Theologial rancor and sectarian hatred

Gardner (page 33) accuses Queen Elizabeth of bequeathing her successors a nation filled with "theological rancor and sectarian hatred." The accusation begs two questions: was England in 1603 filled with such rancor and hatred? and if so, was it Elizabeth who caused it to be that way?


If the rancor and hatred is supposed to be between Protestants and the remaining Catholics, there is no doubt it existed. Within 12 months of the queen's death occurred the Main Plot and the Bye Plot (which we will discuss in some detail), and within 20 months the Gunpowder Plot. Reciprocal judicial murders in the reigns of Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth could hardly have led to any other condition.

Can we detect such feelings between Protestants? It isn't clear to me. Gardiner tells us that it was all simmering immediately below the surface; that Protestant unity was an illusion waiting merely for the veil to fall. Certainly the Hampton Court conference in 1604 (which we will see up-close and personal) showed significant cracks the Protestant facade. But I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of English Protestants had no qualms of attending Church of England services, however eager they may also have been for less-sanctioned meetings. And the few incidents of disrespect towards the Church of England hierarchy seem to have been handled without controversy in the church courts.

There is no doubt that theological rancor was very evident from 1620 or so. And sectarian hatred—though whether it was political or religious in nature I am not sure—was certainly apparent by 1636 in Scotland and by 1639 in England. But can we point the finger directly at Queen Elizabeth for these unfortunate turns? Perhaps not. We will certainly see other possible causes over the next 30-odd years.

The root of conflict

If you skip any of Chapter 1, I recommend that you still read pages 30-32. It's here that Gardiner lays out his view of how the State religion—and by extension the system of episcopacy—became divorced from the national or popular religion of England.

I'll try to paraphrase, but Gardner is very clear on these points.

The spirit of Calvinism—remember that Calvinism was a movement of the clergy—was closely tied to preaching and teaching. The thing most appealing about Calvinism to the non-clergy was that that its tenets explained things around them. The laity could not understand how well current events were explained without being shown, and that's where preaching came in.

The State (or the Queen herself if we follow Gardiner) didn't want doctrinal light shown on current events, at least not very often. In England the two strongest constitutional entities were the Crown and the Church, and no monarch could fail to see the danger of allowing the Church to reassert itself in the realm of state policy.

The government's reaction was to ban religious teaching outside the context of the church hierarchy. Teachers in schools and preaching clergy must be licensed. There numbers would be held to a minimum, and their actions closely monitored. Except in a few cases, topical sermons were replaced with the reading of approved homilies, which were more than enough edification for the laity. (If you have not read those excellent pieces of conventional wisdom known as the Homilies, browse them at the Anglican Library.)

The impulse of Calvinism towards freer speech and action was unstoppable. The position of the government was irreversible. The conflict was inevitable.

The religious establishement under Queen Elizabeth

The landscape we will view at the beginning of the 17th century, with the accession of James I, owes many of its features to the way that religion was settled--and allowed to remain unsettled--in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. There is a very cogent summary of that settlement in Gardiner's history starting at page 26.

An important point, and one so obvious to Gardiner that he doesn't bother to emphasize it, is that the parish clergy of England were a politically potent force, and this for several reasons. First, as poorly prepared as many of them were, they were among the most educated of common people, Second, they had the attention of the entire population at least twice a week, and in many cases three times. Third, they were viewed as men involved in the most important work imaginable: the maintenance of the true religion in England.

Such a force could not be allowed to exist undisciplined, and Elizabeth's councillors realized that there were two essential elements to the necessary discipline:

• It must be ultimately be directed by the central government; and
• It must be administered by fellow clergy.

The doctrine and the ceremonies of the Church of England were secondary considerations. The ideas of the 16th century assumed that order and discipline required hierarchy, and in the Church, hierarchy meant Bishops. So the establishment and maintenance of episcopacy became the political doctrine of England.

This forced submission of religion to practicality could not last. It rankled both the preaching clergy and a small but growing class of laymen for whom religion was an intellectual passion. We will pick up with some of the early cracks in the foundations of the English Church next time, around page 30.

Whitgift

I've finally finished what I think are adequate notes on the Archbishop of Canterbury, John Whitgift. The link is in the "Episcopacy" post below, or you can find it here.

Take a look at the links to references and works, particularly in the last half of the Athenæ Cantabrienses article. These links are time-consuming to find and insert, but are also (I hope) extremely valuable. If you find them useful, let me know.

More on the Spanish Invasion

In making some notes on Archbishop Whitgift, I came across a prayer, apparently written by him, which was to be read or sung in churches to celebrate the defeat of the Armada. The cadences will be familiar to all who have heard sermons in a protestant church. The sentiments support Gardiner's view of how the Armada shaped English opinion:

0 Come hither, and hearken, all ye that fear God, and we will tell you what he hath done for our souls.

For we may not hide his benefits from our children, and to the generation to come, and to all people we will shew the praises of the Lord, his power also, and his wonderful works, that he hath done for us.

When the Kings and Rulers of the earth, and Nations round about us, furiously raged, and took counsel together against God, and against his anointed.

When men of another devotion than we be, (men bewitched by the Romish Antichrist,) men drowned in idolatries and superstitions, hated us deadly, and were maliciously set against us, for our profession of the word of God, and the blessed Gospel of our Saviour Christ

They cast their heads together with one consent, they took their common counsel, and were confederate, and imagined mischief, against thy people, 0 Lord God.

They secretly laid wait, they privily set snares and nets, they digged pits for our souls, thinking that no man should see them.

They communed of peace, and prepared for most cruel war; for they think that no faith nor truth is to be kept with us, but that they may feign, dissemble, break promise, swear, and forswear, so they may deceive us and take us unwares, and oppress us suddenly.

And indeed innumerable multitudes of these most subtle and cruel enemies, and too mighty for us, came suddenly upon us, by sea and by land, when we looked not for them.

They came furiously upon us, as it were roaring and ramping Lions, purposing to devour us, and to swallow us up: they approached near unto us, even to eat up our flesh.

They said in their hearts, Let us make havoc of them altogether, let us root them out that they be no more a people, and that the name of England may be no more had in remembrance.

And surely their coming was so sudden, their multitude, power, and cruelty so great, that had we not believed verily to see the goodness of God, and put our trust in his defence and protection, they might have utterly destroyed us.

But though we had great cause to be afraid, yet we put our whole trust in God : we cried unto the Lord in our trouble and distress; we said, Help us, O Lord our God, for vain is the help of man.

We said, We commit ourselves wholly unto thee; according to the greatness of thy power, preserve us, O Lord. who are appointed to die.

And the Lord inclined his ear and heard us, and gave courage to the hearts, and strength to the hands, of our captains and soldiers, and put the enemies in fear.

The Lord arose, and took the cause (which indeed mas his own) into his own hands, and fought against them, that fought against us.

The Lord scattered them with his winds, he confounded and disappointed their devices and purposes of joining their powers together against us.

The Angel of the Lord persecuted them, brought them into dangerous, dark, and slippery places, where they wandering long to and fro were consumed with hunger, thirst, cold, and sickness: the sea swallowed the greatest part of them.

And so the Lord repressed the rage and fury of our cruel enemies, intending nothing but bloodshed and murther, and turned the mischief which they purposed against us upon their own heads; and delivered and saved us, who were as sheep appointed to the shambles and slaughter.

This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our and in our enemies' sight, and in the eyes of all people; and all that see it shall say, This is the Lord's work.

God is our king of old: the help that is done by sea and by land, is his.

It is God that giveth deliverance unto Princes, and that rescueth our QUEEN from the hurtful sword, and saveth her from all dangers and perils.

We will therefore give thanks, whom the Lord hath redeemed, and delivered from the hand of the enemy.

We will confess before the Lord, and praise him for his goodness: and declare the wonders that he doth for the children of men.

We will offer unto him the sacrifice of thanksgiving: and tell out his works with gladness.

We will exalt him also in the Congregation of the people, and praise him in the presence of the Elders.

0 sing unto the Lord a new song: for he hath done marvellous things.

With his own right hand, and with his holy arm: hath he gotten himself the victory.

O give thanks unto the Lord, and call upon his name: tell the people what things he hath done.

O let your songs be of him, and praise him: and let your talking be of all his wondrous works.

Rejoice in his holy name: let the hearts of them rejoice that seek the Lord.

And thou, my soul, be joyful in the Lord: let it rejoice in his salvation.

All my bones shall say, Lord, who is like unto thee, which deliverest the oppressed from them that be too strong for them: yea, and them that are in distress from them that seek to spoil them?

Blessed be the Lord God, even the God of Israel: which only doth wondrous things.

And blessed be the name of his majesty for ever and ever: and all the earth shall be filled with the glory of his majesty. Amen. Amen.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost.

As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: world without end. Amen.

An Index to Athenae Oxonienses

While working on improvements to the Episcopacy post, I ran into trouble finding some information in Anthony a Wood's Athenæ Oxonienses, which is one of the earliest biographical and bibliographical dictionaries. The most common modern edition, published by Philip Bliss in the early 19th century, is a great improvement over previous editions, but is still poorly organized and difficult to use. The index of all four volumes is stuck in the middle of Volume 4.
So I decided to create an online index. You can find it here.
The links in the index won't work in this copy. The only copies of the volumes available on the network are too big -- they take minutes to transfer even over a fast link. To get good use out of the index, you need to create a local setup. Find instructions for doing so in README.WoodIndex.
Now I can get back to making some better annotations for the previous post, and eventually get us back on track around page 26.

Episcopacy

As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, around page 26 we first set eyes on sights that will remain in view for a good part of our tour. I know it's a horrible metaphor, but I mean the Bishops of the Church of England.

Several of the main conflicts in 17th century England involve the role of the bishops. It may help to get an idea of who they were at the accession of James I in 1603. There were (and are) two ecclesiastical provinces in England: that of York and of Canterbury. The Archbishop of Canterbury had precedence, but each was a metropolitan bishop. The bishops who were subordinate to them were among the most educated men in England. They came out of the Universities where, almost to a man, they had excelled in learning and leadership. Their knowledge tended to be confined to divinity, but, besides the law, there was no other field of advanced study. In their day-to-day duties, bishops were required to be pastors, preachers, administrators and judges. Several bishops had palaces in London, and most spent more time in London than in their dioceses. The bishops were

• Matthew Hutton, Archbishop of York. He had been Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge; and Master of Pembroke Hall. A bit of a maverick in his younger days, he was about 74 when King James came in, and we won't hear much of him. He will be succeeded by Tobias Matthew in 1606.
• Henry Robinson, Bishop of Carlisle, who was learned both in theology and law. We will see him at the Hampton Court conference in 1603.
  
• Tobias Matthew. Bishop of Durham, and, although he was not always a firm supporter of the king's secular policies, as Archbishop of York we will see his anti-Catholic side
• Richard Vaughan, Bishop of Chester, who will be translated to London in 1604. [When a Bishop is moved to another diocese, he is said to be been "translated."] Vaughan did not have a distinguished academic career and rose through the ranks of the ministering clergy.
• George Lloyd, Bishop of Sodor and Man, was a Welshman, later to be Bishop of Chester.
  
• John Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury. He was Elizabeth's great support, as political as ever a bishop was. He will survive Elizabeth by less than a year and be replaced by Richard Bancroft.
• John Still, Bishop of Bath and Wells, had been Master of Trinity College and vice-chancellor of Cambridge.
  
• Anthony Rudd, Bishop of St David's, is probably best known for preaching a sermon before Queen Elizabeth in which he repeatedly referred to her old age (she was then 63). We will see Rudd at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604.
  
• Anthony Watson, Bishop of Chichester, rose through court influence. He will also be at Hampton Court.
  
• William Cotton, a strong anti-Puritan, was Bishop of Exeter.
• Martin Heton, Bishop of Ely, had been vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford.
  
• The bishopric of Bristol was vacant until later in 1603, when John Thornborough, who would be a bishop for the next 38 years, assumed it.
  
• Godfrey Goldsborough, a Yorkshireman, was Bishop of Gloucester.
• Robert Bennet was Bishop of Hereford
• William Overton, who came up through the ministering clerty, was Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry.
  
• The Bishop of London, for a few more months, was Richard Bancroft who will soon succeed Whitgift as Archbishop of Canterbury.
  
• John Jegon, Bishop of Norwich, had been Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge.
  
• There had been a vacancy in the see of Oxford since 1592.
  
• Thomas Dove, Bishop of Peterborough, had gained preferment as a preacher.
  
• The Bishop of Rochester at this time was Richard Neile, the patron of William Laud. He was thought to be an Arminian (a term we will probably not get around to defining for a while.)
  
• Richard Parry, the translator of the Bible into Welsh, became Bishop of St Asaph in 1603.
  
• Henry Rowlands, about whom little is known, was Bishop of Bangor.
• William Cotton, a former chaplain to Queen Elizabeth, was Bishop of Salisbury.
• Thomas Bilson, who gave the coronation sermon for King James, was Bishop of Winchester. He will play an important role at the Hampton Court Conference.
  
• Gervase Babbington was Bishop of Worcester.
• The Bishop of Llandaff was Fraser Godwin, whose father was also a bishop.

For more information on these bishops, refer to Francis Overend White's Lives of the Elizabethan Bishops.

I was going to summarize the 3 important points that Gardiner makes in pages 26-28, but this has gone on far enough already. We'll talk about that next time.

Super Bowl or Presbyterianism?

(The image is of John Knox.)

Should I blog about Presbyterianism this evening, or watch the Super Bowl? Duh. Obviously I'll do both.

Our tour guide, Samuel Gardiner, believed in a religious system that took many of its precepts from Presbyterianism. It may surprise you to find that he retained a clear view of the subject. Pick up your reading of the History of England at page 22.

Presbyterianism, in the 16th century was Calvinism as practiced in Geneva, transposed to a national scale. It was practiced in Scotland and elsewhere, but in Scotland it found its most fertile ground. The central ideas were the same as those embraced by the Genevans, the Dutch and the more precise English:

-- Salvation by faith
-- Predestination
-- The importance of a preaching ministry
-- Church government by presbyters, lay-elders, and deacons.

It seems surprising to us now that this system was viewed, by both sides, as antithetical to the protestantism of the Church of England. In fact, the Presbyterians and the Anglicans disagreed in only a few articles.
In terms of dogma, they disgreed mainly on which of them was most anti-Papist.

Gardiner does a good job of explaining the nature of Presbyterianism: it was a movement of the clergy. That it had a hold on the populace is probably because the only literate man were those clergy. The few Scots nobles who took an interest in abstract matters tended to Catholicism; the rest embraced Presbyterian government as the weakest competition to their own power. The result was that Calvinism, in itself a system very amenable to personal liberty, became itself somewhat oppressive. Gardiner's explanation of this beginning on page 24 is very convincing.

After the Super Bowl, we'll pick up on page 26.

By the way, I heard this joke today: The devil was inspecting his domains and came upon a damned soul who had a smile on his face. "Why," asked the devil, "are you smiling while toiling in this infernal heat?" "I'm from Phoenix, " said the man. "I like it hot." The devil would have none of this and immediately dropped the temperature of Hell to near zero Kelvin. The next day, he visited the soul and still found him smiling. "Why are you smiling now?" he asked. "I've frozen everything.". "Yes," answered the soul: "I figure that means the Cardinals are in the Super Bowl."