp. 20624, where Skinner surveys Calvins hesitancy to
accept resistance.
40OL, II, p. 745.
41OL, II, p. 746.
42J.H. Burns, Knox and Bullinger, Scottish Historical Review 34 (1955): 9091; idem,
John Knox and Revolution, 1558, History Today 8 (1958): 56573; Skinner, Foundations, II,
p. 189; Eire, War Against the Idols, pp. 276279.
43Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation, pp. 12831.
140 chapter four

Bullingers motives from his answers alone. Historians have nevertheless

overlooked an important clue. With his reply to Calvin, Bullinger included
a prefatory letter, in which he states that he is sending two Englishmen,
one of whom, Thomas Lever, used to preach before the king; the other is
an individual of rank.44 The person of rank has never been identified, but
sending Lever is a clear indication of Bullingers judgment, for Lever was a
staunch supporter of the doctrine of non-resistance. Several months later,
when Lever was co-pastor in Frankfurt, he became one of Knoxs harshest
critics, and he later signed the letter to Calvin explaining why they had
expelled Knox.45 Indeed, Knox himself later credits the problems in
Frankfurt to the subtle undermining of Mr. Lever.46 Bullingers original
answer to Knox stated that he would leave this to be decided by the judg-
ment of godly persons, who are well acquainted with all the circum-
stances. This is almost certainly a reference to Lever and his anonymous
companion. Having received Bullingers response, Calvin finally issued a
written statement against Knoxs questions.47

Geneva and Frankfurt: Debates on Resistance

The convergence of wider European political concerns with the first artic-
ulation of English resistance theory created a dangerous mixture in
Frankfurt in 1554. The Frankfurt controversy led to the first major division
amongst the exiled community. These events have come down to us
primarily through the 1574 book, A brieff discours of the troubles begonne
at Franckford,48 written by Elizabethan puritans hoping to exonerate
Knox for his role in the disputes. The traditional view of the troubles is
well known: Knox and his supporters demanded the English church at
Frankfurt reform the 1552 prayer book.49 Freed from the obligation to
follow the kings orders, Whittingham and Knox began to follow a plain
liturgy more in line with Swiss practice. Conflict arose when the Anglican

44OL, II, p. 744.

45The letter is found at OL, II, pp. 753755.
46Garrett, Marian Exiles, p. 220.
47Calvins criticism can be found at CR (Calvini Opera) 15.125.
48A brieff discours of the troubles begonne at Franckford (Heidelberg: M. Schirat, 1574;
STC 25442). On its authors, see P. Collinson, The Authorship of A Brieff Discours Off the
Troubles Begonne at Franckford, JEH 9 (1958): 188208.
49For a recent study of these events, see E. Cameron, Frankfurt and Geneva: The
European Context of John Knoxs Reformation in R. Mason (ed), John Knox and the British
Reformations (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998).
 that outrageous pamphlet141

Richard Cox arrived with Jewel and others and formed an opposition
partyCoxians opposing Knoxiansthat stressed the principle of
adiaphora. The Coxians demanded the face of an English church50 and
refused to allow immoderate zeal for purity to outpace changes previously
instituted by the kings authority. Growing tired of compromises, and
ultimately unable to sustain enough support against the Coxians, Knox
and his supporters left for Geneva.
The story has grown with the telling, but historians customarily read
the Frankfurt issues through the lens of later Elizabethan arguments over
worship, liturgy, and church hierarchy. Too little attention is paid to the
issues of obedience and political resistanceissues at the heart of the
Frankfurt debates.51
The chronology of the troubles at Frankfurt reveals a deeper cause of
the quarrels than zeal for pure worship. The first to arrive at Frankfurt in
1553 were not the English, but the former Strangers church from
Glastonbury, led by Valerand Poullain.52 Frankfurt allowed the refugees to
live there and to worship in the Church of White Ladies. For the most part,
this was uncontroversial. Their liturgy was not based on the English prayer
book but on a revised French Reformed order. Still, the presence of foreign
communities exposed the delicate relationship between Frankfurt and
Charles V. The city had joined the Schmalkaldic League in 1546, though it
never took up arms against Charles, and had willingly opened its gates to
imperial forces. For their compliance, Frankfurt was spared much of the
emperors wrath and remained a free city. When the Lutherans renewed
hostilities in 1552, Frankfurt stayed loyal to Charles, and again Frankfurts
leaders were granted a certain degree of latitude concerning foreign wor-
ship within the city and, now anathematized by Gnesio-Lutherans, they
chose to strengthen ties with Swiss and French Calvinists. Thus, they
easily welcomed a small community of Reformed believers into the city.
When English evangelicals arrived in Frankfurt, the citys magistrates
sympathised with evangelicals, but were unwillingly to jeopardise their
fragile relationship with Charles for the sake of liturgical freedom. The
Strangers were allowed to worship according to their beliefs, but these
same freedoms were not extended to evangelicals for fear that the Prayer

50For the reference to face of an English church, see Knox, Works, IV, pp. 32, 42. For a
traditional view on this, see E. Emerson, English Puritanism from John Hooper to John Milton
(Durham, NC: Duke, 1968), p. 6.
51For background, see P. Collinson, Archbishop Grindal, 1519-1583 (London: Cape, 1979),
pp. 739.
52R. Jung, Die englische Flchtlings-Gemeinde in Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt, 1910).
142 chapter four

Book would create a political crisis. The magistrates did not want evan-
gelicals using their liturgy to stage political demonstrations against Mary
and Philip.
To offset these concerns, Frankfurts magistrates allowed the English to
join the Strangers church, demanding that they shulde not discent from
the frenchmen in doctrine, or ceremonies, least they shulde thereby min-
ister occasion of offense.53 Evangelicals, thus, were forbidden to use the
Edwardine prayer book. The offense in question was not a concern for
liturgical sensibilities but a concern that their actions might upset Charles
or cause him to question Frankfurts loyalty. Looking ahead, it is also cru-
cial to note that the troubles in Frankfurt should have been settled from
the start: Englishmen were ordered to use an alternative prayer book
before Knox or Cox even arrived. Fortunately, the English leaders in
Frankfurt were more than willing to obey the magistrates demands and to
follow a simpler form of worship.
Tensions within the Frankfurt community began to rise by the autumn
of 1554, after Knox and Lever were installed as the congregations pastors.
For reasons not entirely clear, the Frankfurt congregation issued a letter to
the exiles on the continent, calling on them to resettle in Frankfurt where
worship was subject to no blemish.54 The best conjecture we can make is
the Frankfurt leaders thoroughly enjoyed a break with the Edwardine lit-
urgy and were eager to establish a single English community on the conti-
nent. Part of their aim, too, was to secure the freedom to worshipthe
letter refers to the situation throughout Germany and imperial free cities
where Lutherans required conformity to their views on the Eucharist. But
Frankfurt went so far as to accuse some evangelicals of hiding their beliefs
for the sake of material comfort, almost certainly an indication that some
were swearing to Lutheran sacramentology. More insidious was the let-
ters claim that Englishmenincluding, by implication, those in Zurich
and Strasburgcompromised their integrity by taking part in impure
worship. True Christians, they argued, Let no respecte off worldly policie
staie us.55
This underlying power struggle is crucial. Now in exile, the old ecclesial
hierarchy began to weaken, and Frankfurts pastors could enact liturgical
revision without royal approval. Indeed, Frankfurts leaders behaved as if
the Edwardine churchs hierarchy was abrogated. Thus, the doctrine of

53A brieff discours, Aivv.

54A brieff discours, Biv.
55A brieff discours, Biiiv.
 that outrageous pamphlet143

obedience was employed to justify criticism of the English church rather

than submission to it56Frankfurt, after all, had ordered them to stop
using the prayer book and they obeyed, so all who arrived in Frankfurt
would be subject to the same regulations. Evangelicals in neighboring cit-
ies were stunned, and yet the leaders of Frankfurt refused to be corrected.
When Ponet wrote, offering to serve as pastor, they refused.57 The situa-
tion escalated to the point where Cox was sent from Strasburg in order to
deal with the situation. On his arrival, Cox made it clear that he was
unwilling to allow Frankfurts ministers to claim jurisdiction in the mat-
ter. In his mind, it was an issue of seniority, as well as an issue of propriety.
Cox was largely unconcerned with the general call to reform the 1552
Prayer Bookin fact, on a number of occasions he voiced support for
liturgical reform.58 But he was nevertheless infuriated that Knox and
Whittingham had criticised the Edwardine liturgy while Cranmer and
Ridley awaited their trials back in England. Changes, he felt, must be made
charitably and without rebuking former bishops suffering for the gospel.
Several days after his arrival, Cox began to protest during worship. As
the minister intoned the opening collect, the Strasbourg group responded
aloud with the congregational response that had been removed from the
service. Cox was admonished theroff, by the Seniors off the congregacion,
he, with the rest that came withe them.59 Several more outbursts of
this sort brought an end to worship and sparked the first of many argu-
ments amongst members of the congregation. For several weeks, congre-
gational meetings were subject to shouting matches, fistfights, and angry
walkouts.
Nevertheless, the embarrassing fact was that, since the magistrate had
already stipulated that the Book of Common Prayer was not to be used by
the congregation, Cox was attempting to enforce an illegal liturgy. For sev-
eral weeks, the city council took no notice of the troubles at White Ladies.
Only after the congregations leaders reached deadlock was the matter
brought to the citys attention through a supplication from Knox and

56Gunther (Intellectual Origins, ch. 5) argues similarly on this point.

57Ponet had only just arrived in Strasburg after his involvement in Wyatts Rebellion
and his wife gave birth to their first son. It is likely that Ponet was looking for a permanent
residence, as the following he applied for burgher status in Strasburg in order to take up
residence there. Cf. Garrett, Marian Exiles, pp. 2545.
58Cox wrote to Calvin (5 April 1555: CR 43.553; OL, II, p. 754) and stated that the
Frankfurt congregation had, in fact, removed surplices, crosses, private baptisms, and
kneeling at communion after Knox was removed. The issue, he reiterated, was not reform
but Knoxs dangerous political teachings.
59A brieff discours, Eivv.
144 chapter four

Whittingham.60 Not surprisingly, the response of the council was one of

shocked indignation. Johann von Glauberg, one of the citys two mayors
who had originally granted asylum and the use of White Ladies, went
straight to the church and rebuked them for quarrelling. He then reiter-
ated the citys demands to set aside the Book of Common Prayer in favour
of a Reformed liturgy: he commaunded that from thenc foorthe they
shulde not dissent from that order, yff they did, as he had opened the
churche dore unto them, so woulde he shutte it againe. And that suche
as woulde not obey thereunto shulde not tarie within that citie.61 The
troubles were resolved and the Knoxians scored the victory.
Why then was Knox expelled from the city? It was certainly not because
of his fiery temper or his obstinacy over worship. The city council had
always favoured the Knoxian approach, albeit for political reasons, and
they had worked closely with Whittingham when the English congrega-
tion first arrived. In fact, it was the Coxians who were out of step with the
local magistrates. In order to tip the scales in their favour, then, the
Coxians resorted to character assassination: several days after Glauberg
issued his ultimatum, they delivered a copy of Knoxs Admonition to
England, published the previous year, in which they marked nine of Knoxs
most vehement statements about resistance to magistrates. This was seen
as foul play by Knoxs supporters, as the Coxians had resorted to this only
after losing their case before the magistrate. Most of the text attacked
Marys reign, although one passage claimed that the emperor was worse
than Nero. This moment is described in A brieff discours,
And for that they sawe Knox to be in suche credit withe many off the congre-
gation, they firste off all assaied by a moste cruell barbarous and bloudie
practise to dispatche him owte of the waieThey had amonge them a booke
off his intituled an admonition to Christians written in the English tonge,
wherin by occasion he spake of the Emperour, of Philip his sonne, and of
Marie then Queene of Englande.62
Knox, then, was expelled because the Coxians exposed his radical political
theology to the city council. According to Cox and his supporters, they
acted because of the evils that were either already impending over our
church, or might happen to it in future.63 They worried that evangelicals
might be drawn into rebellion after our party had observed some other

60A brieff discours, FivFii.

61A brieff discours, Fiii. The date given is March 22.
62A brieff discours, FiiiFiiiv.
63OL, II, p. 760.
 that outrageous pamphlet145

things in him, which we have now purposely forborne to mention. They

later wrote to Calvin that they acted against Knox because of that outra-
geous pamphlet.64
The allegation devastated Knoxs position with the city council. The
council turned much of its anger on Whittingham, who had called Knox to
the city and vouched for his piety. The council was unable to read English
and they were unaware of Knoxs writings before he was summoned to be
pastor. An emergency meeting was called and Whittingham was sum-
moned to respond to the allegations made against Knox; he was then
required to translate each of the questionable sections into Latin for fur-
ther study. Once the texts were returned, the council was left with no
choice but to expel Knox from the city. Alone, Knox left for Geneva.
Those who had opposed Knox, however, continued to voice their oppo-
sition to his teachings. Lever returned to Geneva not long after the
Frankfurt troubles and entrenched himself for a second battle against the
Knoxians.65 Lever was no outsider in Geneva, later writing to Bullinger
that I attend all the sermons and lectures of Calvin, and some of those
other persons and that Calvin was favourably disposed towards me.66 In
1556, he published A Treatise of the right way from danger of sin and ven-
geance. Lever took up the gauntlet against Knox. Lever rebukes those who
avoid sin (idolatry) by supporting resistance (vengeance) against the
magistrate. To answer Knox on the issue of resistance, Lever redeploys the
evangelical argument for obedience. He argues that the biblical command
to seek no vengeance left the punishment of tyrants in Gods hands.
Those who rebel and take up arms against the kingthose who seek vio-
lent retribution for their sufferingcompound the problem as God will
punish their attempts to usurp proper authority. This is, in other words,
a direct assault on Knoxian resistance theory. The ninth chapter describes
a perilous path of perditionto obey rather man than god, to resist
authoritie unlaufully, to wishe vengeance and to lay fautes and blames
upon others uncharitablyan unsubtle jab at Knox and his supporters.67
While Lever agrees that one must refrain from idolatry, he continues:
O England, beware and take good heede that thou neyther resist autho-
rite, nor yet commit idolatrie. For if thou folowing mans imagination take

64OL, II, p. 761.

65For background, see C. Martin, Les Protestants Anglais Rfugis Genve au Temps de
Calvin, 1555-1560 (Geneva, 1915).
66OL, I, p. 156, 158.
67T. Lever, A Rightway (1556, RSTC 15551.5), Gvv.
146 chapter four

either of these two ways, then doest thou perilously proceede towards
perdition, contrary to the commaundement of God in the worde of God.68
Lever reiterates the classic defence of non-resistance.
Therefore if thou feele authoritie hevie and grievous unto thee, which surely
is Gods ordinance for mans comforte and commoditie, doe not repine and
murmure against Gods ordinaunce, but repent and amend thine owne
fautes, whiche do cause God to scurge and beat thee with that rod of
authoritie69

The relationship between Lever and Knox, then, forms a microcosm of

evangelical and Reformed political thought in the mid-1550s. Those who
see evangelical political radicalism as a derivative form of Calvinismor
as somehow connected with Genevamust deal with Lever. He too was a
disciple of Calvin; in fact, he spent more time in Geneva than Knox.
And yet Lever held firm to the traditional evangelical teaching on non-
resistance and openly challenged Knoxs theory of resistance. Moreover,
he did so from Geneva, the supposed citadel of political radicalism.
Traditional claims that English resistance theory arose by dint of evangeli-
cal exposure to Calvinism, then, have failed to notice clear evidence to the
contrary.
The most that can be said is that, by 1556, there was a fundamental
ambiguity amongst Reformed leaders on the issue of resistance. Carlos
Eire notes that radicalism was the result of Calvins students, such as Beza,
who expanded the Reformed teachings on idolatry. He argues that the
desire for purity often led Reformed leaders to iconoclasmand, by
extension drove them to overthrow governors who supported idolatry.
Calvin himself was hesitant to approve of such teachings, but his students
grew more comfortable with these conclusions.70 But Lever is a counter-
example of this trend. By any definition, he was Reformed. Yet he opposed
the Knoxian development of resistance theory and published a strong
defence of the doctrine of obedience. Although Calvin would concede
more ground to constitutional arguments for resistance from 1560 onward,
many Reformed leaders were still in step with Levers strong theory of
non-resistance by 15567.

68Lever, A Rightway, GviiGviiv.

69Lever, A Rightway, Gviiv.
70On the rise of revolutionary ideas in Calvins disciples, see Eire, War Against the Idols,
pp. 276310. Eire is in essential agreement with Skinner (Foundations, II, pp. 206224) that
Calvin himself was hesitant about resistance theory, though he argues that Calvins ideol-
ogy, in fact, led his followers to embrace political revolution.
 that outrageous pamphlet147

John Ponet, Law, and Lutheranism

By the 1550s, Strasbourg had transformed itself into a Lutheran city,

though it strove to maintain relations with Reformed leaders. For a time,
Lutheran and Reformed theologians lived side by side in Strasbourg. In
1554, Peter Martyr was invited to return to his teaching post in Strasbourg,
though he was forbidden to discuss the Lords Supper with his Lutheran
colleagues.71 Many English evangelicals settled in Strasbourg, including
John Ponet, who arrived there shortly after the failure of Wyatts Rebellion.
This small coterie of exiles was the leading edge of evangelicals on the
continent who were attempting to incorporate Lutheran resistance the-
ory into their own political thought.
Peter Martyr was the first of the Strasbourg group to publish his opinions
on constitutional resistance. Though a foreigner, Martyr was nevertheless
in the inner circle of English evangelicalism. Several of his Oxford students
and colleagues, such as Richard Cox and John Jewel, moved to Strasbourg
to be near him, and from prison Cranmer entrusted him with defending
the Edwardine reformation.72 Prior to his arrival in Strasbourg, there is no
indication that Martyr harboured any radical views on resistance.73 In his
1555 A treatise of the cohabitacyon of the faithfull with the unfaithfull, how-
ever, he advocates constitutional arguments for resistance and adopts the
Lutheran position on the authority of lesser magistrates.74 This was
certainly driven by both the circumstances surrounding Marys reign and
his personal affection for Cranmer, who was imprisoned in England.
Cohabitation focuses on the question of whether Catholics and Protes
tants could coexist within the same commonwealth. Martyr begins with a
refutation of Catholic worship and concludes that Catholics, in fact,
should not be allowed to worship within Protestant realms. If Catholics
remain obstinate, he argued, they should be compelled to attend evangeli-
cal worship.75 Naturally, the discussion then turns to the magistrates role

71Martyr later refused to remain quiet and published his Dialogue on the Two Natures as
a refutation of the Lutheran view of the Lords Supper. Tensions between Martyr and his
Strasbourg colleagues forced him to move to Zurich in 1556.
72Cf. MacCulloch, ch. 13.
73For Peter Martyrs role in defending obedience under Edward, see chapter 3.
74On Martyrs later political thought, see R. Kingdon, The Political Thought of Peter
Martyr Vermigli (Geneva: Droz, 1980); see also, M. Anderson, Royal Idolatry: Peter Martyr
and the Reformed Tradition ARG 69 (1978): 157200.
75A treatise of the cohabitacyon of the faithfull with the unfaithfull [hereafter:
Cohabitation] (Strasburg: W. Rihel, 1555; STC 24673.5), Fviv, refers to this as violent
enforcement of the faithful to worship with the unfaithful.
148 chapter four

in enforcing religious conformity. Martyr seizes the opportunity not

only to affirm the godly magistrates duty to care for religion (cura religio-
nis),76 but also to offer a theological justification for overthrowing an
ungodly ruler.
Martyrs discussion on resistance follows the basic pattern laid out by
Luther and Melanchthon in the 1530s, yet he adapts constitutional resis-
tance for the English context. He begins by dividing civil rulers into two
groups. First, there are monarchs or chiefe princes, suche as do not
depend and hange on [an]other. Martyr describes these rulers as having
a mere Rule, or absolute authority. Second, there are lesser magistrates,
or those who do depende and hange on the higher princes.77 Apart from
this simple division, the authority of the higher powers does not factor
heavily in Martyrs argument. Instead, he focuses almost exclusively on
refining his definition of lesser magistrate. He divides lesser magistrates
into two further categories, namely, those who have Jurisdiction, power,
and auctorite and those who do not. The former are appointed by the king
and receive authority directly from him; the latter have authority based on
their position in the church, their private wealth, or for the auncientnes of
theyr house and blud. In Martyrs view, This laste sorte do not differ at all
in a maner from private menfor these are mere subjects as they are.78 In
other words, private persons, including clergy, are excluded from resis-
tance or rebellion.
Having identified who may resist, Martyr next develops a procedure for
doing so. Again, however, he borrows heavily from Lutheran sources. He
mentions in passing the positive-law argument that kinges in respecte
that they are menare they bounde to observe commen lawes even as
other men are.79 But Martyr never expands on this theme. Instead, he
devotes the majority of his attention to the constitutional argument that
higher powers may be restrained, or bridled, by lesser magistrates. He
begins by limiting resistance to cases of manifest idolatry. In Cyvile
thinges they may gyve place to the unjust commaundementes and decrees
of theyr hygher Lordes.80

76Cohabitation, Fiiiv, states that Magistrates are apointed to be the defenders, and
executours of the first table of the lawe aswell as of the seconde. On Peter Martyrs views
on the magistrates, see T. Kirby, The Charge of Religion Belongeth unto Princes: Peter
Martyr Vermigli on the Unity of Civil and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, ARG 94 (2003):
161175.
77Cohabitation, Fiiv.
78Cohabitation, Fvii.
79Cohabitation, Fiiiv. This comment appears almost verbatim in Ponets writings.
See discussion below.
80Cohabitation, Fviii.
 that outrageous pamphlet149

Nevertheless in this matter [idolatry] sedicion muste be avoyded so much as

may bebut here only let them resiste, that nothinge be done contrary to
Godds worde, and not for those thinges which are done to hinder theyr
ambicion.81
Like Luther and Melanchthon in the 1530s, Martyr appeals to the elec-
tours of the Empire, and the Princes of Germanie, and the fre cityes, to
resist Charles by the Imperiall pouer and righte, whiche is committed
unto them. Since they hold proper authority, they do not resiste against
them, with that Resistaunce which is forbidden.82 Instead, they use their
power to restrain tyranny and advance godliness. Martyr appeals to the
Maccabees and claims that their rebellion was justified because it was led
by the Asmonei dynasty, whiche in dignitie were nexte unto the house
and stocke of the Kinges, and bare the chief Rule nexte unto it.83 Had
their revolt been led by priests, he argues, they would have acted immor-
ally. In other words, Martyrs case rests on the idea that the authority of
the lesser magistrate is tied up with the monarchs authority:
For Emperours and Kinges, and such hygher pouers, have therefor chosen
and taken these under Rulars and officers, as it were into a parte of theyr
Rule, to be theyr helpersto the ende that Justice might florishe so muche
the more.84
According to the Code of the Empire, although lesser magistrates are
appointed by the emperor, their office is permanent. The higher powers
may not revoke their office. Truly no man can take that from thyne office,
which God hath commaunded thee to do in it.85 Because lesser magis-
trates participate, somehow, in the kings authority, they are able to use
their own authority to correct the higher power.
Martyrs role in shaping English evangelical resistance theory has not
always been appreciated by historians.86 The same cannot be said, how-
ever, of John Ponet, whose work on resistance theory influenced English
political thought for generations.87 Ponet was the most notable Englishman

81Cohabitation, Gi.
82Cohabitation, Gi.
83Cohabitation, Fviii.
84Cohabitation, Gii.
85Cohabitation, Giiv.
86A notable exception is J. Dawson, The early career of Christopher Goodman, PhD
dissertation (University of Durham, 1978). Dawson surveys Peter Martyrs influence in
some detail.
87D. Wollman, The Biblical Justification for Resistance to Authority in Ponets and
Goodmans Polemics, SCJ 13/3 (Winter 1982): 2941; B. Beer, John Ponets Shorte Treatise of
Politike Power Reassessed, SCJ 21/3 (Autumn 1990): 37384.
150 chapter four

to switch camps during the 1550s. As an Edwardine prelate, he showed no

signs of political radicalism. He preached before the king, contributed
texts on the Eucharist and clerical marriage, and translated Ochinos
strongly pro-monarchical tract, Tragoedie of the Bishop of Rome in 1549.
There is nothing to support Jordans suggestion that Ponet was hiding his
opinions for the sake of harmony.88
In 1556 Ponet published A shorte treatise of politike power in Stras
bourg.89 The text is best described as a set of radical convictions about
the relationship between the king and positive law, expressed with
all the intensity of sixteenth-century propaganda. A modern reader
approaching A shorte treatise would find its arguments passionate but
immature.90 Evidence is cited in a slapdash manner, such as Ponets
irrelevant quotations from Peter Martyr Anglerias Decades of the New
World, which come from a copy lent to him by Peter Carew in 1555 for his
private reading.91
Ponet defends the positive law theory of resistance, a theory which
does not restrict resistance to lesser magistrates (constitutional resis-
tance), but which rests on the notion that all citizens, whether king or
subject, must obey the law. The duty to resist, then, is grounded on the
idea that a king can be brought to justice. Ponet does include arguments
for constitutional resistancerepeatedly calling on Parliament to resist
Marys legislationand even hints that private individuals may receive
direct revelation from God to slay evil rulers.92 But the dominate argu-
ment is that the king is bound to obey civil precepts once they are estab-
lished by the consent of the entire realm.

88W.K. Jordan, Edward VI: Threshold of Power (Harvard: Harvard UP, 1970), pp. 3703;
Jordan attempts to prove that Ponet was radical quite early, but his evidence is vague and
broad enough to include nearly every Edwardine evangelical at once.
89J. Ponet, A shorte treatise of politike power (Strasbourg: s.n., 1556; STC 20178), preface.
90According to John Stow, Ponet was actively involved in Wyatts Rebellion (Stow,
Annals [1630, STC 1189], fol. 619). It is conceivable that Ponet first engaged in acts of resis-
tance against Mary and only begun work on a rationale defence for his actions when he
arrived in Strasbourg.
91Garrett, Marian Exiles, p. 256.
92A shorte treatise of politike power, Aviv, reads that all Christian realmes have consti-
tutional means by which to bridle the higher powers. He says that Germany holds a
Counsail or diet to deliberate between the emperor and his subjects, while France and
England have parliaments. On the issue of private vengeance against a king, Ponet is
unclear. He states with approval that classical sources teach that it is lawfulfor every
man to kill a tyrant (Gviv), but he later states that I think it cannot be maintained by
Goddes worde, that any private man may kill (Gviii). On Ponets political teachings, see
Skinner, Foundations, II, pp. 221ff.
 that outrageous pamphlet151

Ponets political teaching can be summed up in one phrase: kings are

but ministers of the lawes, and not the lawes self.93 Royal decrees, then,
must pass the judgment of the political body as a whole. Any changes to
the commonwealths laws, or any forfeiture of lands to a foreign country,
must be taken before Parliament and the Commons for approval: they
cannot geve or sell awaye the holdes and fortes (as Calese and Barwike, or
suche like) without the consent of the Commones.94 All of this is predi-
cated on the idea that the kings will is not sovereign within the kingdom.
Even the Jane Grey conspiracy, he argues, was an illegal use of royal power,
since the alteration of the succession was based only on King Edwardes
will, wherby his two sisters, the ladies Mary and Elizabeth should have
ben wrongfully disherited.95 Without the consent of the realm, such
actions were, by definition, tyrannous. Ponet concludes that tyrants who
steal from their subjects are thieves: and those that be judges in common
wealths, ought (upon complaynt) to summone and cite them to answer to
their crymes, and so to procede, as they do with others.96 Vengeance is
not to be withheld for eternity,
the magistrates doings [may] be called to accompt and reckoning, and their
vices corrected and punished by the body of the hole congregacion or com-
mon wealthe.97
Scholars have rightly noted that Ponets positive-law arguments were
unique amongst English resistance ideas at this time.98
Unlike most other English evangelical resistance writers, however,
Ponet had a clear concept of the temporal origin of royal power. Indeed,
his discussion on the relationship between the monarchy and the author-
ity of the populace is the best defended argument in the entire treatise.
The authority of the king, Ponet argues, was originally lodged in the peo-
ple as a whole: Kinges, Princes, and governours have their autoritie of the
people, as all lawes, usages and policies doo declare and testifie.99 At
the coronation of a king, the authority of the people is not forfeited to the
monarch but simply entrusted to the king for safekeeping. Measures are to
be taken within the commonwealth to ensure that the king does not treat

93A shorte treatise of politike power, Cvi.

94A shorte treatise of politike power, Eiii.
95A shorte treatise of politike power, Dviiv.
96A shorte treatise of politike power, Hi.
97A shorte treatise of politike power, Gvv.
98Skinner, Foundations, II, pp. 189206.
99A shorte treatise of politike power, GvvGvi.
152 chapter four

his power as if it were absolute.100 The king is bothe a private man in

respecte of his owne persone, and a publike in respecte of his office.101
Ponet goes so far as to suggest that the king is unnecessary to the State:
For the countrey and common wealthe is a degree above the king. Next unto
God men ought to love their countrey, and the hole common wealth before
any membre of it: as kings and princes (be they never so great) are but mem-
bres: and common wealthes mai stande well ynough and florishe, albeit ther
be no kinges.102
Ponet here rejects the Henrician triad of offering loving obedience to God,
king and neighbor; instead, one must love God and the entire country
over the king himself. Monarchs have no privileged position in the
commonwealth.
The majority of Ponets arguments, however, can be found in the
Lutheran campaign to develop a viable theory of resistance during the
1530s.103 It is likely, then, that Ponet derived many of his arguments from
those sources. In 1556, shortly before his death, Ponet provides evidence of
this in a letter to Bullinger: What is exile? he jabbed, I can readily learn
even from this, that he has afforded me for my comforters Bullinger,
Melanchthon, Martyr and other most shining lights of his church.104
Martyr was an obvious influence: Ponet lived for a time with Martyr in
Strasbourg and he would have been familiar with Martyrs Cohabitation.105
The inclusion of Melanchthon suggests that Ponet may have read Mel
anchthons writings on political resistance from the 1530s, which touched
on similar themes and cited many of the same sources. Both base their
theories of resistance on natural law, and both appeal to the Roman law
precedent that a man may kill his superior if he is found in bed with his
wife or daughterthe implication being that in egregious cases the
normal course of obedience is overruled. And it was Melanchthon, not
Calvin, who first appealed to the ephoral power in Sparta or the consular
authority in Rome as examples of the role of lesser magistrates in restrain-
ing tyrannyboth of which appear in A Shorte Treatise.106

100A shorte treatise of politike power, Biii.

101A shorte treatise of politike power, Ciiv.
102A shorte treatise of politike power, Dvii.
103Cf. Skinner, Foundations, II, pp. 2213
104OL, I, p. 116.
105Bullinger, however, denies that a hereditary monarch might be deposed and would
not have influenced Ponets ideas directly. See discussion above in chapter 3.
106See discussion in Skinner, Foundations, II, pp. 2024. Ponet appeals to the ephoral
lesser magistrates at Avi, which is his meditation on the origins of civil authority.
 that outrageous pamphlet153

But Ponets political thought was more than a repetition of Luther and
Melanchthon. Ponet also offered heavy criticism of the typical English
evangelical teachings on non-resistance. When we compare A shorte
treatise to Henrician or Edwardine evangelical political texts, the differ-
ences are apparent. Ponet scorns those who defend what he calls the
absolute authority of kings and princes: kings thought they might by
their owne reason, do what them lusted, not onely in private things, but
also in publike.107 This, in fact, is a direct contradiction to Tyndales bold
words in Obedience: the kinge is in this worlde without lawe and maye at
his lust doo right or wronge and shall geve acomptes, but to God only.108
Ponets analysis of this, however, is atypical. He allows that kings may act
immorally (as they lust) in private so long as it does not impinge on the
actions of the State. Yet early evangelicals hardly mention such a differ-
entiation between public and private ethics, as their teachings on obedi-
ence are overwhelmingly focused on public tyranny. Again, Tyndales
teaching may be cited as an extreme: though he be the greatiste tyraunte
in the worlde, yet is he unto thee a greate benefit of God and a thinge
wherefore thou oughtest to thanke God hyly.109 On the contrary, Ponet
teaches that both king and subject are bound to obey the law of nature.
Evangelicals, of course, had long taught that a king is under divine and
natural law; that much is uncontroversial in Ponets statement here.
Normally, however, the notion that the king is under divine and natural
law meant simply that a ruler may not command anything contrary to
scripture or nature. Aprince may not, for example, instruct a subject to
murder or commit adulteryno one in the sixteenth-century would
have taught otherwise. Ponet, however, suggests a new relationship
between the king and the law. Not only must Christians refuse to obey
immoral commands, but should a magistrate break the lawshould he
commit idolatry or murderthen he too is subject to punishment.
A tyrant can be put on trial.
Ponet further critiqued the evangelical use of Psalm 82 as a justification
for non-resistance. Again he restructures the interpretation of the text
around the concept of law and lawgiving:
Forasmuche as those that be the Rulers in the worlde, and wolde be taken
for Goddes (that is, the ministers and images of God here in earth, the exam-
ples and myrrours of all godlynesse, justice, equitie, and other vertues)

107Ponet, A shorte treatise of politike power, Aii.

108Obedience, Dviiiv.
109Obedience, Eiv.
154 chapter four

clayme and exercise an absolute power, which also they call a fulnesse of
power, or prerogative to doo what they lust, and none may gaynesaye them:
to dispense with the lawes as pleaseth them, and freely and without correc-
tion or offence doo contrary to the lawe of nature, and other Goddes lawes,
and the positive lawes and customes of their countreyes, or breake them:
and use their subjectes as men doo their beastes, and as lordes doo their
villanes and bondemen, getting their goodes from them by hoke and by
crookethe miserie of this tyme requireth to examine, whether they do it
rightfuly or wrongfully.110
The power received from God is not absolute, by which Ponet means the
kings authority is not divorced from the act of lawgiving. Law itself pro-
ceeds from the Holy Spirit and thus a magistrate must construe positive
law according to divine and natural law. Should a king attempt to do
otherwisein Ponets case, should a ruler impose Catholicismthen
he abnegates his role as god, or as lawgiver, and thus may be removed.
The redirection of the standard interpretation of Psalm 82 is crucial,
for Ponet is aware of how this text had been used by other evangelicals:
And bicause this authoritie and power, bothe to make lawes, and execute
lawes, proceeded from God, the holy goost in the scripture calleth them
Goddes: not for they be naturally Godds, or that they be transubstantiated in
to Goddes (for he sayeth, they shall dye like men, and in dede their works
declare them to be non other than man) but for th[e] autoritie and power
which they receave of God.111
Here the interpretation of Psalm 82 helps to clarify Ponets positive-law
theory of resistance as well as his relationship to earlier English evangeli-
cals. On the one hand, this is an altogether new interpretation of Psalm 82.
Evangelicals had overwhelmingly backed what Ponet dubs the fullness of
power interpretation of the psalmthey concluded that to assault the
person of the king was to assault God. Thus, evangelical arguments never
fully severed the link between the person and the office of the magistrate.
Ponets approach side steps this obstacle by construing the authority of
rulers (their godlike power) as a function of their office, thereby radically
divorcing law from lawmaker.
Ponets interpretation of Psalm 82 was unique. Peter Martyr does not
mention Psalm 82 in any of his writingsone of the few sixteenth-century
reformers who does notwhile, as we saw in the last chapter, Bullinger
strongly backed the traditional reading. Lutheran commentators were

110Ponet, A shorte treatise of politike power, Biii.

111Ponet, A shorte treatise of politike power, Avv.
 that outrageous pamphlet155

critical of using Psalm 82 as a political trope (Luther wrote a full commen-

tary against it in 1531).112 It is probable that this was a unique contribution
by Ponet towards the development of resistance theory. By the early 1560s,
others, such as Pierre Viret, began using similar arguments in their writ-
ings on resistance. Viret even structured his radical teachings on social
justice in Le monde a lempire around this psalm.113

The English Genevan Party and Zurich

The final year of Marys reign was marked by a biblical reorientation of

evangelical resistance theory. We must take care, however, to see 1558 in
the context of the previous five years. Once the rump of Frankfurts
Knoxian party moved to Geneva they began constructing overtly biblical
arguments for resistance that relied less on Lutheran arguments from
Roman law or extra-scriptural sources. The development of such biblical
arguments was perhaps the most important step towards developing a
sustainable evangelical theory of resistance, as appeals to canon law,
church history, or any extra-scriptural source were vulnerable to the
charge that they were based on mere human wisdom. Ponet, for example,
had freely cited non-Christian sources, arguing that Gods will was visible
in pagan nations since they had the law of nature to guide them. He even
cited canon law and several instances where corrupt popes were removed
from office. Such arguments scored rhetorical points against Catholics,
but a biblical case for resistance was needed if it was to have any lasting
value amongst evangelicals. Goodman grudgingly admitted, for example,
that the story of the Macabeean revolt is not of sufficient auctoritie to
allow for resistance, as it was considered non-canonical.114 One must, he
argued, look for examples from the Old and New Testaments. Inspired by
the need for a biblical defence of resistance, Knoxian residents in Geneva
published a series of writings on political obedience in 1558.
In January 1558, Goodman published How superior powers ought to be
obeyed, a text closely linked both in content and style with Knoxs political

112See the introduction and text in Luthers Works, vol. 13 (Selected Psalms II).
113Viret, Le monde, pp. 243252; cf. Linder, The Political Ideas of Pierre Viret, p. 61n.
114Goodman, How superior powers, Evii. He nevertheless argues that the Maccabean
leader Mathias meditated upon the worde of God and, thus, his example was based indi-
rectly on the Bible (Eviiv). Ultimately, Goodman can only conclude that, despite the lack of
revolutionary examples in the Bible, yet would verie natural reason compel every man to
the same (Eviii).
156 chapter four

thought.115 Goodman first met Knox in Frankfurt where the two became
immediate friends. He was angered over the turmoil surrounding Knoxs
political radicalism and grieved when Knox was banished from the city.
The following year, he followed Knox, and both were selected as pastors of
the English congregation in Geneva.
In 1557, Goodman had preached a sermon on the Acts 5 text we must
obey God rather than man. This sermon was a landmark defence of active
resistance. Goodman appears to have devised much of the sermon either
on his own, or perhaps in collaboration with Knox. We are told that, after
a nearly a year of reflection, Goodman consented to enlarge the said
Sermon and so to print it.116 This enlargement included Goodmans orig-
inal sermon but with expanded references to the standard Lutheran
freight of arguments for resistance, as well as a number of ideas that may
have been taken from Ponet.117 Thus, the text we have today is a mixture
of Goodmans original sermon material expanded to provide a fuller argu-
ment for resistance.
Acts 5 had not played a prominent role in early Marian resistance tracts.
In fact, it was often used in non-resistance texts, such as the Edwardine
homily Of obedience.118 Typically, evangelicals argued that the text
instructed Christians to withhold obedience to evil commands (passive
disobedience). In other words, the command to obey God was not viewed
as a threat of violence or resistance but as a duty to disobey idolatrous
laws. Acts 5 simply delineated the point where obedience ended and suf-
fering began. But Goodman was driven to find a biblical rationale for resis-
tance. He thus redirects the interpretation of this text towards active
resistance. He states that it is not inough to denye wicked commande-
mentsexcepte we withstand them also.119 One must ensure obedience
to Gods word, and so Christians are to resiste idolatrie by force.120 At one
point, he even changes the text to read that Obedience is to resiste man

115For background, see J. Dawson, The early career of Christopher Goodman; on the
collaboration between Knox and Goodman, see idem, Trumpeting Resistance: Christopher
Goodman and John Knox.
116Goodman, How superior powers, Aiii.
117Skinner (Calvinist Theory of Resistance, pp. 318319) notes that Ponet and Goodman
at times make nearly identical arguments.
118This same point is made in J. Dawson, Trumpeting Resistance, p. 146: This verse
was the proof text of the conscience clause for non-resistanceGoodman changed it from
a justification for passive disobedience, and consequent suffering, into a call for active
resistance.
119Goodman, How superior powers, Dviii.
120Goodman, How superior powers, Evii.
 that outrageous pamphlet157

rather than God.121 For Goodman, then, it is sinful for Christians to sub-
mitte them selves to all kindes of punishmentes and tyrannye.122
Goodman, therefore, stands the Henrician rhetoric of obedience on its
head: man sheweth his rebellion, never so much, as when he woulde be
moste obedient in his owne sight and judgment.123 For Cranmer and
others, obedience was the fullest expression of Christian piety, a sign
that Christ had inflamed the heart to obey persecution without vio
lence. Goodman, however, calls on his readers to repente oure former
ignorauncehaving more lighte and fuller knowledge.124 Moreover,
Goodman is quite aware that he stands against the vast majority of English
evangelicals on the issue of obedience. He admits that
the moste parte of men, yea and of those which have bene both learned and
godlie, and have geven worthie testymonie of their profession to the glorie
of God: have thoght and taught (by the permission of God for our synnes)
that it is not lawful in anie case to resist and disobeye the superior powers:
but rather to laye downe their heades, and submitte them selves to all kindes
of punishmentes and tyrannye.125
But Goodman claims that his new reading of Acts 5 leaves them con-
demned and convicted of evil. For decades under Henry and Edward, the
nobles sat hearing no other preaching, but that they must obeye their
Prince, and so they failed to be a brydel at home to their Princes in tyme
of peace. They misunderstood the true meaning of Romans 13, and so they
were deceaved by misunderstanding this place of Paul and such like.126
These claims are much more radical than arguments made by Peter
Martyr and other Reformed leaders in the 1550s.127 Goodman shares noth-
ing of Martyrs concern to ensure that rebellion is the last resort for
Christians. He never considers Peter Martyrs argument, which suggests
that only civil authorities, narrowly conceived, may resist the higher
power. Goodman simply declares that Mary is a bastarde to the lawful
begotten dawghter and that she ought to be punished with death.128

121Goodman, How superior powers, Fiiv.

122Goodman, How superior powers, Bviiv.
123Goodman, How superior powers, Aviv.
124Goodman, How superior powers, Aviiv.
125Goodman, How superior powers, Bviiv.
126Goodman, How superior powers, Cii, Ciiiv.
127Walzer, Revolution of the Saints, pp. 1023, sees a sharp division between Ponet and
Goodman, but sees a strong link between Calvinism and Goodmans radicalism. Skinner
has criticised this in The Origins of the Calvinist Theory of Revolution, p. 328n.
128Goodman, How superior powers, Gii. God is angered by Marys regime, he continues,
thus in takinge agayne the same auctoritie from her, you shall restore Christe and his
worde and do well (Giv).
158 chapter four

Theduty to resist lay with all believers. To prove his point, Goodman con-
tradicts Martyrs view on the Maccabees: he states that Matathias was no
publike person, as he was without noble blood or civil rank, and we reade
of no auctoritie or office he had to excuse him for his rebellion. Goodman,
thus, concludes that the Maccabees led a populist revolt. Goodman fur-
ther contends, again in contradistinction from Peter Martyr, that it is the
duty of both religious leaders and common people to engage in resistance
to defend the gospel:
it is not onley the office of Apostles and preachers, to resist, but the dewtie
likewise of all others according to their estate and vocation.129
Goodman received a mixed response from evangelical and Reformed
leaders. The sermon itself was a hit amongst Knoxians in Geneva.
Whittingham writes in the preface of How superior powers that Goodman
was praised for his exposition of Acts 5, and certeyne learned and godly
men moste instantly, and at sondry tymes required him to dilate more at
large than his Sermon, and to suffre it to be printed.130 Yet Goodman was
unwilling to issue his ideas in print without first consulting Calvin and
other Reformed leaders: he admitted [their request] not easely,
Whittingham writes, because he was certain that many were still over-
come with olde Custome. Once Goodman decided to publish the text,
however, he began conferring his articles and chief propositions with the
best learned in these partes.131
Goodman was out to provoke debate amongst Reformed leaders on
these issues, just as Knox had done in 1554. Again, Calvin may have begun
to give ground to more radical opinions. Several months after the publica-
tion of How superior powers ought to be obeyed, Goodman wrote to Peter
Martyr in Zurich, inquiring about the series of propositions which he had
sent to Martyr for consultation before the book was published.132 He
claims to have shown these propositions to Calvin who deemed them
somewhat harsh, especially to those who are in the place of power, though
he says that Calvin affirmed his conclusions. This introduces one of the
more puzzling aspects of Calvins involvement in Elizabethan England, as
he would deny Goodmans allegation to William Cecil the following year.
Indeed, Calvin and Beza both will claim to have been unaware that radical

129Goodman, How superior powers, EvivEvii.

130Goodman, How superior powers, Aiiv.
131Goodman, How superior powers, AiivAiii.
132OL, II, p. 771.
 that outrageous pamphlet159

texts were being published in 1558. But it is difficult to imagine any treatise
being published in Geneva without Calvins tacit approval. Still it is not
clear what text Calvin would have read. He could not have read Goodmans
original text, as it was written in English. It is likely, then, that Goodman
presented Calvin with a synopsis of his argumentperhaps the same syn-
opsis he sent to Peter Martyr in 1557. Calvin, thus, may have approved of
Goodmans general argument, without vetting the full text. In his apolo-
getic to Cecil, he claims to have discussed similar ideas with Knox in a
private conversation, and this may have been the same with Goodman.133
The issue is murky, but we can assume that Goodman believed the
Reformed community was beginning to support popular resistance.
Sometime in the autumn of 1557, then, Goodman pressed the issue of
political resistance with Martyr, who had moved from Strasburg to Zurich
in 1556. Martyr was cautious and declined to answer. Months after he pub-
lished How superior powers ought to be obeyed, Goodman was still pleading
with Martyr to send his opinions, though he claims that he does not write
with a view of extorting from you the opinion for which I asked, though
I greatly desired it, as I still continue to do.134
One of the most important contributions Goodman made to English
evangelical resistance was his critique of certain passages in scripture
used to support non-resistancethe subject of the second half of his trea-
tise. His stated goal in How superior powers is to answer all suche reasons,
auctorities, and Scriptures, as are aleadged to the contrarie.135 He begins
with the classic text in Romans 13, and refutes the claim that all powers
are to be obeyed, whether tyrannous or godly,
For thogh the Apostle saith: There is no power but of God: yet doth he not
here meane anie other powers, but such as are orderly and lawfullie
institute[d] of God. Either els shulde he approve all tyranny and oppression,
which cometh to anie common welth by means of wicked and ungodlie
Rulers, which are to be called rightlie disorders, and subversions in common
welthes, and not Gods ordinaunce.136
Goodmans interpretation of Romans 13, then, inserts a condition that
Paul could never have meant that Christians must obey ungodly rulers:
Or else, if we shall so conclude with the wordes of the Apostle, that all
powers what so ever they be must be obeyed and not resisted, then must

133Quoted and discussed in Gordon, John Calvin, p. 264.

134OL, II, p. 770.
135Goodman, How superior powers, Gvv.
136Goodman, How superior powers, Gviiv.
160 chapter four

we confesse also, that Satan and all his infernall powers are to be obeyed.137
Goodman consequently states that those who transgresse Gods Lawes
them selves and commande others to do the like have thereby lost that
honor and obedience which otherwise their subjectes did owe unto them;
in such cases they oght no more to be taken for Magistrates: but punished
as private transgressors, as after I have promised to prove.138
Goodman changes the interpretation of other key non-resistance texts,
such as 1 Peter. Though Peter commands servants to obey their masters,
Goodman argues that this refers only to rude and slovenly individuals, or
that Christians must obey their masters even if they are rough; then ye
see the meanyng of S. Peter is not to make us subjecte to any evill or
ungodly commandementes.139 Similarly, when Christ instructed Peter to
put away his sword in Matthew 26, he did not teach obedience, for there
is nothing in this saying of Christe to Peter, which can condemne lawfull
resisting of ungodlie Rulers in their ungodly commandementes. Christs
commandment to suffer death should not be applied to political
obedience.
For thogh it was profitable to all men that Christ without any resistance
shulde be crucified, being the sacrifice appoynted of God and the Father to
salvation: yet is it not therefore lawfull for the inferior officers, or permitted
to the subjectes, to suffre the blasphemie and oppression of their superiors
to overflow their whole countrie and nation, when both power and means is
geven unto them lawfully to withstand it.140
Here Goodman opposes the evangelical teaching on suffering under tyr-
anny. He suggests, instead, that suffering and non-resistance were instru-
mental in the crucifixion, but not part of the Bibles fundamental teaching
on political obedience. Christians have the power to end their suffering
through resistance, and they have a duty to withstand the higher powers.
When we turn to the Geneva Bible, we find evidence that Goodman
influenced the Old Testament notes on obedience. The Geneva Bible ulti-
mately comes down in favour of resistance, but its teaching is uneven on
the subject. There is far less evidence of straightforward political radicalism
than is often claimed.141 Indeed, the Geneva Bible develops two different

137Goodman, How superior powers, Gviiv.

138Goodman, How superior powers, HiiivHiv.
139Goodman, How superior powers, Hiii.
140Goodman, How superior powers, Hvi.
141Cf. Hardin Craig, Jr., The Geneva Bible as a Political Document, Pacific Historical
Review 7 (1938): 4049; R. Greaves, The Nature and Intellectual Milieu of the Political
Principles in the Geneva Bible Marginalia, Journal of Church and State 22 (Spring 1980):
 that outrageous pamphlet161

opinions on resistance: the New Testament notes maintain obedience and

the Old Testament notes advance a moderate case for resistance.
The notes on the New Testament, the first portion of the Geneva Bible
to be published, were based largely Whittinghams earlier exegetical work,
and were completed sometime in 1557. Goodman was not yet on the edi-
torial committee, and his teachings on resistance do not appear in the
marginal notes. Indeed, the New Testament notes offer a basic defence of
non-resistance. On the issue of obeying a tyrant, the note at Titus 3 tells us
that although the rulers be infidels, yet we are bounde to obey them in
civil policies, and where as thei commande us nothing against the worde
of God. This is the basic case made for passive disobedience: the Bible
forbids resistance for purely civil matters and proclaims that believers
must disobey evil commands. Matthew 26 is interpreted traditionally, and
differs from Goodmans exegesis, as we are told that the exercising of the
sworde is forbide to private persones. Also he woulde have hindered by
his indiscrete zeale the worke of God. Notes on Romans 13 and 1 Peter give
classic arguments for passive disobedience, but allow no room for rebel-
lion. Remarkably, there are no comments made on Acts 5 (obey God
rather than man), the grounding text for Goodmans work in How superior
powers ought to be obeyed. If one were to read only the New Testament
notes, it would take a very sharp eye to detect anything out of the ordinary
in terms of political thought.
The Old Testament notes, however, develop a case for resistance.142
Surveying these notes, we find a number of suggestive statements about
tyranny and rebellion. The story of David refusing to slay Saul (1 Samuel 24)
was cited ubiquitously in non-resistance writings as evidence that even
the future king of Israel would not commit regicide. The Geneva notes,
however, propose that David spared Saul for seing it was his owne private
cause, he repented that he had touched his enemie. This interpretation
follows Goodmans How superior powers, which had offered a devastating
blow to the conventional interpretation.143 In the case of the Egyptian

23349; D. Danner, Anthony Gilby: Puritan in Exile-A Biographical Approach, CH 40/4

(December 1971): 41222.
142Unfortunately, there are no notes for the Apocrypha, leaving unanswered the ques-
tion of how the editors might have interpreted texts from the Macabees or Wisdom 6.3
(For the rule is given you of the Lord and power by the moste High).
143Goodman discusses this passage extensively, beginning at Iiiiv (The thirde obiec-
tion). Goodman rejects those who consider the bare wordes of the text and conclude that
David is practicing non-resistance. He argues, instead, that his quarrel with Saul beinge
then Davids owne private cause, it was not lawfull for him in that case to seke his owne
revengement And therefore David beinge but a private man could have done no violence
to his kinge without Godes especial inspiration (Ivvvi).
162 chapter four

midwives disobeying Pharaohs command to kill Israelite newborns

(Exodus 1:19), we read a simple statement that Their disobedience herein
was lawful, but their dissembling evil. More caustic are comments made
about II Chronicles 23:21, where the high priest Jehoiada covenants with
the Israelite army to depose the usurper Athaliah from the throne and
crown the rightful heir, Joash: the tyrant having unjustely & by murther
usurped the crowne, wolde stil have defeated the true possessor, and ther-
fore called true obedience, treason. These notes are not entirely con-
cerned with resistance theory per se, as the story involves defending the
throne for the true heir and deposing a pretender. Throughout Marys
reign, however, a number of evangelicals continued to claim she was an
illegitimate sovereign, either because she was a bastard by birth or because
she was a woman. Jehoidah-like claims that a usurper had taken the
English throne by force, and that the true heir must be restored, were
flimsy justifications for outright resistance.
The different teachings of the New and Old Testament notes are almost
certainly due to Goodmans influence. Whittingham writes in the preface
to How superior powers that he and others were inspired by Goodmans
arguments and that they convinced him to publish it. Since Whittingham
functioned as the primary editor for the Geneva Bible notes, his apprecia-
tion for Goodmans arguments may have been influential. Whittingham
had been more cautious when working on the New Testament, which
could account for its traditional appeals to passive disobedience. Within
days of the publication of How superior powers ought to be obeyed, how-
ever, work on the Old Testament notes began. Not surprisingly,
Whittingham recruited Goodman to assist in the project. Thus, by the
time of its publication in 1560, the Geneva Bible had become a radical
political document.

Conclusion

There is no denying that resistance theory was a part of Marian evangeli-

cal literature. Historians have devoted much attention to Knox, Goodman,
Ponet, and a few other resistance texts. But this chapter has argued that,
for resistance theory to be properly understood, it must be placed in an
overall context of obedience. Henrician and Edwardine evangelicals went
to great lengths to defend the doctrine of obedience. They argued, for
example, that rebellious subjects were eternally damned, or that the New
Testament condemned resistance against magistrates. Marian resistance
 that outrageous pamphlet163

writers, thus, had to justify their position against the majority of English
evangelicals who continued to teach non-resistance. The goal of this chap-
ter, then, was to gain perspective on English evangelical radicalism.
Resistance theory was not a natural development within English evangeli-
cal political thought, but a deviation from the earlier evangelical defence
of obedience. As Jane Dawson has argued, early English evangelical writ-
ers constructed an extremely difficult barrier for all Protestant resistance
theorists to surmount.144 Knox and Goodman, in particular, knew their
ideas were unpopular, but they worked tirelessly to convince Reformed
leaders of their case for resistance. When the exile community returned to
England, those few who had published their views on resistance were on
poor terms with Cecil and the queen. The majority, however, continued to
teach the doctrine of obedience.

144J. Dawson, Resistance and Revolution in Sixteenth-Century Thought, p. 73.

 CHAPTER FIVE

IF THE PRINCE SHALL FORBID:

DIVISIONS OVER EVANGELICAL OBEDIENCE IN THE 1560S

The religion of Elizabethan England was something of an enigma, with an

evangelical queen1 blowing hot and cold on religious reform, a mostly
Catholic populace, and a growing troupe of evangelical preachers and
bishops not always in step with Elizabeth.2 Elizabeths reign saw the rise
of moderate and radical Puritanism as well as the counter-balancing force
of English conformity. Running throughout these discussions is the ongo-
ing debate over the limits of obedience and the right to resistance. By the
mid-1560s, the challenge faced by non-conformists was how to justify their
disobedience to Elizabeth without exposing themselves to the charge of
sedition and treason, a tension that runs back to Henry VIII. Non-
conformists argued that the use of vestments was impious, leading honest
men and women into sin. They therefore claimed that their consciences
would be wounded should they obey the queen. The language of non-
conformity, then, was the classic defence of passive disobedience
Elizabethan hot Protestants denied that they were resisting the higher
power and described their non-conformity as an expression of their
obedience.
The focus of this chapter will be on Elizabethan evangelicals who either
came out of conformity or returned from exile and their relationship to
the Elizabethan church. We will also explore evangelical connections
with the continent. During the 1560s, evangelicals regularly appealed to
the Swiss confederations for counsel and support in times of crisis and, in
particular, when questions were raised about conscience and Christian

1Elizabeths evangelical orientation has recently been studied in detail in S. Doran,

Elizabeth Is Religion: Clues from her Letters, JEH 52 (2001): 122; T. Freeman, As True a
Subject being Prysoner: John Foxes Notes on the Imprisonment of Princess Elizabeth,
15541555 EHR, vol. 117, 470 (February 2002): 104116.
2One Elizabeths liturgical conservatism, see R. Bowers, The Chapel Royal, the First
Edwardian Prayer Book, and Elizabeths Settlement of Religion, 1559 HJ 43/2 (June 2000):
317344. Contrast W. Hudson, The Cambridge connection and the Elizabethan settlement
of 1559 (Durham, NC: Duke, 1980); N. Jones, Faith by Statute (London: London : Swift
Printers for the Royal Historical Society, 1982). Both see Elizabeth as essentially in step
with the 1552 version of the Prayer Book.
166 chapter five

liberty. This chapter, therefore, examines only part of a very complex

Elizabethan picture, and is not an exhaustive study of Elizabethan
Protestantism, which included Lutheran, non-Calvinist and politique
alike.3 The goal of this chapter is to study debates over conformity to royal
authority and the alleged influence of Calvinism on English evangelical
thought. The reason for restricting our focus in this way is that Swiss theol-
ogy played an undeniably important role in later Elizabethan and Jacobean
England. As Peter Lake has argued, though not every English elite was
influenced by the Swiss, Reformed thinking nevertheless dominated the
English intellectual world.4 For this reason, the connections between
Reformed and English evangelical political thought are a perennial topic
of research.
For a number of years, there have been claims of a Zurich Connection
with England, in which Bullinger and others heavily influenced the Eliza
bethan formulation of the Supremacy and helped add a Swiss accent to
Anglicanism.5 The argument of this chapter is somewhat different: while
evangelicals identified with Swiss ideas, a number of non-conformists
ultimately ignored the advice of Bullinger and Gualter and challenged
Zurichs teaching on obedience. In addition, the Swiss reformers
themselves were at odds over English conformity and, at times, offered
contradictory adviceBullinger himself gave two different answers on
the subject. There was therefore confusion under Elizabeth over who
offered the authentic Reformed voice on the issue of obedience. Thus,
evangelicals on both sides of the vestiarian controversy (15651569)

3Cf. H Horie, The Lutheran Influence on the Elizabethan Settlement, 15581563,

HJ 34/3 (September 1991): 51937. A more thorough account of English religion can be
found at Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement; idem, Godly People: Essays on
English Protestantism and Puritanism (London: Hambledon, 1983); Susan Doran, Elizabeth
I and Religion, 15581603 (New York: Routledge, 1994); C. Dent, Protestant Reformers in
Elizabethan Oxford (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1983).
4P. Lake, Calvinism and the English Church, 15701635, Past & Present, 114/1 (February
1987): 34.
5Older literature includes, T. Vetter, Relations between England and Zurich during the
Reformation (London, 1904); In terms of recent arguments, M.E. Pratt, Jr, Zwinglianism in
England during the Reign of Elizabeth PhD dissertation (Stanford, 1953), maintained that
the Elizabethan Settlement was a full adoption of Zwinglianism; D.J. Keep, Bullingers
Intervention in the Vestiarian Controversy of 1566, The Evangelical Quarterly 47 (1975):
223230 describes Bullinger as the originator of English Erastianism, though not necessar-
ily the Settlement. See also J.W. Baker Erastianism in England: the Zurich Connection in
A. Schilder and H. Stickelberger (eds), Die Zricher und Rckwirkungen (Bern: Peter Lang,
2001), pp. 327349. On the historiography of this and a useful critique, cf. Walter Phillips,
Henry Bullinger and the Elizabethan Vestiarian Controversy: An Analysis of Influence,
Journal of Religious History 11 (1981): 36384. A more careful and textual study of the Zurich
Connection can be found in T. Kirby, The Zurich Connection.
 if the prince shall forbid167

experienced a significant breakdown in communication with continental

reformers. In a similar fashion, disputes amongst the English over vest-
ments threatened to rupture relations between Beza and Bullinger. As
Philip Benedict has recently argued, tensions already existed between
Zurich and Geneva by the time Elizabeth took the throne. The cities dif-
fered over civil authority and the magistrates jurisdiction in the church.
As Benedict puts it, the Swiss were cooperating allies with contrasting
models of Christian community.6 It is misleading, then, to debate whether
Swiss theories of revolution directly shaped English political thinking.7 A
variety of English political ideas, conformist and non-conformist, were
shaped by the Swiss.

Political Divisions and Ambiguities

Exiles returning to England needed to distance themselves from ideas of

popular resistance. Even those who had never called for Marys overthrow
had to distance themselves from Knox and Goodman. Evangelical minis-
ters could not begin to reform their native country while on poor terms
with the queen. Our understanding of the relationship between Marian
exiles and Elizabethan England is necessarily shaped by historiography.
Strype was the first of many historians to proclaim that the radical politi-
cal ideas of Goodman and Knox found many approvers.8 In actuality, this
point is overplayed and without sufficient evidence. As Loach has argued,
the enduring commitment to obedience shared by the exiles meant that
the more radical ideas circulating on the continent were brushed aside.9
While a few Elizabethans accepted and defended resistance theory, the
majority supported the doctrine of obedience and non-resistance. It was
the unique circumstances of Elizabeths reign, however, that led evangeli-
cals during the 1560s to divide further over political obedience.

6Philip Benedict, Christs Church Purely Reformed, pp. 115120. In a similar fashion,
Benedict offers evidence of how Reformed ideas interacted and reacted differently in vari-
ous national contexts such as England, the Empire, and the Netherlands.
7L. Solt, Revolutionary Calvinist Parties in England under Elizabeth I and Charles I
CH 27/3 (September 1958): 234239, begins by asking why a well-disciplined and well-
armed Calvinist revolutionary party never materialized in England in the sixteenth-
century? Such a question precludes the notion that Swiss ideas might be used to defend a
doctrine of obedience.
8Strype, Annals, vol I, part 1, p. 177. See, for example, Bowler, English Protestants and
Resistance Writings; idem, Marian Protestantism and the Idea of Violent Resistance.
9J. Loach, Pamphlets and Politics, 15538, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research,
28 (1975): 3144.
168 chapter five

Even before Elizabeth took the throne, evangelicals had begun to regis-
ter complaints about the radical political teachings of Goodman and
Knox. Those still fighting a vigorous polemical war against Marian
Catholicism were occasionally forced to alter their rhetoric. In March
1558, Bartholomew Traheron issued an ominously titled Warning to
England to Repente (one of the last attacks on Mary printed). As the title
indicates, Traherons work was a prophetic forewarning of Gods eternal
vengeance against those who enforced idolatry. Before it went to press,
however, he wrote up an addition and printed it as an appendix. The
reader is suddenly instructed to use these warnings only to amende thy-
selfe, and to stirre other[s] to amendment of life, and to the advancement
of goddess glorie and that the authors desire is that God would converte
thee, thy ruler, thy nobilitee, and all other thy countre men. He cautions
his readers to express their grief in prayer rather than violent resistance,
lest they pulle the vengeance of god upon thine awne head.10 Traheron
did not wish to be associated with those advocating rebellion.
Those who had sided against Knox in Frankfurt continued to rebuke the
few resistance treatises that had been published in Geneva in 1558. Jewel,
in particular, felt free to dismiss resistance theory as a momentary lapse in
judgment, and he was relieved to see Knox raising trouble in Scotland
rather than England. In April 1559, he wrote to Peter Martyr that Goodman
is in this country, but so that he dare not shew his face, and appear in pub-
lic.11 The queens hatred of the English Genevan party was well known,
and before long, she effectively banished Goodman from England until the
late-1560s, when he finally capitulated and showed remorse for publishing
How superior powers ought to be obeyed; he was forced to proclaim his con-
trition from the pulpit and in two written epistles.12
Elizabeths inner circle waged war on those exiles who had defended
the doctrine of rebellion. Evangelicals in power, such as Parker and Cecil,
had conformed under Mary, and they stood with Elizabeth against Knox
and Goodman.13 Parker, in particular, was worried about the political

10Traheron, B., A warning (Wesel?: s.n., 1558; STC 24174), Bvii-Bviiv.

11ZL, I, p. 21.
12Two different versions of the text are in the British Library, recorded in Strype,
Annals, vol. 1, part 1, pp. 184185, and Annals, vol. 2, part 1, pp. 141. There is another copy in
the Cambridge UL (Baker MSS, vol. 36, Mm. 1.47, p. 336). The first recantation in Strype was
likely before the privy council, while the second was made at Lambeth. For a discussion of
various documents, see. D. Danner, Christopher Goodman and the English Protestant
Tradition of Civil Disobedience, SCJ 8/3 (Oct., 1977): 6567.
13On Cecil, see S. Alford, Burghley (New Haven: Yale, 2009); idem, The Early Elizabethan
Polity: William Cecil and the British Succession Crisis, 15581569 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP,
 if the prince shall forbid169

teachings of evangelicals returning from exile. Amongst Parkers corre-

spondence regarding his potential appointment to the archbishopric of
Canterbury are a number of programmatic statements about his under-
standing of the exiles teachings. In late 1558, he was moved to issue a let-
ter to Bacon, which, although filled with conventional protests about his
unworthiness for office and his desire for solitude, spelt out his vision for
leading a new Protestant English church. At the core was a fear of the
return of certain political voices who were influenced by Knox and
Goodman:
At my last being at London, I heard and saw books printed, which be spread
abroad, whose authors be ministers of good estimation: the doctrine of the
one is to prove, that a lady woman cannot be, by Gods word, a governor in a
Christian realm. And in another book going abroad, is matter set out to
prove, that it is lawful for every private subject to kill his sovereign, ferro,
veneno, quocumque modo, if he think him to be a tyrant in his conscience,
yea, and worthy to have a reward for his attempt: exhorrui cum ista legerem.14
Parker asserts that these teachings lead to anarchy, since they rely on the
judgment of the subject, of the tenant, and of the servant, to discuss what
is tyranny, and to discern whether his prince, his landlord, his master, is a
tyrant, by his own fancy and collection supposed.15 This threat from evan-
gelical exiles is chalked up to misplaced zeal. Parker hopes, instead, that
returning evangelicals will focus on more urgent problems: the realm is
full of Anabaptists, Arians, Libertines, Free-will men, &c., against whom
only I thought ministers should have needed to fight in unity of doctrine.16
The fact that he discusses evangelical political radicalism in this letter is
telling. Anticipating his appointment, and aware that his correspondence
with Bacon was semi-public, Parker reveals his hope that the new English
church would be led back to unity of doctrine. Unity of doctrine, in Parkers
mind, begins with a strong doctrine of obedience; Marian resistance ideas
must be purged. So anxious was Parker to deal with resistance theory, that
he gives short shrift to the Catholic threat in England: As for the Romish
adversaries, their mouths may be stopped with their own books and
confessions of late days.17

1998); the best single piece written on Parker is the article by David Crankshaw and
Alexandra Gillespie in ODNB, Matthew Parker; Crankshaw and Gillespie argue that
Parker fit within the mould of Bucer and irenic Reformed leaders, aligning him with
Grindal and others.
14Park. Corr., pp. 6061.
15Park. Corr., p. 61.
16Park. Corr., p. 61.
17Park. Corr., p. 61.
170 chapter five

To express their obedience to Elizabeth, most returning evangelicals

turned to an old tactic: the Henrician rhetoric of seditious popery. In 1560,
Reginald Poles De Unitate (1536) was re-released under a new title, The
seditious and blasphemous Oration of Cardinal Pole.18 The preface informs
us that Catholics slander Christ himself his gospel and his trew folowers,
as the auctours of all myschiefes, seditions and tumultes, and that Pole
only drafted his book because he wer suspectid of Lutheranysme.19
Similarly, Thomas Becon devised a lengthy defence of evangelical obedi-
ence in The Reliques of Rome (1563), in which he blamed the miseries of
England on Mary as opposed to Edward. He argues that, while Catholics
claim the gospel leads to sedition and heresy, Englands problems arose
when there was hygh silence of Gods word: neither was the trompet of
Christes gospell freely blowen.20 Was not all the hurly burly, sedition,
commotion, strife, contention, debate, insurrection, &c. imputed unto
[the apostles] and their doctrine? Were not these the words of their adver-
saries, when they brought them before the Rulers and head officers?21
The champion of this anti-Catholic construal of obedience in the 1560s
was John Jewel, whose Apology and voluminous debates with Harding
were devised as a strategy to repudiate the Council of Trent.22 An Oxonian
and a disciple of Peter Martyr, Jewel packed his works with a bevy of
sources, from the church fathers to medieval sourcebooks. When trans-
lated onto the page, his style was that of a university disquisition and his
works bore a clear resemblance to Peter Martyrs: nearly every page is
filled with wrangles over the correct interpretation of ancient sources,
philological comments, and attention to fallacies of logic. Jewels argu-
ments are not always clearindeed, a recent biography has contended
that his research was careless and sloppy.23
We will focus on Jewels articulation of evangelical obedience in the
Apology. Jewel defends the position that Catholic theology is inherently
seditious. In the end, it comes down to a fundamental difference between

18The seditious and blasphemous Oration of Cardinal Pole (London: O. Rogers, 1560;
STC 20087).
19The seditious and blasphemous Oration, preface, *2*3.
20T. Becon, The Reliques of Rome (London: John Day, 1563; STC 1755), *7v.
21The Reliques of Rome, *8v.
22Older biographies are W.A. Southgate, John Jewel and the Problem of Doctrinal
Authority (Harvard: Harvard UP, 1962); John Booty, John Jewel as Apologist of the Church of
England (SPCK, 1963).
23Jenkins, John Jewel and the English National Church (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), ch. 2
and passim. For a hostile review of Jenkins, see B. Usher, John Jewel Junked JEH 59/3
(July 2008): 501511.
 if the prince shall forbid171

those who obeyed the monarch and those who obeyed the pope:
the apostles didteach that magistrates ought to be obeyed; thus, the
Bible teaches obedience, and true Christians obey the monarch.24 Those
who adhere to Roman obedience necessarily disobey the monarch. Yet
despite their submission to lawful authorities, Christian believers are con-
stantly accused of stirring up trouble in the commonwealth.25 Jewel cites
biblical examples where Christ and the apostles, though obedient to
all magistrates unto death, were nevertheless slandered as a rebellious
faction. Recent history was much the same for evangelicals: Forty years
agone, he writes, as Martin Luther and Hulderic Zuinglius first pro-
claimed the gospel it was an easy thing to accuse evangelicals of sedition:
But now, sithence our very enemies do see, and cannot deny, but we ever in
all our words and writings have diligently put the people in mind of their
duty to obey their princes and magistrates, yea, though they be wickedFor
we have overthrown no kingdom, we have decayed no mans power or right,
we have disordered no commonwealth.26
All of the nations that have received the gospel, he argues, still abide in
their original state of government or rather much better, for that by means
of the gospel they have their people more obedient unto them. Again,
Jewel turns to Lutheran and Reformed regions of Europe as examples of
true obedience: Luther quashed the Peasants Revolt, while the tumultu-
ous political struggles between the Helvetic regions and Austria were
about two hundred years before Hulderic Zuinglius.27
The Apology, thus, rests on a firm conviction that all Protestants
accepted evangelical teachings on obedience. The text never mentions
the embarrassment caused by Marian resistance writers, and Jewel ignores
the differences between continental reformers whom they upon spite call
Zuinglians and Lutherans. He claims that both sides be Christians, good
friends, and brethren.28 It is hard to escape the conclusion that Jewel is
being disingenuous about his views of Lutheranism here. Only a matter of
months after the Apology was published, Jewel wrote to Bullinger that
England and Switzerland are both united against these Ubiquitarians29

24Jewel, Works, vol. 3, p. 73.

25Jewel, Works, vol. 3, p. 7374.
26Jewel, Works, vol. 3, p. 74.
27Jewel, Works, vo. 3, p. 74.
28Jewel, Works, vol. 3, p. 69. The extent to which Jewel balances the errors of Rome
with the truths of Zwingli and Luther is not sufficiently appreciated by those who would
see the Apology as a via media between Protestantism and Catholicism.
29ZL, I, p. 123.
172 chapter five

and he beamed with pride when Peter Martyr dedicated to him the
anti-Lutheran tract Two Natures of Christ.30 But to his Catholic opponents,
Jewel held firm to the conclusion that Protestantism stood united on the
issue of obedience.
There were nevertheless changes in evangelical attitudes towards gov-
ernment. While evangelicals still taught obedience, some began to
advance new concerns that church leaders need not tarry for the magis-
trate. Quite early in Elizabeths reign, some voiced the opinion that
Christians must work towards reformation with or without the queens
blessing. There is no contradiction here; most evangelicals still rejected
resistance. However, the belief that priests might go beyond the magis-
trates commands certainly played loose with the language of obedience.
John Pilkingtons Commentary on Haggai (1560), for example, extols the
doctrine of obedience, only then to insist that individuals should seek reli-
gious change in their communities without requesting the queens per-
mission. The choice of Haggai itself is interesting, as it is the story of a
prophet rebuking the king of Israel for neglecting to rebuild the temple
after returning from exile. Pilkington is careful, however, to stress that the
magistrate ruled over the church: the king and high priest are the two
chiefest rulers; yet he evermore setteth in order the civil magistrate and
power before the chief priest, to signify the pre-eminence and preferment
that he hath in the commonwealth. Pilkington moves next to a discussion
on obedience. Christ and the apostles, he says, instructed the faithful not
to resist:
And although kings and rulers in commonwealths were infidels, and not
christened, yet he bids obey them as the chief and highest; and neither wills
any to be disobedient, to pull the sword out of their hands, nor to set up
himself above them, but humbly to obey them in all things not contrary to
Gods truth and religion.31
The command to obey, of course, does not extend to matters of sin, but he
never condones taking the sword against the magistrate, even in cases of
idolatry. The common theme of suffering for the sake of ones faith is
unambiguous in the commentary:
If England had learned this lesson in the time of persecution, we should nei-
ther for fear at the voice of a woman have denied our Master with Peter;
nor for flattery have worshipped Baal, nor rashly rebelled; but humbly have

30See, Dialogue on the Two Natures of Christ, (ed), J.P. Donnelley. The preface covers
much of the anti-Lutheran collaboration between Jewel and Martyr.
31Pilkington, Works, pp. 2324.
 if the prince shall forbid173

suffered Gods scourge, until it had pleased God to have cast the rod in the
fire: the which he would sooner have done, if our unthankful sturdiness had
not deserved a longer plague.32
For Pilkington, mindless conformity and vengeful rebellion serve the
same ends: they extend Gods judgment and prolong suffering.
From this heady doctrine of obedience, Pilkington nevertheless
expresses a potentially divisive idea. He comments on Haggai 1:1415,
where, after the prophet has rebuked the king, all the remnant of the peo-
ple arose and began rebuilding the temple. Pilkington contends that this
is evidence of how preaching can stir up the multitude to reform. Preaching
also moves laypeople to act boldly: without fear of the kings displeasure
the people trusted that [God] would be with them; because of this they
no longer fearedthe kings officers displeasure, which had forbidden
them to build any more; but straight without suing for a new commission
or license of the king, or speaking with the kings officers, they set up their
work.33 In terms of actual resistance theory, it is difficult to make much of
this, particularly as the biblical passage in question deals with a situation
in which the king himself is stirred by the prophets message. The rebel-
lious acts Pilkington refers to here, then, involve moving ahead of the
kings schedule but not against the kings willperhaps an indication of
Pilkingtons understanding of Elizabeths religious outlook. Yet the call to
build the Temple without a license from the king is bold language for a
bishop. It is hard to imagine a bishop saying such things under Henry VIII.
Other evangelicals, such as Sandys, took pride in treading a fine line
between emboldened ministry and outright disobedience, both of which
were permitted, he believed, because of Elizabeths personal faith. In 1558,
Sandys reported to Zurich that the queen had announced that the word of
Godshall be the only foundation and rule of my religion.34 For his part,
Sandys aimed to hold Elizabeth to this promise. Once he was installed
bishop of Worcester, he spent the autumn there, thundering from pulpits
against Catholic worship and organising several iconoclastic demonstra-
tions. A year later, after the first of many eruptions over the use of
the crucifix in the queens chapel, he claimed to have browbeaten the
queen to the point that I was very near being deposed from my office, and
incurring the displeasure of the queen.35 Collinson has recently noted,

32Pilkington, Works, p. 24 (emphasis mine).

33Pilkington, Works, p. 117118.
34ZL, I, p. 4.
35ZL, I, p. 74.
174 chapter five

however, the extent to which Sandys was sheltered by members of the

Privy Council, especially Cecil, whom he had known as a youth at
St. Johns, Cambridge.36 Sandys basic outlook, thus, focused more on the
need for good counsel and the giving of advice than open hostility and
separatism. In a sermon before Parliament, he asks everyone to pray for
the magistrates:
that God may give them understanding hearts, rightly to rule; faithful coun-
selors, from whom they may receive wise and grave advice; careful minds, to
put good counsels in execution. Evil counsel given hath wrought much woe
to many princes, and utter ruin to sundry commonwealths.
Godly counsel leads to peace and tranquillity in the commonwealth:
Happy is the prince, that hath wise and godly counselors; and thrice happy,
that will follow them. Then may the people live a quiet and a peaceable life
in all godliness and honestly.37
The idea of counsel under Elizabeth, of course, as John Guy has shown,
was a politically loaded term, in that there was some ambiguity as to
whether the queen was obliged to follow the advice of her Privy Council.38
Sandys words are particularly evocative as they employ several Henrician
ideas about peace and godly tranquillity in the commonwealth; good
counsel and a wise monarch, working together, can foster virtue and obe-
dience. Sandys is convinced that the clergyespecially the bishops
were a vital part of this counsel. At the 1563 Convocation, Sandys drafted a
summary of distasteful church practices, which he hoped fellow bishops
would urge upon the queen.39 Not surprisingly, they firmly requested that
private baptisms and the crossing of infants during baptism be stricken
from the prayer book. More to the point, he asks that Elizabeth follow the
order taken by her majestys fatherand by the late king Edward and
appoint a number of bishops and learned experts to draw up a law code
for the church. Sandys then asks for statutory backing: the committees
decisions in this present session of parliament, whatsoever they shall

36ODNB, Edwin Sandys.

37Sandys, Sermons, p. 39.
38Cf. Guy, The Rhetoric of Counsel; these themes are picked up and explored in
Alford, Early Elizabethan Polity; idem, The Political Creed of William Cecil in J. McDiarmid
(ed), The Monarchical Republic of Early Modern England (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007),
pp. 7590.
39On the 1563 Convocation, see D. Crankshaw, Preparations for the Canterbury
Provincial Convocation of 156263: A Question of Attribution in S. Wabuda and
C. Litzenberger (eds), Belief and Practice in Reformation England: A Tribute to Patrick
Collinson from his Students (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), pp. 6093.
 if the prince shall forbid175

order to set down, within one year next to be effectual, and for law con-
firmed by act of parliament, at or in this session.40
Sandys was more concerned with securing religious reform, and he was
certainly willing to cooperate with Elizabeth and the council. He worried
about the threat of conservatives in London, and he knew that evangeli-
cals needed the queens support. This meant, of course, that evangelicals
must continue to distance themselves from Marian resistance teachings.
In May 1559, Sandys wrote to Parker from London that through the vain
bruits of lying papists the evangelicals were required to issue a confession
of faith to declare that we dissent not amongst ourselves.41 The Declaration
is extant in the Parker Library, and it is an expansion of the 42 Articles.
The draftsmen rearranged the ordering of the original articles and offer
short preambles in order to clarify evangelical teachings and to defend
themselves from conservative accusations. Sections 19 and 20 contains
two comments about civil government. First the preamble alleges that
through the malice of the evil minded we have been reported to be sow-
ers of sedition and teachers of disobedience against magistrates.42 The
text contends that evangelicals never taught resistance:
For as we have at all times most earnestly taught all due obedience unto
magistrates, so have we ever and most gladly obeyed them ourselves in God,
according to His word, neither have we at any time stood against the ordi-
nary power, but rather have chosen to suffer than to rebel, to bear injuries
than to avenge.43
This is a reiteration of the Henrician and Edwardine rhetoric of obedi-
ence: godly subjects do not resist the magistrate and, when necessary,
they suffer persecution.
The Declaration next offers two significant points on obedience. First it
rejects the teachings of Knox and Goodman, stating that the word of God
doth not condemn the government or regiment of a woman[women]
are no less in any respect to be obeyed and honoured in all lawful things
than if they were men, kings, princes.44 The nub of the issue, however,

40Sandys, Sermons, Miscellaneous Pieces, p. 28.

41Park. Corr., p. 66.
42CCCC MSS 121, Synodalia, n. 20 (hereafter: Declaration). The two sections on civil
government and obedience are found at fol. 157157v. See discussion in R.W. Dixon, History
of the Church of England, vol. 5, p. 107115.
43Declaration, fol. 157.
44Though Knox is best known for his views on female regency, Goodman, too, com-
manded his readers to avoyde that monster in nature, and disordre [sic] amongest men,
whiche is the Empire and governement of a woman (How superior powers, Diiv).
176 chapter five

was resistance against a legitimate monarch, and the confession issued a

clear condemnation of rebellion by private persons:
A tyraunt, or evil magistrate, which by succession or election attaineth to
any princely estate or government, is a power ordained of God, and is also to
be honoured and obeyed of the people in all things not contrary to God, as
their magistrate and governor. It is not lawful for any private person or per-
sons to kill or by any means to procure the death of a tyrant or evil person
being the ordinary magistrate. All conspiracies, seditions, and rebellions of
private men against the magistrates, men or women, good governors or evil,
are unlawfull and against the will and word of God.45
The key point of this statement is found in the opening line: both a tyrant
and an evil magistrate are ordained of God. This is precisely the point
denied by Knox and Goodmanthey held that idolatry and wickedness
undermine royal authority, making it possible to resist a tyrant. Still,
Bowler misreads this text as an example of how far the main body of
Protestant thought on the subject had moved. He argues that the
Declaration does not teach unconditional obedience since it allows for
obedience in all things not contrary to God.46 Again, though, this is to
confuse passive disobedience with active resistance. The question can be
put to Bowler: would any sixteenth-century figure, Catholic or Protestant,
argue that magistrates could overrule divine law? There was no theory of
utter obedience in this sense. In fact, the confession here agrees with the
general argument for non-resistance used throughout the Tudor period:
obedience is due in every case except for flagrant violations of divine or
natural law. Bowler further suggests that the text does not exclude resis-
tance from lesser magistrates, as it only condemned resistance by private
individuals. Yet this is an argument from silence. The Declarations pri-
mary concern is to vindicate returning evangelicals, particularly those
returning to ministry within the church, from the charge of sedition. The
confession is not addressing the issue of resistance from lesser magis-
trates. But given that the texts stated goal is to distance evangelicals from
resistance teachings, it is difficult to construe this as an example of any
significant in evangelical political thought.
Other early Elizabethan writers were clearer on the subject of lesser
magistrates, however. Even if the majority had always taught obedience to
civil rulers, there were bolder attempts to transform English government
into a mixed polity. Patrick Collinson has chronicled such changes in his

45Declaration, fol. 157v.

46Bowler, English Protestants and Resistance Writings, p. 287.
 if the prince shall forbid177

work on the monarchical republic, and John Guy, Dale Hoak and Stephen
Alford in particular have explored these themes further. Each has con-
cluded that there was a small but influential troupe of exiles, principally
John Hales, John Foxe,47 and John Aylmer, who expressed the opinion
that England was a mixed polity.48 England, he argued, is not a proper
monarchy (or a mere monarchy), but a rule mixte of the three Aristotelian
forms of government: democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy.49 These
ideas culminated in the publication of Thomas Smiths De Republica
Anglorum (1583).50
For now, we must focus on the 1560s. John Aylmer and John Foxe were
together in Basle when Mary died. They hoped that Elizabeth would
restore English Protestantism, and when news arrived of the queens
death, they orchestrated a plan to ingratiate themselves with Elizabeth.
The first obstacle, of course, was Knoxian resistance writings. Aylmer was
chosen to pen a treatise against Knoxs First Blast (1558) and to defend the
legitimacy of female rule. Aylmer, thus, produced An harborowe for faith-
full and trewe subjects (published in London by John Day).51
In general, Aylmer strove to correct Knox on the issue of the regiment
of women rather than refute his teachings entirely. In his mind, the prin-
cipal offence was not the notion that the magistrate is under law, or that
the king is subject to punishment from lesser magistrates, both of which
he accepted, but that Knox had used a bogus argument against female
rule. In An harborowe, he rebukes the late blowne Blaste which was
strangely written by a Straunger.52 His attempt to portray Knox as a
Scottish outsider notwithstanding, Aylmer is charitable in his critiques.
True enough, he believed that Knoxs work hath not a lytle wounded
the conscience of some symple, and almost cracked the dutie of true

47Cf. T. Freeman, Providence and Prescription: The Account of Elizabeth in Foxes

Book of Martyrs, in S. Doran and T. Freeman (eds), The Myth of Elizabeth (Basingstoke:
Palgrave, 2003), pp. 2755.
48Hoak, A Tudor Deborah? The Coronation of Elizabeth I, Parliament, and the Problem
of Female Rule in C. Highley and J.N. King (eds), John Foxe and His World (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2002), pp. 7388; and idem Sir William Cecil, Sir Thomas Smith, and the
Monarchical Republic of England in J. McDiarmid (ed), The Monarchical Republic of Early
Modern England (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), pp. 3754.
49Aylmer, An harborowe for faithfull and trewe subjects (London: J. Day, 1559; STC 1006),
Hiii.
50See A. McLaren, Reading Sir Thomas Smiths De Republica Anglorum as Protestant
Apologetic, HJ 42/4 (December 1999): 911939.
51The frontispiece lists Strasborowe as the publication city, but Collinson argues that,
in fact, it was London. Cf. Elizabethan Essays, p. 35n.
52Aylmer, An harborowe, Biv.
178 chapter five

Obedience; yet Aylmer hopes in some way to rehabilitate him and not to
deface the man, Seing this errour rose not of malice but of zele: and by
loking more to the present crueltie, that then was used, then to the incon-
venience that after might follow.53
An harborowe, then, was not written in a political vacuum. Aylmer is
principally concerned with justifying Elizabeths right to the throne. Like
many in the sixteenth century, Aylmer assumed the patriarchal view that
women, by nature, are weak and enfeebled. Thus, he acknowledges Knoxs
fear that Elizabeths weaknesses would leave English religion unstable,
tossed about by the vicissitudes of her emotional fragility. Yet Aylmer
responds that Knoxs attacks on female regency were groundless, for the
regiment of Englainde is not a mere Monarchie, as some for lacke of con-
sideracion thinke.54 Like Ponet and Peter Martyr, he construes English
government as a blend of the three Aristotelian types of government:
monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. England is not based on a single pol-
ity, but a rule mixte of all these, wherein each one of these shoulde have
like authoritie. Aylmer holds Parliament in high regard, and teaches that
its duty is to censure, restrain, or even remove a tyrant. Every law must
pass approval in the assembly:
if the parliament use their privileges: the King can ordein nothing without
them. If he do: it is his fault in usurping it, and their folly in permitting it.55

Aylmers primary reason for pursuing this line of reasoning, again, was to
establish the regency of women. To combat Knox, he asserts that the
queen could not change religion according to her whims because England
is based on a mixed government. In other words, the queens natural
weakness was irrelevant, as Parliament was governing with her and
limited her authority:56

53Aylmer, An harborowe, Biv; he writes poetically that, with eyes full of tears, Knoxs
vision was easily obscured.
54Aylmer, An harborowe, HiivHiii.
55Aylmer, An harborowe, Hiii.
56Hoak, Sir William Cecil, Sir Thomas Smith, p. 38 summarises this teaching: this
group of Elizabethan writers believed that in practice the Queens imperium was limited
by the advice given to her by the men in her council and parliament. See also, Alford, Early
Elizabethan Polity, pp. 7, 37, 99, 101; idem, The Political Creed of William Cecil, p. 87;
Collinson, Monarchical Republic, p. 38; M. Peltonen, Classic Humanism and Republicanism
in English Political Thought, 15701640 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995). On Elizabeth as a
woman ruler, see C. Levin, The Heart and Stomach of a King: Elizabeth I and the Politics of
Sex and Power (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994); C. Haigh, Elizabeth I
(London: Longman, 2001).
 if the prince shall forbid179

For first it is not she that ruleth but the lawes, the executors whereof be
her judges, appoynted bi her, her justices of peace and such other officers
she maketh no statutes or lawes, but the honerable court of Parliament:
she breaketh none, but it must be she and they together or els not. If she
shuld judge in capitall crimes: what daunger were there in her womannishe
nautre? none at all. For the verdict is the 12.mennes, whiche passe uppon life
and deathe, and not hers.57
While several of Aylmers ideas had circulated under Mary, his articula-
tion of Parliamentary authority was exceptional. His political teachings
succeeded in finally defining the English legislative body as lesser magis-
trates, capable of limiting the monarch, and responsible for the bulk of
governmental oversight. Aylmer writes approvingly of those who with-
stood Henry VIIIs attempts to govern autocratically. In my judgement,
he writes, those thatwould not graunt him, that his proclamacions
shuld have the force of a statute, were good fathers of the countri.58
Likewise, he censures Marys parliaments, which caved in under pressure,
allowing the monarch to decide againste the previlege of that house; God
forgevethem for obeying.59
Yet something that is often overlooked is An harborowes somewhat
jarring conceptualisation of obedience. Commenting on the classic point
that Christ refused to be ordained king of the Jews, Aylmer insists,
Divines (me thinke) shoulde by this example not geve them selves to much
the bridle, and to large a scope, to meddle to farre with matters of pollicie, as
this is, wherupon dependeth either the wellfare or ilfare of the whole realm.
If those ii. offices, I meane Ecclesiastical and Civil, be so jumbled together, as
it may be lawful for both parties to meddle in both functions: there can be
no quiet, nor any wel ordered common wealth.60
Aylmer never elaborates on this separation of the two powers, stating that
because this argument requireth a long treatise, I leave it and go forwarde
with another matter. Still, when speaking to spiritual leaders, Aylmer
stressed obedience. Lurking amongst even the boldest republican rhetoric
are clear statements on the authority of tyrants. During his critique of
Knox, Aylmer challenges the claim that Mary relinquished her authority
when she oppressed her subjects:
as for hir faults what so ever they were, that can no wype awaye hir right: no
more then the crueltie in Nero, and Domitian, drunkennes in Alexander

57Aylmer, An harborowe, Hiiiv.

58Aylmer, An harborowe, Hiii.
59Aylmer, An harborowe, HiiiHiiiv.
60Aylmer, An harborowe, Divv.
180 chapter five

and other faultes in other rulers, made them unlawfull governours. Elias said
to Achab, it is thou, and they fathers hous that troubleth all Israel: but he
inferred not therefore that he was an unlawful kyng. Saul was rejected of
God for his wickednes: and yet David so long as he lyved called him the lords
anoynted. Christ called Herode foxeyet did he not impugne their autho-
rite, or deface their title.61
Aylmer continues that it is a fallax ab accidente to say, she was naughty:
ergo, she might not rule: for that hangeth not uppon the rule, that she was
naughty, but upon the persone.62 When speaking to private subjects,
then, including church leaders, Aylmer uses strong obedience language.
He repeatedly instructs fellow reformers to stay out of politics. Far from
undermining his understanding of the monarchical republic, however,
this reinforces the fact that religion was not a vehicle for changing politi-
cal structuresthe structure of government, he argues, is to be drawn
from the law of nature and classical antiquity, not from the Bible:
Date Caesari quae sunt Caesaris, obey the magistrates and those that be
in authoritie[Paul] lymiteth no magistrates, he altereth no polycie, he
medleth neither with Democraties, Aristocraties, nor monarchies, nor
pro[s]cribeth whether old or yong, rich or poore, lerned or unlerned, man or
woman, shuld reigne. But as he findeth them, so he leveth them, empaireth
none, altereth none, disturbeth none.63
His answer is resounding: It falleth not into a disciples, an apostles, or a
churche mans office, to meddle with suche matters.64 Church leaders are
to be soule priests, and not erraunt baylifes.
Similar conclusions were defended by Laurence Humphrey the follow-
ing year in De religionis conservatione et reformatione vera (1559).65 Though
harsher in his critique of Knox and Goodman, Humphrey begins with a
lengthy discussion of the reformation of the English church, rebuking
those who inveigh against Elizabeth before she had completed the first
year of her reign. He pauses briefly to instruct his readers in recent contro-
versies in political thinking. Though Humphrey rejects popular resistance
of any kind, he nonetheless maintains that Parliament, like the Spartan

61Aylmer, An harborowe, FiFiv.

62Aylmer, An harborowe, Fiv.
63Aylmer, An harborowe, Gii.
64Aylmer, An harborowe, GiiGiiv.
65Humphrey, De religionis conservatione et reformatione vera (Basle: 1559), 85 (Kemp,
p. 122); a translation of this work, with commentary, can be found in J.K. Kemp, Laurence
Humphrey, Elizabethan puritan: his life and political theories, PhD dissertation (West
Virginia University, 1978).
 if the prince shall forbid181

ephors, had the right to remove a tyrant. All estates, he writes, make the
king, and thus the body is greater than the head. Humphrey states that
ancient governments understood that he who proposes a law can repel
it and those who jointly proclaim someone a magistrate, by the same
consent, they can depose him.66 This argument follows the classic defence
of resistance, which stated that a tyrant could be removed by the same
process that installed him to office. Thus, he concludes that it is permitted
for lesser magistrates to oppose higher ones, yet it must be done with free
votes and not with violent arms.67 If necessary, the legislative govern-
ment can make the king a private citizen.68
Like Aylmer, however, Humphrey defends a vigorous doctrine of obedi-
ence. He backs the Tyndalian line of reasoning that, generally speaking,
obedience is owed to kings and magistrates. Thus, Englands teachings on
non-resistance have established the very great fame of your obedience.69
He instructs private citizens to obey tyrants in all things, save idolatry. For
English subjects must know that rebellion condemns not man but God
since the kingly person [is] appointed by God.70 All kings are to be
obeyed, whether they are good or bad, men or women.71 Those languish-
ing under tyranny, then, must suffer. Their duty is to kiss the whip, for the
tyrant is Gods scourge for their sins: Suffer, shout with the Israelites and
with the faithful I have sinned!; seek pardon and do not resist.
This is the victory of the saints, by which they conquer the worldby blood,
I say, not anothers but yours, which you shed as a testimony and martyr for
the Christian name.72
Humphreys verdict on popular resistance was clear:
Truly this doctrine of tyrannicide is punishable by death and is not very safe
and involves disturbance of the public order and anarchyleave all vindica-
tion to the Lordeif by praying you can take care of [tyranny] but you must
not attempt it by fightingeven if the result is certain to be in your favoure.73
Humphreys goal throughout was to ensure that the authority to resist tyr-
anny is lodged solely in Parliament. Indeed, John Nichols tells us that in

66Humphrey, De religionis, 85 (Kemp, p. 122).

67Humphrey, De religionis, 82, 99 (Kemp, pp. 2234).
68Humphrey, De religionis, 85 (Kemp, p. 234).
69Humphrey, De religionis, 76 (Kemp, p. 211).
70Humphrey, De religionis, 73 (Kemp, p. 209).
71Humphrey, De religionis, 79 (Kemp, p. 212).
72Humphrey, De religionis, 812 (Kemp, p. 2134).
73Humphrey, De religionis, 912 (Kemp, p. 220).
182 chapter five

1566 he participated in a lengthy debate at Oxford over the question of

whether a private person may take up arms against a prince.74 This was a
staged event, orchestrated during the height of the vestiarian controversy;
Humphrey stood against several opponents who were in favour of private
resistance based on natural law and the Bible. To the surprise of no one,
Humphreys won.
The teachings of Aylmer and Humphrey raise several points about the
monarchical republic and the doctrine of obedience. Historians have
focused largely on resistance theory, or the polemical critique of monar-
chy, in early Elizabethan writings. Yet the doctrine of obedience was a
crucial issue for both Aylmer and Humphrey. While they each espoused a
theory of limited government, rule by consentand Humphrey further
contended that Parliament has the authority to overthrow the kingthey
also championed a strong doctrine of obedience. Indeed, one might
describe monarchical republicanism as a median position between the
more radical theories of popular resistance expressed by Knox and
Goodman and the obsessive fixation on obedience and non-resistance of
Henrician and Edwardine evangelicals. Early examples of the monarchi-
cal republic, in other words, inevitably defend both sides: private citizens
are to obey, while only Parliament has the authority to censure, or possi-
bly remove, the monarch. Aylmer and Humphrey sought a way round
the issue of rebellion and anarchy by offering a non-revolutionary,
Parliamentarian approach to resistance.

Zurich, the Vestiarian Controversy and Obedience

The Elizabethan debate over ecclesiastical apparel was a proxy war over
the limits of obedience and the freedom of conscience. Despite the impor-
tance of these debates in later Anglican church history, the vestiarian con-
troversy fits squarely in the tradition of Tudor debates over the Supremacy,
running back to 1530. To be sure, this was a period of real drama as the
evangelicals opposed Elizabeths demands that priests wear the cope and
surplice. Non-conformists loudly proclaimed their willingness to die
rather than wear the relics of the Amorites or the dregs of popery. It
would be been tempting to see the vestiarian controversy as resistance
theorynon-conformists, for example, believed they were obeying God

74John Nichols, The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth, vol. I,
pp. 231243.
 if the prince shall forbid183

rather than man and they denied that Elizabeth had the authority over
clerical dress. Yet the debate explored the limits of obedience, within a
context of obedience theory. Non-conformists, thus, claimed that they were
abstaining from evil (wearing vestments), though they denied any right of
active resistance. Thus, Elizabethan evangelicals differed, not on whether
to obey the monarch, but over their interpretation of the Bible.
Over the first several years of her reign some began to question
Elizabeths commitment to reform. After returning to England, evangeli-
cals were forced to deal with a queen and council who did not always
share their loyalty to continental Protestantism. Elizabeth was, in fact,
quite hostile towards Calvin and Beza. In a period when the queen rarely
expressed her feelings openly, she freely announced her antipathy for
Geneva. Calvin had rededicated and forwarded his Commentary on Isaiah
to Elizabeththe first edition having been sent to Edward75and he
hoped that a new edition might win new friends. Yet at the queens behest
Cecil spurned Calvins gift, citing the fact that Geneva had published sev-
eral resistance texts in 1558. Calvin protested that he had not known Knox
and Goodmans teachings before their books were published, but Cecil
refused to accept this excuse.76
Zurich, on the other hand, was given a warm but cautious reception.
The queen let slip to Jewel and other Zurichers that she was considering
restoring Peter Martyr to Oxford. Texts sent from Zurich to England were
also greeted with thanks rather than hostility.77 The anger over resistance
theory, then, demanded that evangelicals distance themselves from
Geneva. This is crucial for understanding the relationship between evan-
gelicals and Swiss political ideas. Zurich had influence, while Geneva was
on the outside. Throckmorton, for example, wrote from Paris praising
Jewels Apology, though he was unhappy that Jewel did not rebuke the
Calvinists and others who were grieved with retaining too many ceremo-
nies in the Church of England.78 But this did not include all Swiss cities.
Zurich, in fact, considered the book to be so wise, admirable, and eloquent,
that they can make no end of commending it, and think that nothing in
these days hath been set forth more perfectly.79

75Cf. D.L. Puckett, John Calvins Exegesis of the Old Testament (Westminster, 1995),
p. 1478.
76ZL, I, p. 131 (Calvin to Cecil, 29 January 1559).
77On Zurich and Elizabethan England, see T. Kirby, The Zurich Connection.
78CSP Foreign, 15611562, p. 504.
79ZL, I, p. 339.
184 chapter five

By 1563, evangelical patience was beginning to wear thin. The most

vocal opponents of vestments, who in turn helped coordinate opposition
to Elizabeths demands, were Humphrey and Sampson.80 Personal con-
flicts were certainly a factor in this. Few of the early non-conformists were
known for their composure, and agitation over worship was further exac-
erbated by concerns about remuneration for those appointed to ecclesias-
tical office.81
However, on the issue of vestments Sampson and Humphrey clearly
struck a nerve as many, even those who conformed, were generally
opposed to using them. The issue, then, was obedience: did the queen
have the authority to enforce vestments? The non-conformists wanted to
oppose the queens policies without appearing to undermine her author-
ity. To do so, they often appealed to the continent for support. In the
autumn of 1563, Humphrey inquired of Bullinger whether he would again
write me your opinion, either at length, or briefly, or in one word.82 The
impression is that Humphrey was looking for a trump card to brandish
during a debate. Notably, he contends that the concern is not whether
vestments were adiaphora, but more specifically over the command of
the sovereign, (the jurisdiction of the pope having been abolished); vest-
ments, he tells Bullinger, are enforced not by the unlawful tyranny of the
pope, but by the just and legitimate authority of the queen.83
In the end, Bullinger told the non-conformists that obedience to the
magistrate was a basic Christian duty. This was certainly not what
Humphrey had wanted to hear. In February 1566, Humprey and Sampson
again wrote to Bullinger, claiming that his comments were without suffi-
cient perspicuity.84 Bullinger issued a full response, which, as Kirby notes,
landed like a bomb-shell.85 In none of the points raised by Humphrey or
Sampson did Bullinger side with the non-conformists. As always, Zurich
supported the doctrine of obedience. As a result, Humphrey and Sampson
grew impatient with Bullinger, and they sought advice elsewhere. Several
months later, they sent another long epistle to Zurich, informing Bullinger
that they had forwarded their questions to Beza as his own answers were

80The background to this is sketched in Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement,

pp. 5970. See also D. Crankshaw, Preparations for the Canterbury Provincial Convocation
of 156263. pp.6093.
81For background, see B. Usher, William Cecil and episcopacy (Aldershot: Ashgate,
2003).
82ZL, I, p. 134.
83ZL, I, p. 134.
84ZL, I, p. 151.
85Kirby, Zurich Connection, p. 209.
 if the prince shall forbid185

not entirely to our satisfaction.86 They lectured the Zurich leader, claim-
ing his reasoning was contradictory and that he had misunderstood Bucer,
Peter Martyr, and Laski on the subject.
Bullinger was not amused. He responded that he saw no reason to write
any long letters. For ye required onely my judgement concerning matters
of ApparellTo that question I thought good to answer you briefly.87 He
continues to reiterate that the issue is about obedience. He mocks that he
wrote according to my simple rudenesse,88 being unaccustomed to such
lengthy questions, and directs them, again, to the writings of Peter Martyr
on the subject if they desired further answers. In the end, Bullinger was
baffled by the entire situation: he admits that he was opposed to apparel
garnished with the Image of the Crucifixthat is, in an Albe.89
But as farre as I can perceive by Letters brought oute of England, there is
now no contention for such apparell. But the question is, whether it be law-
full for the ministers of the gospel to weare a rounde or square cappe, and
the whyte Vesture whiche they call a Surplesse, by the wearing wherof your
ministers maye be discerned from the people.90
For Bullinger, the answer was uncomplicated: the vestments were adi-
aphora and under the jurisdiction of the monarch; therefore, obedience
was required. Bullinger concludes that he had, in fact, answered this ques-
tion several times and if ye wil heare usye have in that Epistle our judge-
ment, whereunto if ye can not agree, we truely are most hartily sorie, and
having no further counsell, we doe hartily and without ceasing pray unto
the Lord.91 Bullinger took his stand on the wording of the original procla-
mation, which read that vestments were to be retained without any
superstitious conceit.92 This, he argued, was sufficient reason to conform,
as vestments were not commanded for the sake of holiness but for out-
ward conformity.
In an effort to bring the barrage of letters to a halt, Bullinger for
wardedhis response to Bishop Horn. This proved to be one of his most

86ZL, I, p. 157.
87His later letters can be found in the printed version: The Judgement ofM. Henry
Bullinger (London: W. Seres, 1566; RSTC 4063), Aiv.
88The Judgement ofM. Henry Bullinger, Bi.
89The Judgement ofM. Henry Bullinger, Aivv.
90The Judgement ofM. Henry Bullinger, Aivv.
91The Judgement ofM. Henry Bullinger, Bi.
92The actual wording is that vestments do not attribute any holiness or special worthi-
ness to the said garments and claims to be following Pauls command that all things be
done in decency and order. Cf. Gee and Hardy, Documents Illustrative of English Church
History, p. 432.
186 chapter five

embarrassing blunders. While the conformist bishops were genuinely

interested in Bullingers advice on the matter they, too, were looking for
a cudgel with which to beat their opponents. His letter was passed around
between Jewel, Sandys and Pilkington and, perhaps on Parkers orders,
the text was published in 1566 as The Judgement ofM. Henry Bullinger.
While Bullingers words persuaded some, many non-conformists rejected
his advice. Grindal reported in August:
Some of the clergy, influenced by your judgment and authority, have relin-
quished their former intention of deserting their ministry. And many also of
the laity have begun to entertain milder sentiments, now that they have
understood that our ceremonies were by no means considered by you as
unlawful, though you do not yourself adopt them93
Grindal is convinced that Humphrey and Sampson will continue in their
former opinion as they were no longer willing to listen to their Swiss
brethren. For the remainder of 1566, numerous publications appeared
which strove to undermine conformists claims that they were simply fol-
lowing orthodox Reformed opinions on vestments. As Primus writes, the
literary war became almost ludicrous.94
Bullinger had not given his final verdict on the subject, however. In
1566, Beza and several English evangelicals weighed in and induced
Bullinger to change his opinions on obedience.95 Tensions were elevated
amongst the Swiss when in July Coverdale, Humphrey, and Sampson sent
a new letter to Beza, Viret, and Farel.96 This, in effect, played the more
radical Swiss reformers against Bullinger and Gualter in Zurich. The
English intensified their claims, now going so far as to say nothing ought
to be obtruded by the authority of the sovereign, without its having been
lawfully discussed in a christian synod.97 This might rank as one of the
most radical arguments of the mid-1560sthis expanded the issue beyond
adiaphora to a new claim that the sovereign has no jurisdiction in the
church that had not first met in Convocation.
In addition, Percival Wiburn and several others travelled to the Swiss
confederations on a tour to plead his case for non-conformity. Stopping

93ZL, I, p. 168. Cox echoes this in 1571 in a letter to Gualter (ZL, I, p. 237): Your
advice, and that especially of the reverend fathers Martin Bucer, Peter Martyr, and Henry
Bullinger, can have no weight with these menthey seek bye paths; they establish a pri-
vate religion, and assemble in private houses, and there perform their sacred rites as the
Donatists of old, and the Anabaptists now.
94Primus, The Vestments Controversy, p. 135.
95Cf. Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, pp. 7981.
96ZL, II, p. 122.
97ZL, II, p. 122.
 if the prince shall forbid187

first in Geneva, Wiburn convinced Beza to write Bullinger in the hopes of

dissuading him from his earlier opinion. Beza agreed and, in less than
subtle terms, informed Bullinger that he had misunderstood the heart of
the debates in England.98 If Bullinger were not harangued enough by this,
William Turner notified him in July that many opinions have lately risen
up respecting you.99
Zurich was left with no choice but to cave in under pressure. In
September, Gualter and Bullinger drafted three nearly identical letters:
one to Beza, one to Parkhurst, and one to Francis Russell. In these letters,
Zurich did everything short of offer full capitulation on the issue of clerical
vestments, blaming the bishops for using their teaching on obedience to
enforce submission and wound the consciences of several ministers:
It hasoccasioned us no small grief, that the letter which we wrote privately
to a few friends upon the subject, is reported to have been printed; and that
many persons extend our judgment respecting the matter of the habits to
other things which we did not at that time know to be controverted, and
which can never be approved by us. And indeed, it is a cause of most just
grief, that godly brethren, to whom we desired rather to afford counsel and
consolationare weighed down by the authority of our names.100
To Beza, in particular, they admit that it is not easy for us to decide upon
a case not fully understood, and which is carried on by parties who are
evidently contending with each other under the greatest possible excite-
ment.101 Though Bullingers original message of obedience had been clear,
the political tensions in London had pressed the issue beyond a simple
matter of vestments.
Ultimately, then, Bullinger offered conflicting advice over the course of
1566. While Zurichs leaders initially supported obedience, they eventu-
ally sided with the non-conformists in the late-1560s. They did not, of
course, support popular resistance, but they nevertheless supported non-
conformists who were frequently challenging the queens authority in the
church. Bullinger could not always control how his English readers inter-
preted his views. For decades, conformists and non-conformists alike
quoted Zurich leaders for support. In 1570 his teachings on non-resistance
were incorporated into the anonymous Whether it be a mortall sinne to
transgresse civil lawes,102 a text that defended the traditional evangelical

98ZL, II, p. 131ff.

99ZL, II, p. 124.
100ZL, II, p. 138.
101ZL, II, p. 145.
102Whether it be a mortall sinne to transgresse civil lawes (London: R. Jugge, 1570;
STC 10391.5).
188 chapter five

doctrine of obedience. Just two years later, however, his letter supporting
non-conformists was added to the Admonition to Parliament (1572),103 and
used as one of its anchors for demanding government enact reforms. Thus,
it would seem that if there is a Zurich Connection influencing English
Erastianism, we must also see that there is a Zurich Connection, at least
in part, influencing English separatism. For this reason, both radical and
moderate Puritans appealed to the writings of Swiss reformers to defend
their ecclesiological choices. Strictly speaking, both were correct.
Obedience continued to affect the debates over conformity in the later-
1560s. For several of the hot Protestants, Zurichs initial advice to obey
the queen was hardly a factor in their opposition. They would not budge.
Robert Crowley, for example, issued A breife discourse against the outward
apparel in 1566, the boldest argument at that time against vestments.
Indeed, A breife discourse functioned somewhat like a manifesto for
disobedience.
On the issue of vestments Crowley concludes that of themselves, they
be things indifferent, and may be used or not used, as occasion shall serve;
however when the use of them will destroy, or not edifie, then ceasse they
to be so indifferent, that in such case we may use them.104 Crowley is
quite aware of the counterarguments to this: some say vestments are for
uniformitie and obedience to our Prince. Yea, and the same is playnely set
forth in the advertisements, that are published in print.105 But he refuses
to allow conformists to use the doctrine of obedience against him.
Obedience is still binding, he contends, but the duty to submit to the mon-
arch was simply not admissible in this situation. From this vantage point,
Crowley lays out several arguments that would recur constantly in non-
conformists writings for the remainder of the 1560s: 1) ordering the use of
vestments for the sake of public policy passeth the wisedome of God: and
it is muche lyke the wisedome of them that will have Images in Churches;
2) though not despising the auctoritie that God hath given to Princes
he must obey God rather than man and suffer punishment; and 3) con-
formists are lukewarm since the true Prophets woulde never pleasure
Princes.106
What is important here is the way in which Crowley uses the doctrine
of obedience to maintain his position in favour of non-conformity. Though

103C.f. W. Frere and C. Douglas, Puritan Manifestos (1907).

104Crowley, A briefe discourse (Emden: E. van der Erve, 1566; STC 6079), AivAivv.
105Crowley, A briefe discourse, Avi.
106Crowley, A briefe discourse, AviAviv.
 if the prince shall forbid189

he refuses to obey the queens command, he explicitly condemns resis-

tance theory. Thus, he does not need Marian resistance theory to be a non-
conformist. The issue, as he sees it, is not whether princes have authority
in the care of religion, but rather that Elizabeths command to wear vest-
ments is a commandment to do evil. According to Acts 5, then, Elizabeth
is forcing priests to sin and their duty is to disobey her command. In sum,
while Crowley admits that vestments are adiaphora, he also maintains
that they are an essential of the faith. But Crowleys opinions on obedi-
ence and non-resistance had not changed:
And if the Prince shall take in hande to commaunde us to doe anye of those
things which God hath not commandedwe muste then refuse to doe the
thing commanded by the Prince, and humbly submit ourselves to suffer the
penaltie.107
This is classic non-resistance language. A parallel situation is given:
And if the Prince shall forbidde any of those things to be done, which in their
owne nature be indifferent, so that when we shall see that the leaving of
them undone shall destroye or not edifie, then maye not we leave them
undone, but doe them to the edification of the Church, and submit our
selves lowely to suffer at the handes of Princes, the execution of that penalty
that the law doth appoint for doing.108
Crowley should not be accused of special pleading, therefore, when he
contends that this is not to give example to disobedience. He maintains
that he is not seeking to overthrow Gods minister: First we obey God
And then we obey man, in that we doe humblye submit ourselves to suffer
at mans hande, whatsoever punishments mans lawes doe appoint for our
doing or refusing to doe at mans commaundement.109 The fact that he
constantly reiterates his willingness to suffer is a clear signal that Crowley
continues to structure his argument under the rubric of passive, not active,
resistance.
Matthew Parker was quick to reject Crowleys arguments. In A brief
examination (1566),110 Parker exposed what he believed to be the flaw of
his argument, namely that Crowley and others were contradicting them-
selves. In so doing, non-conformists had forsaken the true evangelical

107Crowley, A breife discourse, BiivBiii.

108Crowley, A breife discourse, Biii.
109Crowley, A briefe discourse, Biii.
110A brief examinaction (London: R. Jugge, 1566; STC 10387). NB: the sigla for this text is
the symbol * rather than numerals. I render these into numerals for ease of convention
(e.g. ***3 = 3.3).
190 chapter five

teaching on obedience to magistrates. Examining this point is somewhat

challenging. Parkers credentials as a Protestant have not always been
appreciateddue in part to his assumed role as the champion of confor-
mity and as an opponent to the Calvinist exiles. But again, something
much more subtle is at play here. Despite his conformity under Mary,
Parker nevertheless saw himself as a committed reformer, perhaps in the
mould of Bucer or Peter Martyr instead of Beza, but an evangelical none-
theless. A brief examination, then, just like Crowleys A breife discourse,
uses the older conceptualisation of obedience under Henry and Edward as
a justification for rejecting non-conformists arguments. In other words,
Parker used the evangelical doctrine of obedience to correct the new lan-
guage of evangelical non-conformity. Conspicuously, he quotes both
Calvin and Bucer in his defence of the idea that the magistrate has full
legislative power to order external worship, noting if you would have
rested uppon the censures of these godly learned men, you shoulde not
have needed thus unlawfely to have scoffed at this wysdome of man.111
This raises an interesting point about the political orientation of con-
formists such as Parker. While Parker may justifiably be described as
Erastian,112 we must be careful not to divorce his arguments from the
political context. Scott Wenig has recently contended that the govern-
ments adherence to a theologically-based Erastianism undermined the
evangelical drive for an authentically Reformed English church.113 But
this is to pose a false dilemma. It should be remembered that Erastianism
itself flowed out of these Reformed discussions. Thomas Erastus initial
writings on political obedience were sparked by George Withers, the
English non-conformist and vestiarian controversialist, who in 1568 chal-
lenged Erastus Zurich-influenced notion that the magistrate held juris-
diction in the church on adiaphora.114 Withers first disputation attempt
in Heidelberg was supposed to be a critique of the English enforcement of
vestments, before the university stepped in and forced him to change the
subject. The connection between England and Zurich is crucial.115 Withers
was only two years removed from the vestiarian controversy in England

111Parker, A brief examinaction, 3.3.

112Collinson, Elizabethan Puritan Movement, p. 74.
113S. Wenig, Straightening the Altars: The Ecclesiastical Vision and Pastoral Achievements
of the Progressive Bishops under Elizabeth I, 15591579 (Bern: Peter Lang, 2000), p. 10; a simi-
lar critique of Wenig is found in T. Kirby, Zurich Connection, p. 219.
114On Erastus, see C. Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus and the Palatinate: a Renaissance
Physician in the Second Reformation (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).
115On the influence of Reformed ideas on later Erastianism, see T. Kirby, Richard
Hookers Doctrine of the Royal Supremacy (Leiden: Brill, 1997).
 if the prince shall forbid191

and, in essence, carried these debates with him to Heidelberg. Properly

considered, therefore, Erastianism was brought about by the convergence
of English and Swiss streams of thought, rather than the exclusion of one
for the other. This is not to suggest that English conceptualisations of obe-
dience were entirely Swiss in origin; but neither were they developed
against Swiss political teachings, as is so often assumed.
Parkers arguments for obedience bring us back to the original frame-
work of evangelical political theology. As this book has argued, the con-
vergence between Swiss and English reformers had been going on since
the late-1520s. Parker, for example, jabs at Crowley in a manner that
echoes propaganda from the 1549 uprisings, during which Cranmer, Peter
Martyr, and others banded together to reassert the doctrine of obedience.
He chides howe smally you have regarded your duetie in this common
wealthto make the worlde wonder at your factious wylfulnes, before
your superiours (yf you thynke herein you have any); But (belyke) you
wyll have every man to understande as much as the Prince and councell
knoweth and intendeth: or els you wyll set the subject at his choyse.116
Such words had been spoken before.
In Parkers estimation, non-conformists distort the true meaning of
passive disobedience, particularly in their frequent citation of Acts 5
(obey God rather than man). Here Parker provides an interesting critique
of Knox and Goodmans line of argument. Royal authority in external mat-
ters is in accord with scripture; thus, playing Acts 5 against the rest of
scripture provides little leverage on the issue of vestments: we all [know],
or ought to knowe, in what cases we should put in use that saying of
S. Peter: We ought more to obey God then man. Parker is critiquing
Goodmans entire political theory of revolution, which was based on
Acts 5. He concludes that Goodmans arguments have skewed the proper
biblical teaching on obedience:
The bondes and limittes which you appoynt for true obedience of subjects
to theyr princes, are very narrowe & dangerous. For oftentymes the Subject
ought to obey in thynges not forbydden by God, and commanded by lawe,
though he do not playnly perceyve eyther for what good end they are
required.117
For Parker, structuring political obedience primarily around Acts 5, as
Goodman had done, distorts the proper relationship between external

116Parker, A brief examinaction, 2.3, 4.3.

117Parker, A brief examinaction, 4.3.
192 chapter five

and internal obedience: here is perylous auctoritie graunted to every sub-

ject, to determine upon the Princes lawes. In the end, the subject must
simply obey and conform, whether it involves the church calendar, the
furniture of the church, or clothing worn by ministers. If you restrayne
this to matters Ecclesiasticall, you helpe your selves never awhyt: For
every Minister there hath not full power to make and abrogate
Ecclesiasticall lawes, nor yet knowledge well to judge of them.118 Parker is
concerned with reducing the number of cases where evangelicals might
disobey for the sake of their conscience. There is no biblical command to
preach from a pulpit either, Parker argues, and yet non-conformists
are quite willing to use pulpits at the queens command. Therefore, using
Acts 5 to justify disobedience is unbiblical:
This is therefore scarse to geve example of true obedience to God and man.
For in not obeying man in such thynges indifferentyou obey not God,
whose minister man is.119
Here Parker echoes the thoroughly Henrician claim that obeying God
rather than man in fact grounds the doctrine of obedience rather than
undermines it: one must obey Gods anointed king in all temporal and
indifferent matters, rather than obey man, whether pope or our own weak
consciences. Crowley, on the other hand, played these themes against one
another. The king, he argued, must allow for the weak consciences of all of
his clerics; to enforce obedience would be unbiblical. Thus, for Crowley,
the 1530s rhetoric of obeying the word of God was now separated from
the duty to obey the king. Indeed, obedience to the word typically meant
opposition to the magistrate.
By 1568, much of the open hostility over vestments had subsided,
though the rift between evangelicals appeared to be permanent. The
Bishops Bible was finally released that year in order to counter some of
the inflammatory notes in the Geneva Bible. Parker himself saw to it that
no hint of sedition was included.120 Debates over vestments would not
endure for long, however. A series of events occurring between 1567 and
1570 took the focus off vestments and church conformity and refocused
evangelical energies on the Catholic threat of sedition. If any friction

118Parker, A brief examinaction, 4.3.

119Parker, A brief examinaction, 4.3v.
120The Geneva notes were subject to change as well. Twice the notes were revised and
given a more radical edge to them that was not there in the 1560 version. It was the more
radical version of the Geneva Bible from 1599 which irked James I so much he arranged for
the publication of the Authorized Version. Cf. L. Berry, Introduction Geneva Bible: 1560
Facsimile (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, rpt.2007).
 if the prince shall forbid193

remained between the bishops and Zurich, Bullinger was soon given the
chance to make amends.
In 1569, several Catholic earls arranged a northern rebellion. They
planned to free Mary Queen of Scots so as to marry her to the Duke of
Norfolk and make him heir to the English throne.121 The government
quickly (and brutally) put down the rebellion, and calls for Marys execu-
tion were soon heard. Evangelicals saw an opportunity to declare their
obedience. Chekes hurt of sedition was dusted off and published by
William Seres, and cries to beware of seditious popery began to appear in
sermons and books again. To make matters worse, in February 1570, Pius
V promulgated Regnans in Excelsis, the bull that finally excommunicated
Elizabeth, charging all faithful subjects not to obey her. Evangelicals were
now in an uproar. Even William Kethe, who had written a bawdy poem to
accompany Goodmans work in 1558, managed to preach a full sermon on
obedience in 1571. What trayterous practises there have bene of late
among the Papistes to overthrow the state, you are not ignoraunt.122
In response to these Catholic threats, Zurich again established itself as
the preeminent continental voice in England on the issue of political obe-
dience. Bullinger quickly wrote Bullae papisticae, which was published by
John Day in 1571 and translated into English the following year as A confu-
tation of the Popes bull.123 Bullingers argument was a classic statement
against the Roman Antichrist who opposed godly Christian magistrates.
He spends the majority of his time undermining the Petrine texts in the
New Testament used to support papal supremacy and amassing historical
evidence for the tyranny of the pope. In terms of the Royal Supremacy,
Bullinger offers no defence of Elizabeths rights over the church. His pri-
mary objective is to discredit the papal bull itself. Perhaps this was coordi-
nated, since Jewels Seditious Bull of that same year focuses almost
exclusively on Elizabeths rights, prerogatives, and jurisdiction over the
church.124 Jewel wrote that Catholics misunderstood Elizabeths role over
the church; he claims that the pope imagineth that her majesty preacheth
in the pulpits, that she administereth the sacraments, that she sitteth in
the consistories and heareth all spiritual causes.125 He mocks that this is

121For background, see J. Guy, My Heart is My Own (New York: HarperPerennial, 2004);
on the political issues in England see Alford, The Early Elizabethan Polity, chs. 68.
122Kethe, A sermon made at Blanford Forum (London: J. Day, 1571; STC 14943), Bvi.
123Bullae Papisticae ante biennium contraReginam Elizabetham (London: J. Day, 1570;
STC 4043). English translation by Arthur Golding: A Confutation of the Popes Bull (London:
J. Day, 1572; STC 4044).
124Text in Works, vol. IV.
125Works, vol. IV, p. 1144.
194 chapter five

an absurd characterisation of the Supremacy and upholds the Con

stantinian model of royal involvement in the church. Like all godly mon-
archs, he argues, the queen is concerned not only with her subjects
outward well-being but with the care of their souls as well. Again, Jewel
bends the truth somewhat on this point:
Her majesty is supreme governor over her subjects. The bishops within her
realm are subject to her. She governeth; they yield obedience. When occa-
sion is offered to dispose of any thing specially appertained to the service of
God, or to judge of a controversy arising in spiritual causes, she commen-
deth and giveth to her learned divines the due consideration thereof.126

Conclusion

Elizabethan evangelical political thinking was unique. Non-conformity

was a perennial issue under Elizabeth in a way it had never been under
Henry or Edward. Yet while evangelicals began to grow more radicalled
by men such as Sampson, and Humphreythe evangelical doctrine of
obedience itself remained largely intact. Non-conformists argued that
Elizabeth was burdening them with sinful commands. This allowed them
to retain the essential elements of the doctrine of obedience and non-
resistance while disobeying the queens commands. Non-conformists in
the 1560s preached passive disobedience and suffering, not popular resis-
tance and the overthrow of tyranny. The assumed link, therefore, between
Calvinist resistance theory and early Elizabethan non-conformity rests on
a confused understanding of evangelical political teachings.
In the second instance, there is reason to accept a qualified notion of
the Zurich Connection between Swiss Reformed ideas on obedience and
evangelical teachings on conformity. To divide English Erastianism from
Zurich Erastianism is absurd and is little more than an attempt to reassert
a whiggish myth of Anglican particularity. But this is not to say that
evangelicals and Reformed leaders taught an identical understanding of
political obedience. The Zwinglian desire for purity and its hatred for
Nicodemism appealed to non-conformists. As Carlos Eire has argued, the
fixation on idolatry eventually drove many of the Swiss towards a vocab-
ulary of resistance.127 In sum, Reformed influence (especially from Zurich)
during Elizabeths reign was strong, but it was refracted in a number of
ways due to the complexity of the English context.

126Works, vol. IV, p. 1145.

127C. Eire, Prelude to Sedition: Calvins attack on Nicodemism and religious compro-
mise, ARG 76 (1985): 120145.
 CONCLUSION

For the Tudor period, evangelical attitudes toward resistance went

through a series of slow changes. There is no evidence of any widespread
or serious consideration of resistance theory in England under Henry or
Edward. Even during sporadic phases of persecutionsuch as those that
occurred in the final years of Henrys reignevangelicals continued to
express their belief in obedience under tyranny. These early years were
marked by an evangelical commitment to obedient suffering. The kings
heart is in Gods hand and suffering must be endured without violent
resistance. Several features of early evangelicalism contributed to their
cult of obedience. First, evangelical political thinking tended to elevate
royal authority in order to undermine that of the papacy. To be evangeli
cal was to obey the king and reject Roman obedience. Those who experi
enced justification by faith were said to exhibit an abiding peace in the
temporal order, even in cases where the king persecuted his subjects. But
more importantly, evangelicals developed a strong theory of obedience
based on their reading of the Bibleinterpretations supported by conti
nental Protestants. This study has brought to light a crucial development
in early evangelicalism that helped shape their views of royal authority:
the Swiss interpretation of Psalm 82.
Traditionally evangelical political theology has been obscured by inter
pretative paradigms that assumed a division between Anglican and
Protestant political thinking. Obedience was once seen as a sign of
Anglican moderation, the via mediaideas incompatible with Protes
tantism. The Anglican establishment was assaulted by alien Protestant
influences, though Henry and Elizabeth thwarted attempts by eager
reformers to advance sweeping reforms in the English church, leaving the
hotter sort of Protestants too radical, too focused on obeying the Bible,
and hostile to the monarch. This study has shown that, in the majority of
cases, the opposite is true: those who were committed to the Protestant
gospel were convinced that obedience was a biblical doctrine and that
resistance theory was a Catholic heresy. The articulation of obedience was
part and parcel to the evangelical message from the late-1520s with the
publication of Tyndales Obedience of the christen man. The earliest ver
nacular Bibles (e.g. Matthews Bible) stressed that those who adhered to
the Bibles teachings were obedient subjects. And the devotional tracts of
196 conclusion

Becon stressed that the virtue of obedience can only be inflamed in a heart
that has been justified by faith. From the beginning, then, the evangelical
message was entangled with the Supremacy, and while the doctrine of
obedience was not taught exclusively by evangelicals, those committed to
the Lutheran gospel overwhelmingly supported obedience. It is no sur
prise, then, that some of the most vocal Protestants in England defended
the doctrine of obedience. Thomas Cranmer, for example, grew more
evangelical as he grew more supremacist. He, like most evangelicals, was
drawn deeper into the rhetoric of obedience, not merely as a result of the
Royal Supremacy, but also as a result of his appropriation of the Protestant
message.
Evangelicals did not pour new wine into old wineskins. There was
nothing traditional or medievalnothing conservativeabout their
idiosyncratic arguments for obedience. Indeed, the evangelical defence of
obedience drew upon several new interpretations of the Bible (Luthers
teachings on the fourth commandment and the Zurich reading of
Psalm 82). The importance of the new Protestant view of scripture cannot
be overstated: evangelicals used the word of God as a shibboleth, a way to
divide true faith (obedience) away from heresy (resistance). The claim
that the Bible taught that the king was Supreme Head next unto God was
a new doctrine. None living under Henry or Edward would have believed
that the Tudor preoccupation with obedience was a long-established
viewindeed the Cromwellian propaganda campaign of the 1530s con
tended that obedience had been lost in the medieval period as a result of
the usurpation of the pope. Even Henry admitted that he had only recently
recovered the true obedience of his subjects.
Again, we must be careful to distinguish resistance theory from opposi
tion to the kings policies. Historians have been too quick to conflate
obedience with quietism. While evangelicals rejected resistance theory,
they did not thereby abdicate the right to censure the king. The backbone
of the doctrine of obedience was the belief that one must avoid sin.
Consequently, there was nothing radical in the claim that evil commands
were to be ignored. Indeed, evangelical teachings on non-resistance are
analogous to the modern concept of civil disobedience. The pacifist
teachings of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr were couched in protest.
Both were outraged at oppression. Both challenged civil authorities on
moral and religious grounds and suffered willingly for their beliefs. And
yet, despite their protests, both expressed opposition through obedience,
suffering, and non-violence. In the same way, early evangelicals attempted
to occupy the moral high ground with the king, instructing him in his
 conclusion197

proper duty to advance reform, and rebuking him for his sinsall while
swearing obedience to the crown. This was not a contradiction of their
beliefs.
The crucial flaw in traditional Tudor historiography is the assumption
that those who desired radical change in religion were willing to become
revolutionaries to realise their vision. But there is an equally powerful
rhetoric of obedient sufferingthe language of a small minority willing
to die for their faith. Indeed, evangelicals at times appear eager to die as an
expression of their faithful obedience to God and king. Obedience was not
necessarily the language of the majority, nor resistance the language of
the weak and oppressed. In fact, the evangelical doctrine of obedience
stands these categories on their head: those most committed to reform
must submit themselves to the kings wrath so that God might intercede
and bring reformation to England. Rising up and resisting the king, para
doxically, plunges the kingdom into chaos and even jeopardises ones soul.
This study has not attempted to explain away, or ignore, the fact
that resistance theory was voiced by several leading evangelicals during
the Tudor period. There is no denying, for example, that resistance theory
was prominently featured in several evangelical tracts published under
Mary. But I want to hold resistance theory in proper perspective. For
decades, obedience theory was a popular and well-defended doctrine
and obedience was no less than the gospel itself for many evangelicals.
It was only after Mary rose to the throne (with Edwards reformation all
but lost) that evangelicals gave serious consideration to the right to resis
tance. Resistance theories under Mary, then, were the beginning of evan
gelical opposition to the doctrine of obedience, not the culmination of
decades of doubt about the Royal Supremacy. Evidence for this is found
even in Marian resistance writings: Knox and Goodman both acknowl
edged that evangelicals were overwhelmingly committed to obedience.
They knew their ideas were new, that they challenged the basic assump
tions of evangelical political beliefs. For this reason, Goodman went to
great lengths to justify his position from the Bible and to reject key texts
used to defend obedience. Knox, too, was confronted with the fact that
Bullinger and Calvin initially rejected his views on political resistance.
Under Elizabeth, the bulk of evangelicals felt free to ignore Marian resis
tance writings as a temporary theological aberration brought on by the
anguish of exile.
Moreover, this book has identified connections between Reformed
and evangelical teachings on obedience. I should reiterate that my goal
was not to suggest that English evangelicals were confessionally Swiss
198 conclusion

Reformed, even less that Reformed theologians should be credited with

having inspired the Tudor cult of obedience. Instead, my target was the
preoccupation with Lutheran obedience and Calvinist radicalism
a false dichotomy that has been undermined by recent scholarship but
nonetheless lives on in the minds of historians. Few today would express
the old whiggish tale that Calvinism was a malignant virus, contracted
abroad under Mary, inoculated under Elizabeth, with chronic outbreaks
ever since. This study has found no evidence of a division between English
and Reformed Protestants on the issue of obedience prior to the late-
1550s. It was only in the 1560s, several years into Elizabeths reign, that a
division arose between Zurich and Geneva on the issue of civil authority
in the church.
The findings of this study have implications for the study of Tudor
evangelicalism. Recent efforts by scholars to demolish the whiggish narra
tive have tended to stress that English evangelicals were radical, that their
theology was unambiguously Protestant. The reasoning behind this is not
unsound. The Anglo-Catholic mythology of the English Reformation
viewed zealous Protestantism as the bane of the English church. It is cer
tainly justified to explore connections between evangelicals and conti
nental Protestantism, particularly amongst those formerly viewed as
conservative. Yet our efforts to correct past misconceptions must not lead
us to an equally lopsided misconstrual of English evangelical political
thinking. In Tudor England, one could be thoroughly committed to obedi
ence and nevertheless ardently Protestant. As this study has shown, one of
the more formidable theories of obedience arose in Zurich under the
influence of Zwinglianism. Attempts to construct genealogies of radical
political thought must be based on more than evangelical opposition or
an appeal to Protestant tendencies. Those few evangelicals who suggested
the monarch ought to be punished for tyranny based their theories
on more than just opposition to the king. Rather they fundamentally
challenged the notion that suffering must be endured at all times, in
every case.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Contemporary Works

A brieff discours off the troubles begonne at Franckford (Heidelberg: M. Schirat, 1574;
STC 25442).
A caveat for Christians (London: N. Hill, 1548; STC 5195).
An admonishion to the bishoppes (London?: J. Day, 1553; STC 11593).
An excellent and a right learned meditacion (London?: J. Day, 1554, STC 17773).
A letter sent from a banished minister (London?: J. Day, 1554; STC 10016).
An heauenly acte (London?: s.n., 1547?; STC 95). An identical copy by John Day is (1547?
STC 96).
Articles Devisid by the holle consent of the kynges moste honourable counsayle (London:
T. Berthelet, 1533; STC 9177).
A soveraigne cordial (London?: J. Day, 1554; STC 5157).
Aylmer, J., An harborowe for faithfull and trewe subjects (London: J. Day, 1559; STC 1006).
Bale, J., A brefe chronycle concernynge the examinacyonJohn Oldecastell (Antwerp:
s.n., 1544; STC 1276).
, The epistle exhortatorye of an Englyshe Christyane (Antwerp: s.n., 1544; STC 1291a).
, The first examinacyon of Anne Askewe (Wesel: D. Van der Straten, 1546; STC 848).
, The lattre examinacyon of Anne Askewe (Wesel: D. Van der Straten, 1547; STC 850).
Barlowe and Roye, Rede me and be nott wrothe (Strasbourg: J. Schott, 1528; STC 1462.7).
Becke, E., A brefe confutacion of this most detestable and Anabaptistical opinion (London:
J. Day, 1550; STC 1709).
Becon, T., A pleasaunt newe Nosegaye (London: J. Mayler, 1542; STC 1742).
, Davids harpe (London: J. Mayler, 1542; STC 1717).
, New pollecye of warre (London: J. Mayler, 1542; STC 1735).
, A Potacion (London: J. Mayler, 1542; STC 1749).
, The Reliques of Rome (London: John Day, 1563; STC 1755).
Biblia the Byble, that is, the holy Scrypture of the Olde and New Testament [Coverdale Bible]
(Southwark?: J. Nycolson, 1535; STC 2063.3).
Bomelius, H., The summe of the holye scripture, trans. S. Fish (Antwerp: s.n., 1529; STC 3036).
Brinklow, H., The Complaynt of Rederyck Mors (Strasbourg: 1542, W. Kpfel; STC 3759.5).
Bullinger, H., A moste sure and strong defence of the baptisme of children (Worcester:
J. Oswen, 1551; STC 4069).
, A treatise or Sermonconcernynge magistrates and obedience of subiectes (London:
W. Lynne, 1549; STC 4079).
, Bullae Papisticae ante biennium contraReginam Elizabetham (London: J. Day, 1570;
STC 4043). English translation by Arthur Golding: A Confutation of the Popes Bull
(London: J. Day, 1572; STC 4044).
, The Judgement ofM. Henry Bullinger (London: W. Seres, 1566; STC 4063).
Calvin, J., A short instructionagaynstAnabaptistes (London: J. Day, 1549; STC 4463).
, Certaine homilies of m. Joan Calvine (Wesel?: s.n., 1553; STC 4392).
CCCC MSS 121, Synodalia, n.20 (Declaration): confession of faith from evangelicals
returning to Elizabethan England.
Certayne Questions Demanded (Wesel?: s.n., 1555; STC 9981).
Champneys, J., The harvest is at hand (London: H. Powell, 1548; STC 4956).
Cheke, J., The hurt of sedition (London: W. Seres, 1549; STC 5109).
Cole, T., A godly and frutefull sermon (London: R. Wolfe, 1553; STC 5539).
200 bibliography

Coverdale, M., Confutacion of that treatise, which one John Standish made againste
D. Barnes (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1541; STC 5888).
Crowley, R., A briefe discourse (Emden: E. van der Erve, 1566; STC 6079).
Capito, W. [trans W. Roye], The true beliefe in Christ and his sacramentes (London,
G. Lynne, 1550; STC 24223.5). Original work: Capito, W., De Pueris Instituendis Ecclesiae
Argentinensis Isagoge (Strasbourg, 1527).
Finch, R., The epiphanie of the church (London: R. Ward, 1550, published 1590; STC 10877.5).
Fish, S., A Supplicacyon for the beggers (Antwerp?: s.n., 1528/9; STC 10883).
Gerrard, P., A godly invective (London: R. Grafton, 1547; STC 11797).
Gilby, A., A commentarye upon the Prophet Mycha (London: J. Day, 1551; STC 11886).
Gilpin, B., A Godly sermon preached in the Court at Greenwich (London: H. Middleton, 1552;
STC 11897).
Glasse of truthe (London: T. Berthelet, 1532; STC 11918).
Goodman, Christopher, How superior powers o[u]ght to be obeyd (Geneva: J. Crispin, 1558;
STC 12020).
Gybson, T., A breve cronycle (London: J. Day, 1548; STC 11842.a).
Hooper, J., Godly and most necessary annotations in ye .xiij. chapyter too the Romaynes
(Worcester: J. Oswen, 1551; STC 13756).
Humphrey, L., De religionis conservatione et reformatione vera (Basle: 1559).
, The nobles or of nobilitye (London: T. Marshe, 1563; STC 13964).
Joye, G., An apologye (London: J. Byddell, 1535; STC 14820).
, A present consolacion for the sufferers of persecucion for ryghtwysenes (Antwerp:
S. Mierdman, 1544; STC 14828).
, The exposicion of Daniel (Antwerp: s.n., 1545, STC 14823).
, The souper of the Lorde (London: N. Hill?, 1533; STC 24468).
, The defence of the mariage of preistes (Antwerp: J. Troost, 1541; STC 21804).
Kethe, W., A sermon made at Blanford Forum (London: J. Day, 1571; STC 14943).
Latimer, H., Certayn godly Sermons [27 Sermons] (London: J. Day, 1562; STC 15276).
, A moste faithfull sermon (London: J. Day, 1550; STC 15289).
, The fyrste sermon of Mayster Hughe Latimer (1549, STC 15270).
Lever, T., A Rightway (1556, STC 15551.5).
, A Sermon preached the third Sondaye in Lente before the Kynges Maiestie (London:
J. Day, 1550; STC 15548).
Luther, M., A A Faithful Admonition (London: J. Day?, 1554; STC 16981).
Mardeley, J., A declaration of thee power of Gods worde (London: T. Raynald, 1548;
STC 17317).
Moone, P., A short treatyse of certayne thinges abused in the Popysh Church (Ipswich:
J. Oswen, 1548; STC 18055).
Morison, R., An exhortation (London: T. Berthelet, 1539; STC 18110).
, Lamentation (London: T. Berthelet, 1536; STC 18113.3).
, Remedy for sedition (London: T. Berthelet, 1536; STC 18113.7).
Ochino, B., Certayne Sermons (Ipswich, A. Scoloker, 1548; STC 18765).
Parker, M., A brief examinaction (London: R. Jugge, 1566; STC 10387).
Pellican, C., Biblia Sancrosanta Testamenti (Zurich, first ed.: 1532, 1544).
Perez de Valencia, J., Commentaria in Psalmos (Barcelona, 1506).
Pole, R., The seditious and blasphemous Oration of Cardinal Pole (London: O. Rogers, 1560;
STC 20087).
Ponet, J., A notable Sermon (London: G. Lynne, 1550; STC 20177).
, A shorte treatise of politike power (Strasbourg: s.n., 1556; STC 20178).
Pylbarough, J., A commemoration of the inestimable graces (London: T. Berthelet, 1540;
STC 20521).
Reuchlin, J., De rudimentis Hebraicis (Pforzheim, 1506).
Ridley, L., A commentaryEphesyans (London: R. Redman, 1540; STC 21038.5).
Rhegius, U., A comparison between the olde learnynge and the newe (Southwark: J. Nicholson,
1537; STC 20840).
 bibliography201

R.V., The olde fayth of greate Brittaygne (London: A. Scoloker, 1549; STC 24566).
Salesbury, W., The baterie of the Popes Botereulx (London: R. Grafton, 1550; STC 21613).
Simler, J., An Oration of the Life and Death ofPeter Martyr Vermilius (1583).
Standish, J., A lytle treatise composyd by Johan Standysshe against the protestacion of
Robert Barnes at the tyme of his death (London: R. Redman, 1540; STC 23209).
, The triall of the supremacy wherein is set fourth ye unitie of christes church militant
geuen to S. Peter and his successoures by Christe (London: T. Marshe, 1556; STC 23211).
Stow, J., Annals (1630, STC 1189).
Taverner, R., The garden of wysdom (London: R. Banks, 1539; STC 23711.a).
, The second booke of the Garden of wysdome (London: R. Banks, 1539; STC 23712.5).
The faule of the Romyshe churche (London: N. Hill?, 1548; STC 21305.3).
The most sacred Bible [Taverners Bible] (London: J. Byddell, 1539; STC 2067).
Traheron, B., A warning (Wesel?: s.n., 1558; STC 24174).
Turner, W., A preservativeagainst the poyson of Pelagius (London: S. Mierdman, 1551; STC
24368).
, A new dialogueof the masse (London: W. Hill, 1548; STC 24363).
, Huntyng and fyndyng out of the Romishe fox (Bonn: L. Mylius, 1543; STC 24353).
, Rescuynge of the Romishe Foxe (Bonn: L. Von der Meulen, 1545 STC 24355).
Tyndale, Obedience of the Christen man (Antwerp: J. Hoochstraten, 1527/8; STC 24446).
, The exposition of the fyrst epistle of seynt Jhon (Antwerp: M. De Keyser, 1531;
STC 24443).
Vermigli, P., A treatise of the cohabitacyon of the faithfull with the unfaithfull (Strasburg:
W. Rihel, 1555; STC 24673.5).
Veron, J., The five abhominable blasphemies conteined in the Masse (London: H. Powell,
1548; STC 24679).
Westheimer, Troporum, Schematum, Idiomatumque (Basel, 1540).
Whether Christian faith maye be kepte secrete (London?: J. Day?, 1553; STC 5160.3).
Whether it be a mortall sinne to transgresse civil lawes (London: R. Jugge, 1570; STC 10391.5).
Wilson, T., The rule of reason, conteinyng the arte of logique (London: R. Grafton, 1551;
STC 25809).

Modern Reprints of Contemporary Works

Adams, B., (ed), John Bales King Johan (San Mariano, CA: Huntington Library, 1969).
Bale, J., King Johan, in The Complete Plays of John Bale, vol. 1, (ed) Peter Happ (Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 1985).
Berry, L., Geneva Bible: 1560 Facsimile (Hendrickson Publishers, rpt.2007).
Bray, G. (ed), Tudor Church Reform: The Henrician Canons of 1535 and the Reformatio Legum
Ecclesiasticarum, Church of England Record Society (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2000).
Calvin, Letters of John Calvin, 2 vols., (ed and trans) J. Bonnet (Edinburgh, 1857).
Cranmer, Works of Archbishop Cranmer, 2 vols., (ed) J.E. Cox (Cambridge UP, 18446).
Duffield, G.E. (ed), The Psalter of David (Abingdon: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1971).
Formularies of Faith (ed) C. Lloyd (Oxford, 1825).
Gardiner, The Letters of Stephen Gardiner, (ed) J.A. Muller (New York: Macmillan, 1933).
Kemp, J.K., Laurence Humphrey, Elizabethan puritan: his life and political theories,
PhD dissertation (West Virginia University, 1978) [English translation of Humphreys
De religionis as an apendix].
Kingdon, R., The Political Thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli (Geneva: Droz, 1980) [texts with
comments].
Knox, J., Epistle to the Congregation of Berwick, in John Knox and the Church of England,
(ed) Peter Lorimer (London: H.S. King, 1875), 25165.
Knox, J., Works (ed), D. Laing (Edinburgh, 1846).
Luther, M., Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe. 58 vols. (Weimar: 18831948).
202 bibliography

Luther, M., Works. 55 vols. (Philadelphia and St Louis, 1955).

Robinson, H., (ed), Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation 2 vols. (Cambridge,
1847).
, Zurich Letters (Cambridge, 1842).
Strype, J., Annals (Oxford, 1824).
The Midrash on Psalms, 2 vols, (trans) W.G. Braude (New Haven: Yale UP, 1959).
Wriothesley, A Chronicle of England During the Reigns of the Tudors, from A.D. 14851559,
(ed) W.D. Hamilton (Camden Society, 187577).
Yale Edition of The Complete Works of St. Thomas More (New Haven: Yale UP, 19631997).
Zwingli, Smtliche Werke, E. Egli and G. Finsler (eds) 16 vols. [in Corpus Reformatorum].

Secondary Works

Ackroyd, P., The Life of Thomas More (London: Doubleday, 1998).

Alford, S., Burghley (New Haven: Yale UP, 2009).
, The Early Elizabethan Polity: William Cecil and the British Succession Crisis, 15581569
(Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998).
, Kingship and Politics in the Reign of Edward VI (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002).
, The Political Creed of William Cecil in J. McDiarmid (ed), The Monarchical Republic
of Early Modern England (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), pp. 7590.
Anderson, M., Rhetoric and Reality: Peter Martyr and the English Reformation, SCJ 19/3
(1988): 45169.
, Royal Idolatry: Peter Martyr and the Reformed Tradition ARG 69 (1978): 157200.
Aston, M., Lollards and Reformers (London: Hambledon Press, 1984).
Avis, P., The Church in the Theology of the Reformers (London: Wipf & Stock, 2002).
Bailey, D.S., Thomas Becon and the Reformation of the Church of England (Edinburgh: Oliver
and Boyd, 1952).
Baker, J.W., Erastianism in England: the Zurich Connection in A. Schilder and
H. Stickelberger (eds), Die Zricher und Rckwirkungen. (Bern: Peter Lang, 2001),
pp. 327349.
, Erastianism in England: The Zrich Connection, in A. Schindler and H. Stickelberger
(eds), Die Zrcher Reformation: Ausstrahlungen und Rckwirkungen (Bern: Peter Lang,
2001).
Baron, H., Calvinist Republicanism and Its Historical Roots, CH 8/1 (1939): 3042.
Bast, Robert J, Honor Your Fathers: Catechisms and the Emergence of a Patriarchal Ideology
in Germany, 14001600.
Baumer, F., The Early Tudor Theory of Kingship (New Haven: Yale UP, 1966).
Bedouelle, G., Le Quincuplex Psalterium de Lefvre dEtaples: Un guide de lecture (Geneva:
Droz, 1979).
Beer, B., John Ponets Shorte Treatise of Politike Power Reassessed, SCJ 21/3 (Autumn 1990):
37384.
Benedict, P., Christs Church Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven:
Yale UP, 2002).
Benert, R.R., Inferior Magistrates in Sixteenth-Century Political and Legal Thought,
PhD dissertation (University of Minnesota, 1964).
Bernard, G., The making of religious policy, 15331546: Henry VIII and the search for the
middle way, HJ 41/2 (1998): 32149.
Biel, P., Heinrich Bullingers Death and Testament: A Well-Planned Departure, SCJ 22/1
(Spring 1991): 314.
Bindoff, S.T., Kets Rebellion, 1549 (London: Historical Association, 1949).
Bonini, C.R., Lutheran influences in the early English Reformation: Richard Morison
re-examined, ARG 64 (1973): 20624.
 bibliography203

Booty, J., John Jewel as Apologist of the Church of England (SPCK, 1963).
Bowers, R., The Chapel Royal, the First Edwardian Prayer Book, and Elizabeths Settlement
of Religion, 1559 HJ 43/2 (June 2000): 317344.
Bowler, G., English Protestant Resistance Theory, c. 15351600, PhD dissertation
(University of London, 1981).
, Marian Protestantism and the Idea of Violent Resistance, in P. Lake and M. Dowling
(eds), Protestantism and the National Church in Sixteenth-Century England (London:
Croom Helm, 1987).
Bradshaw, C., David or Josiah? Old Testament kings as exemplars in Edwardian religious
polemic, in Protestant History and Identity in Sixteenth-Century Europe, 2 vols (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 1996).
Brett, A. and Tully, J. (eds), Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought
(Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006).
Brigden, S., London and the Reformation (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1991).
, Popular Disturbance and the Fall of Thomas Cromwell and the Reformers, 153940,
HJ 24/2 (June 1981): 2578.
Brooks, P., Cranmer in Context (Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 1989).
Burnet, G., History of the Reformation of the Church of England 3 vols. (Oxford, 1829).
Burnett, S., Reassessing the Basel-Wittenberg Conflict: Dimensions of the Reformation-
Era Discussion of Hebrew Scholarship in A. Coudert and J. Shoulson (eds), Hebraica
Veritas?: Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2004).
Burns, J.H., John Knox and Revolution, 1558, History Today 8 (1958): 56573.
, Knox and Bullinger, Scottish Historical Review 34 (1955): 9091.
Bush, M.L., The Government Policy of Protector Somerset (London: Edward Arnold, 1975).
Butterworth C. and Chester, A., George Joye (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania,
1962).
Cameron, E., Frankfurt and Geneva: The European Context of John Knoxs Reformation
in R. Mason (ed), John Knox and the British Reformations (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998).
Cargill Thompson, W.D.J., The Two Regiments: The Continental Setting of William
Tyndales Political Thought, in D. Baker (ed), Reform and Reformation: England and the
Continent c. 1500 c. 1750 (Oxford: SCH Subsidia 2, 1979).
, Who Wrote The Supper of the Lord? Harvard Theological Review 52/1 (January
1960): 7791.
Chenevire, M., La Pense Politique de Calvin (Geneva, 1937).
Clebsch, W.A., Englands Earliest Protestants, 15201535 (New Haven: Yale UP, 1964).
, More Evidence That George Joye Wrote Supper of the Lorde, Harvard Theological
Review 55/1 (January 1962): 636.
Collinson, P., Archbishop Grindal, 15191583 (London: Cape, 1979).
, Godly People: Essays on English Protestantism and Puritanism (London: Hambledon
Press, 1983).
, Elizabethan Essays (London: Hambledon Press, 1994).
, The Authorship of A Brieff Discours Off the Troubles Begonne at Franckford,
JEH 9 (1958): 188208.
, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1967).
Craig, Jr., H., The Geneva Bible as a Political Document, Pacific Historical Review 7 (1938):
4049.
Crankshaw, D., Preparations for the Canterbury Provincial Convocation of 156263:
A Question of Attribution in S. Wabuda and C. Litzenberger (eds), Belief and Practice
in Reformation England: A Tribute to Patrick Collinson from his Students (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 1998) pp. 6093.
Cromartie, A., The Constitutionalist Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006).
Cross, C., Church and People: England 14501660 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999).
Daniell, D., William Tyndale (New Haven: Yale UP, 1994).
204 bibliography

, Tyndale, Roye, Joye, and Copyright, in J. Dick and A. Richardson (eds), William
Tyndale and the Law (Kirksville, MO, 1994).
Danner, D., Anthony Gilby: Puritan in Exile-A Biographical Approach, CH 40/4 (December
1971): 41222.
, Christopher Goodman and the English Protestant Tradition of Civil Disobedience,
SCJ 8/3 (October 1977): 6567.
, Pilgrimage to Puritanism: History and Theology of the Marian Exiles at Geneva:
15551560 (New York: Peter Lang, 1999).
Davies, C., A Religion of the word (Manchester: Manchester UP, 2002).
, Poor Persecuted Little Flock or Commonwealth of Christians: Edwardian
Protestant Concepts of the Church in P. Lake and M. Dowling (eds), Protestantism and
the National Church in Sixteenth Century England (London: Croom Helm, 1987).
Dawson, J., The early career of Christopher Goodman, PhD dissertation (University of
Durham, 1978).
, Trumpeting Resistance: Christopher Goodman and John Knox, in Roger Mason
(ed), John Knox and the British Reformations (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998).
Dent, C., Protestant Reformers in Elizabethan Oxford (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1983).
Dickens, A.G., English Reformation (Philadelphia: Penn State Press, 1989).
Diem, H., Luthers Lehre von den zwei Reichen (Munich: Kaiser, 1938).
Dixon, R.W., History of the Church of England 5 vols. (London, 1878).
Doernberg, E., Henry VIII and Luther (London: Barrie and Rockliff, 1961).
Doran, S., Elizabeth I and Religion, 15581603 (New York: Routledge, 1994).
, Elizabeth Is Religion: Clues from her Letters, JEH 52 (2001): 122.
Duerden, R., Justice and Justification: King and God in Tyndales The Obedience of a
Christian Man, in J. Dick and A. Richardson (eds), William Tyndale and the Law
(Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, 1994).
Duffy, E., The Stripping of the Altars (New Haven: Yale UP, 1992).
, The Voices of Morebath (New Haven: Yale UP, 2001).
Ebeling, G., The Necessity of the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms, in Word and Faith
(London, 1960).
Eire, C., Prelude to Sedition: Calvins attack on Nicodemism and religious compromise,
ARG 76 (1985): 120145.
Elton, G.R., England and the Continent in the Sixteenth Century, in D. Baker (ed), Reform
and Reformation: England and the Continent c. 15001750 (SCH Subsidia 2, 1979).
, Thomas Cromwells Decline and Fall, in Studies in Tudor and Stuart Politics and
Government, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1974).
Emerson, E., English Puritanism from John Hooper to John Milton (Durham, NC: Duke, 1968).
Eppley, D., Defending Royal Supremacy and Discerning Gods Will in Tudor England
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007).
Euler, C., Couriers of the Gospel: England and Zurich (15311558) (Zurich: Theologischer
Verlag Zurich, 2006).
Feld, H., Der humanisten Streit um Hebrer 2:7 (Psalm 8:6), ARG 61 (1970): 533.
Figgis, J.N., The Divine Right of Kings (modern ed.: New York, 1965).
Fletcher, A. and MacCulloch, D., Tudor Rebellions (London, 1997).
Freeman, J.I., Anthony Scoloker, the Just reckoning printer, and the earliest Ipswich
printing, Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, 9 (198690), 47696.
Freeman, T., As True a Subject being Prysoner: John Foxes Notes on the Imprisonment
of Princess Elizabeth, 15541555 EHR, 117/470 (February 2002): 104116.
, Providence and Prescription: The Account of Elizabeth in Foxes Book of Martyrs,
in S. Doran and T. Freeman (eds), The Myth of Elizabeth (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003).
Freeman T. and Mayer T.F., (eds), Martyrs and Martyrdom in England c. 14001700
(Woodbridge: Boydell, 2007).
Garrett, C.H., The Marian Exiles (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1938).
Gerrish, B., Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1993).
 bibliography205

Gordon, B., John Calvin (New Haven: Yale UP, 2009).

Greaves, R., Concepts of Political Obedience in Late Tudor England: Conflicting
Perspectives, Journal of British Studies 22/1 (Autumn 1982): 2334.
, The Nature and Intellectual Milieu of the Political Principles in the Geneva Bible
Marginalia, Journal of Church and State 22 (Spring 1980): 23349.
, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation (Grand Rapids: Christian
University Press, 1980).
Gregory, B., Salvation at Stake (Harvard: Harvard UP, 2001).
C. Gunnoe, Thomas Erastus and the Palatinate: a Renaissance Physician in the Second
Reformation (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).
Gunther, K., The Intellectual Origins of English Puritanism, c. 15251572 PhD dissertation
(Northwestern University, 2007).
Gunther, K. and Shagan, E., Protestant Radicalism and Political Thought in the Reign of
Henry VIII Past and Present 194/1 (February 2007): 3574.
Guy, J., My Heart is My Own (HarperPerennial, 2004).
, The Henrician Age, in The Varieties of British Political Thought, (ed) J. Pocock
(Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993).
, The Rhetoric of Counsel in Early Modern England, in D. Hoak (ed), Tudor Political
Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995).
Haas, S., Henry VIIIs Glasse of truthe, History 114 (1979): 35362.
, Martin Luthers Divine Right Kingship and the Royal Supremacy: Two Tracts from
the 1531 Parliament and Convocation of the Clergy, JEH 31 (1980): 31725.
, The Disputatio inter clericum et militem: was Berthelets 1531 edition the first
Henrician polemic of Thomas Cromwell? Moreana 14/55 (1977): 6572.
Haigh, C., Elizabeth I (London: Longman, 2001).
, English Reformations (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1993).
, Reformation and Resistance in Tudor Lancashire (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1975).
Hall, B., John Calvin: Humanist and Theologian (London: Historical Association, 1967).
, The Early Rise and Gradual Decline of Lutheranism in England (15201660), in
Derek Baker (ed), Reform and Reformation: England and the Continent c. 15001750 (SCH
Subsidia 2, 1979).
Happ, P., Dramatic Images of Kingship in Heywood and Bale, Studies in English Literature,
15001900, 39/2, Tudor and Stuart Drama (Spring 1999).
Harkness, R.E.E., The Development of Democracy in the English Reformation, CH 8/1
(March 1939): 329.
Hoak, D., A Tudor Deborah? The Coronation of Elizabeth I, Parliament, and the Problem
of Female Rule in C. Highley and J.N. King (eds), John Foxe and His World (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2002).
, Sir William Cecil, Sir Thomas Smith, and the Monarchical Republic of England in
J. McDiarmid (ed), The Monarchical Republic of Early Modern England (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2007).
Horie, H., The influence of continental divines on the making of the English religious set-
tlement, ca.15471590: a reassessment of Heinrich Bullingers contribution, PhD disser-
tation (University of Cambridge, 1991).
, The Lutheran Influence on the Elizabethan Settlement, 15581563, HJ 34/3
(September 1991): 51937.
Hudson, W., Democratic Freedom and Religious Faith in the Reformed Tradition, CH 15/3
(September 1946): 17794.
, John Ponet (15161556): Advocate of Limited Monarchy (Chicago: University of Chicago,
1942).
, The Cambridge connection and the Elizabethan settlement of 1559 (Durham, NC:
Duke, 1980).
Hume, A., William Royes Brefe Dialoge (1527): An English Version of a Strasbourg
Catechism, Harvard Theological Review 60/3 (July 1967): 30721.
Hunt, E.W., The Life and Times of John Hooper (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1992).
206 bibliography

Hyma, A., Calvinism and Capitalism in the Netherlands, 15551700, Journal of Modern
History 10 (1938).
Jackson, J.F., Law and Order: Vermigli and the Reform of Ecclesiastical Laws in England,
in Peter Martyr Vermigli and European Reformations (Leiden: Brill, 2004).
Jeanes, G., Signs of Gods Promise: Thomas Cranmers Sacramental Theology and the Book of
Common Prayer (New York: T&T Clark, 2008).
Jenkins, G., John Jewel and the English National Church (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006).
Jones, N., Faith by Statute (London : Swift Printers for the Royal Historical Society, 1982).
Jones, W.R.D., The Tudor Commonwealth, 1529-1559 (London: Athlone, 1970).
, William Turner: Tudor Naturalist, Physician and Divine (London: Routledge, 1988).
Jordan, W.K., Edward VI: The Young King (London: Allen & Unwin, 1968).
, Edward VI: Threshold of Power (Harvard: Harvard UP, 1970).
Jung, R., Die englische Flchtlings-Gemeinde in Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt, 1910).
Keep, D.J., Bullingers Intervention in the Vestiarian Controversy of 1566, The Evangelical
Quarterly 47 (1975): 223230.
King, J.N., English Reformation Literature (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1986).
Kingdon, R., Geneva and the Consolidation of the French Protestant Movement, 15641572
(Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967).
, Robert, The First Expression of Theodore Bezas Political Ideas, ARG 46 (1955):
88100.
Kirby, T., Richard Hookers Doctrine of the Royal Supremacy (Leiden: Brill, 1997).
, The Charge of Religion Belongeth unto Princes: Peter Martyr Vermigli on the Unity
of Civil and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, ARG 94 (2003): 161175.
, The Zurich Connection and Tudor Political Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2007).
Knappen, M.M. Tudor Puritanism (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1939).
, William Tindale: First English Puritan, CH 20/1 (1936): 20115.
Koehler, L. and Baumgartner, W., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament,
vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1994).
Lake, P., Calvinism and the English Church, 15701635, Past & Present, 114/1 (February
1987): 3276.
, Moderate Puritans and the Elizabethan Church (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004).
Levin, C., The Heart and Stomach of a King: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994).
Loach, J., Edward VI (New Haven: Yale, 1999).
, Pamphlets and Politics, 15538, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research,
28 (1975): 3144.
Lowe, B., Imagining Peace: A History of Early English Pacifist Ideas (University Park: Penn
State UP, 1997).
, War and Commonwealth in Mid-Tudor England, SCJ 21/2 (Summer 1990).
Lwe, J.A., Richard Smyth and the language of orthodoxy: re-imagining Tudor Catholic
polemicism (Leiden: Brill, 2003).
MacCulloch, D., Henry VIII and the Reform of the Church, in D. MacCulloch (ed),
The Reign of Henry VIII: politics, policy, and piety (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995).
, Heinrich Bullinger and the English-speaking world, in P. Opitz and E. Campi (eds),
Heinrich Bullinger (15041575): Leben, Denken, Wirkung, vol. 24, Zrcher Beitrge zur
Reformatioinsgeschichte (Grand Rapids: Eisenbrauns, 2006).
, Ketts Rebellion in Context, Past and Present 84 (1979): 3659.
, Thomas Cranmer: a life (New Haven: Yale UP, 1996).
, Tudor Church Militant: Edward VI and the Protestant Reformation (London: Penguin,
2002).
Marshall, P. and Ryrie, A., (eds), The Beginnings of English Protestantism (Cambridge:
Cambridge Press, 2002).
Martin, C., Les Protestants Anglais Rfugis Genve au Temps de Calvin, 15551560 (Geneva,
1915).
 bibliography207

Mayer, C., Elizabeth and the Religious Settlement of 1559 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1960).
McConica, J., English Humanists and Reformation Politics (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965).
McDiarmid, J., Common Consent, Latinitas, and the Monarchical Republic in Mid-Tudor
Humanism, in J. McDiarmid (ed), The Monarchical Republic of Early Modern England
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), pp. 6971.
McDiarmid, J.F. (ed), The Monarchical Republic of Early Modern England (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2007).
McEntegert, R., Henry VIII, the League of Schmalkalden, and the English Reformation (Royal
Historical Society, 2002).
McGiffert, M., William Tyndales Conception of Covenant, JEH 32 (1981): 16784.
McLaren, A., Reading Sir Thomas Smiths De Republic Anglorum as Protestant Apologetic,
HJ 42/4 (December 1999): 911939.
McNair, P., Ochino on Sedition, Italian Studies 15 (1960): 3649.
, Peter Martyr in England, in J.C. McLelland (ed), Peter Martyr and Italian Reform,
(Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1980), 85105.
, Peter Martyr in Italy (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1967).
Moller, J.G., The Beginnings of Puritan Covenant Theology, JEH 14 (1963): 4667.
Morris, C., Political Thought in England: Tyndale to Hooker (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1953).
Mozley, J.F., William Tyndale (New York: Macmillan, 1937).
Muller, J.A., Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction (London, 1926).
Murphy, V., The Literature and Propaganda of Henry VIIIs First Divorce, in D. MacCulloch
(ed), The Reign of Henry VIII: Politics, Policy and Piety (New York: St. Martins Press, 1995).
Muss-Arnold, W., Puritan Efforts and Struggles, 15501603: A Bio-Bibliographical Study. I,
American Journal of Theology 23/ 3 (July 1919): 35152.
Newcombe, D.G., John Hooper: Tudor Bishop and Martyr. Monographs Medieval and
Modern (Burford: Davent Press, 2009).
Nichols, J., The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth 3 vols. (London, 1823).
Null, A., Thomas Cranmers Doctrine of Repentance (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000).
Oakley, F., Christian Obedience and Authority, c. 15201550, in Burns and Goldie (eds),
Cambridge History of Political Thought, 14501700 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991).
ODonovan, J.L., Theology of Law and Authority in the English Reformation (Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1991).
ODonovan J. and ODonovan, O. (eds), From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in Christian
Political Thought 1001625 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
Opie, J., The Anglicizing of John Hooper, ARG 59 (1968): 15075.
Pak, G. Sujin, The Judaizing Calvin: Sixteenth-Century Debates over the Messianic Psalms
(Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010).
Peltonen, M., Classic Humanism and Republicanism in English Political Thought, 15701640
(Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995).
Pettegree, A., Foreign Protestant Communities in Sixteenth-Century London (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1986).
Phillips, W., Henry Bullinger and the Elizabethan Vestiarian Controversy: An Analysis of
Influence, Journal of Religious History 11 (1981): 36384.
Pocock, J.G.A., The Machiavellian Moment (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1975).
Potter, G.R., Zwingli and the Book of Psalms, SCJ 10/2 (Summer 1979): 4350.
Pratt, Jr, M.E., Zwinglianism in England during the Reign of Elizabeth PhD dissertation
(Stanford, 1953).
Primus, J.H., The Vestments Controversy (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1960).
Puckett, D.L., John Calvins Exegesis of the Old Testament (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 1995).
Raath, A. and de Freitas, S., From Heinrich Bullinger to Puritanism, Scottish Journal of
Theology 56/2 (May 2003): 20830.
Redworth, G., A Study in the Formation of Policy: The Genesis and Evolution of the Act of
Six Articles, JEH 37 (1986): 4267.
208 bibliography

Rex, R., Henry VIII and the English Reformation (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 1993).
, The Crisis of Obedience: Gods Word and Henrys Reformation, HJ 39/4 (1996):
86394.
, English Campaign Against Luther in the 1520s, T.R.H.S. 5th series, 39 (1989): 85106.
, The Lollards (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002).
, The Early Impact of Reformation Theology at Cambridge University, 15211547,
Reformation and Renaissance Review 2 (December 1999): 3871.
, The Theology of John Fisher (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991).
Richardson, A., William Tyndale and the Bill of Rights, in J. Dick and A. Richardson (eds),
William Tyndale and the Law (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies, 1994).
Ridley, J., John Knox (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1968).
Ross, A., Introducing Biblical Hebrew (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001).
Rupp, G., Martin Luther: Hitlers Cause or Cure (London, 1946).
, Study in the Making of The English Protestant Tradition (first ed., 1947; rpt. Cambridge,
1966).
Rutgers, V.H., Le Calvinisme et ltat Chrtien, in tudes sur Calvin et le Calvinisme (1935).
Ryrie, A., The Gospel and Henry VIII (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003).
, The Strange Death of Lutheran England JEH 53/1 (2002): 6492.
Scales, D.A., Bullinger and the Vestments Controversy in England, PhD dissertation
(University of Cambridge, 1979).
Scarisbrick, J.J., The Reformation and the English People (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1984).
Shagan, E., Clement Armstrong and the godly commonwealth: radical religion in Tudor
England, in P. Marshall and A. Ryrie (eds), The Beginnings of English Protestantism
(Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002).
Shagan, E., The Rule of Moderation: Violence, Religion and the Politics of Restraint in Early
Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011).
Shoenberger, C.G., The Development of the Lutheran Theory of Resistance: 15231530, SCJ
8/1 (April 1977): 6176.
Skinner, Q., The Foundations of Modern Political Thought 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 1978).
, The Origins of the Calvinist Theory of Revolution in B. Malament (ed), After the
Reformation: Essays in Honor of J.H. Hexter (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1980), pp. 309330.
, Visions of Politics, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002).
Smith, L.B., Tudor Prelates and Politics, 15361558 (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1953).
Smith P. and Bar, R., Englishmen at Wittenberg in the Sixteenth Century, EHR 36/1 (July
1921): 422433.
Solt, L., Revolutionary Calvinist Parties in England under Elizabeth I and Charles I CH 27/3
(September 1958): 234239.
Somerville, J.P., Absolutism and Royalism, in The Cambridge History of Political Thought,
14501700 (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991).
Southgate, W.A., John Jewel and the Problem of Doctrinal Authority (Harvard: Harvard UP,
1962).
Thomas, K., Religion and the Decline of Magic (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1971).
Thompson, J.A.F., The Later Lollards, 14141520 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1965).
Tjernagel, N.S., Henry VIII and the Lutherans (St Louis: Concordia, 1960).
Trapman, J., De Summa der Godliker Scrifturen (1523), PhD dissertation (University of
Leiden, 1978).
Trinterud, L., A Reappraisal of William Tyndale, CH 31/1 (1962): 2445.
, L., The Origins of Puritanism, CH 20/1 (1951): 3757.
Trueman, Carl, Luthers Legacy: Salvation and the English Reformers, 15251556 (Oxford:
Oxford UP, 1994).
Usher, B., John Jewel Junked JEH 59/3 (July 2008): 501511.
, William Cecil and episcopacy (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003).
 bibliography209

Vander, R.M., Anglican Against Puritan: Ideological Origins During the Marian Exile,
CH 47 (March 1978): 4557.
Vetter, T., Relations between England and Zurich during the Reformation (London, 1904).
Linder, R., The Political Ideas of Pierre Viret (Geneve: Droz, 1964).
Walzer, Michael, Revolution of the Saints (Harvard: Harvard UP, 1962).
Wenig, Scott, Straightening the Altars: The Ecclesiastical Vision and Pastoral Achievements
of the Progressive Bishops under Elizabeth I, 15591579 (New York: Peter Lang, 2000).
Whitford, D.M., Cura Religionis or Two Kingdoms: The Late Luther on Religion and the
State in the Lectures on Genesis 1, CH 71/1 (March 2004).
, Luthers Political Encounters, in The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther,
(ed) D. McKim (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003).
Williams, P., The Later Tudors: England, 1547-1603 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1995).
Wolf, A., William Royes Dialogue between a Christian Father and his Stubborn Son (Vienna,
1974).
Wollman, D., The Biblical Justification for Resistance to Authority in Ponets and
Goodmans Polemics, SCJ 13/3 (Winter 1982): 2941.
Zachman, Randall, John Calvin as Teacher, Pastor and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2006).
Zeeveld, W.G., Foundations of Tudor Policy (Harvard: Harvard UP, 1948).
Zimmer, E., Jewish and Christian Hebraist Collaboration in Sixteenth-Century Germany,
Jewish Quarterly Review 71 (1980): 6988.
Zrcher, C., Konrad Pellikans Wirken in Zrich, 15261556, Zricher Beitrge zur
Reformationsgeschichte, Band 4 (Zurich, 1975).
 INDEX

Anabaptist8, 30, 83 on Psalm 82126127

Askew, Anne8486 on Romans 13124127
Aylmer, John177180 Horne, Robert133
Humphrey, Laurence180182, 184
Bale, John5657, 7475, 8486
Barnes, Robert28, 8384 Jewel, John141, 168, 170171
Bayfield, Richard52 Joye, George1920
Becke, Edmund99
Becon, Thomas3, 7576, 97 Kings Book65
and Protestantism76 Knox, John2, 132, 138139, 167
on obedience7677
on war78 Lambert, John83
on Psalm 8282 Latimer, Hugh110111
Beza, Theodore186188 Lefvre, Jacques dtaples4143
Bucer, Martin29 Lever, Thomas107, 140, 142, 145146
Bullinger, Heinrich8, 71, 112113, 116119, Luther, Martin134135
138140, 184
on active resistance and passive Melancthon, Philipp8, 152
disobedience117 monarchical republic13, 1819, 109111,
176177, 182
Calvin, John8, 112113, 183 Moone, Peter100
Capito, Wolfgang47 Morrison, Richard5759
Cecil, William168169
Champney, John102104 obedience theory
Cheke, John108109 and evangelicalism34
Coverdale, Miles5355, 8384 misunderstanding of1417
Cox, Richard141, 143145 Ochino, Bernardino8, 22
Cranmer, Thomas4, 11, 74, 98, Oswen, John113
on obedience4
on rebellion105107 Paker, Matthew11, 168169, 189193
Crowley, Robert188189 Pilkington172173
Pole, Reginald58, 170
Erastus, Thomas190 Ponet, John107, 109, 143147155
evangelicalism, definition2223 against Tyndales view of
obedience153
Finch, Richard111 rejection of Psalm 82153154
Fish, Simon4952 Poullain, Valerand141
Foxe, John177 Psalm 823, 82, 108109, 114, 153154
Frankfurt troubles140146 gods34, 36, 37
Hebrew background3437
Gerrard, Philip104105 humanist debate over4143
Gilby, Anthony98 patristic and medieval
Gilpin, Bernard98 interpretation3839
Geneva Bible160162 political interpretation3435,
Goodman, John2, 155160, 167168 4346
Gybson, Thomas102 Zurich interpretation of4346
Pylbarough, John6465
Hill, Nicholas9294
Hooper, John107108, 116, 119127 resistance theory26, 1214
non-conformity120 Reuchlin, Johann40
views on Cranmer121122 Ridley, Lancelot3
212 index

Royal Supremacy7, 10, 25, 2931, 33, 36, and Lutheranism25, 27, 2829, 4546
5960, 62, 67, 7273 and Swiss Reformed25
Roye, William4647 interpretations of his thought2532
Obedience of Christen man2526, 3236
Sandys, Edmund173174 Puritanism2728
Scoloker, Anthony113 Turner, William6669
Seymour, Edward, 1st Duke of
Somerset97, 99, 116 Vermigli, Peter Martyr8, 22, 105107, 123,
Standish, John83 147, 158, 183
Swiss Reformed on resistance147149
definition of2223 Veron, Jean114115
vestiarian controversy8, 182194
Traheron, Bartholomew168
Taverner, Richard52 Wilburn, Perceival186187
Tyndale, William67, 18
against resistance theory3235 Zurich Connection166, 1878