The Zurich Connectionand Tudor Political Theology

Studies in the Historyof Christian Traditions

Founded by

Heiko A. Oberman†

Edited by

Robert J. BastKnoxville, Tennessee

In cooperation with

Henry Chadwick, Cambridge

Scott H. Hendrix, Princeton, New Jersey

Paul C.H. Lim, Nashville, Tennessee

Eric Saak, Indianapolis, Indiana

Brian Tierney, Ithaca, New York

Arjo Vanderjagt, Groningen

John Van Engen, Notre Dame, Indiana

VOLUME 131

The ZurichConnection and TudorPolitical Theology

By

W.J. Torrance Kirby

LEIDEN • BOSTON2007

Cover illustration: D: Petrus Martyr Florentinus, Teologus Tigurinus. Sixteenth-centuryhand-coloured, copper-plate engraving of Peter Martyr Vermigli after a woodcut portrait byJos Murer. Collection of the Zentralbibliothek, Zurich.

Brill has made all reasonable efforts to trace all right holders to any copyrighted material usedin this work. In cases where these efforts have not been successful, the publisher welcomescommunications from copyright holders, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can bemade in future editions, and to settle other permission matters.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

ISSN: 1573-5664ISBN: 978 90 04 15618 0

Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored ina 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 NVprovided 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.

printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiAcknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ixIllustrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I. ‘Cura religionis’: the prophetical office and the civil magistrate . . 25Text: Bullinger, Of the office of the Magistrate (1552) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

II. ‘The Godly Prince’: the union of civil and ecclesiasticaljurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Text: Vermigli, Of ciuill and ecclesiasticall power (1561) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

III. ‘Synne and Sedition’: penitence and the duty of obedience . . . . 121Text: Vermigli, A Sermon concernynge the tyme of rebellion (1549) . . . . 149

IV. ‘A holy Deborah for our times’: a panegyric to Elizabeth . . . . . . 181Text: Vermigli, Epistle to the Princess Elizabeth (1558) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

V. ‘Relics of the Amorites’: the civil magistrate and religiousuniformity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203Text: Bullinger, Concerning thapparel of ministers (1566) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2351. ‘Vermilius Absconditus’: the Zurich portrait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2352. Text: Vermigli, An Epistle to the Duke of Somerset (1550) . . . . . . . . . 245

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

ABBREVIATIONS

ARG Archiv für ReformationsgeschichteCCCC Corpus Christi College, CambridgeCICan Corpus juris canonici, ed. Emil Friedberg. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1879CICiv Corpus juris civilis, ed. Krueger, Mommsen. 3 vols. Berlin, 1912–

1920CP The Common Places of Peter Martyr Vermigli. “Translated and partly

gathered” by Anthony Marten. London, 1583Decades Heinrich Bullinger, Sermonum decades, Fiftie godlie and learned sermons,

divided into fiue decades translated by H.I. London, 1577Inst. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559), transl.

F.L. Battles and ed. John T. McNeill. Philadelphia, 1960IUD Peter Martyr Vermigli, In Librum Judicum … Commentarii doctissimi

… Zurich, 1561LC Peter Martyr Vermigli, Loci communes, ed. Robert Masson. 3 vols.

London, 1576LCC Library of Christian ClassicsLLS Peter Martyr Vermigli, Life, Letters, and Sermons, translated and

edited by John Patrick Donnelly. The Peter Martyr Library,vol. 5. Kirksville, MO, 1999

ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford, 2004OL Original Letters relative to the English Reformation, edited by Hastings

Robinson for the Parker Society. Cambridge, 1847OS John Calvin, Opera Selecta, ed. P. Barth, W. Niesel, D. Scheuner. 5

vols., Munich, 1926–1952PL Patrologiæ cursus completus: Series Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne. Paris, 1844–

1882PMR The Peter Martyr Reader, ed. John Patrick Donnelly, S.J., Frank

A. James III, and Joseph C. McLelland. Kirksville, MO, 1999PML The Peter Martyr LibraryPS Parker Society editions of the works of the English Reformers, 56

volumes. Cambridge, 1840–1855ROM Peter Martyr Vermigli, In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos …

Commentarii. Basel, 1558STC A Short-Title Catalogue … 1475–1640, 2nd Edition (1976–1991)TR Anthony Fletcher and Diarmaid MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions,

5th edition. Harlow, 2004WW Works of John Whitgift, DD, Archbishop of Canterbury, edited by John

Ayre for the Parker Society. Cambridge, 1851

viii abbreviations

ZL 1 The Zurich Letters; or, the correspondence of several English bishops andothers, with some of the Helvetian reformers, during the reign of QueenElizabeth, 1558–1579, First Series, translated and edited HastingsRobinson for the Parker Society. Cambridge, 1842

ZL 2 The Zurich Letters; or, the correspondence of several English bishops andothers, with some of the Helvetian reformers, during the reign of QueenElizabeth, 1558–1602, Second Series, translated and edited byHastings Robinson for the Parker Society. Cambridge, 1845

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study had its early gestation in a series of papers presented atannual meetings of the Sixteenth Century Studies Conference. I amdeeply indebted to my colleagues in the Peter Martyr Society who fore-gather annually at the SCSC and who have offered much valuable crit-icism, encouragement, and convivial fellowship over the years. In par-ticular I wish to thank Joseph McLelland, John Patrick Donnelly, FrankJames, William Klempa, and Gary Jenkins. I am also very grateful toEmidio Campi, Director of the Institut für Schweizerisches Reforma-tionsgeschichte, and other members of the Schola Tigurina who continuetheir distinguished tradition of scholarship in the Theologische Facultätat the University of Zurich. Twice in recent years I have enjoyed theirgenerous hospitality and the valuable opportunity of participating incongresses hosted by the Schola Tigurina to mark the quincentenariesof two of the principal figures of Zurich Reform, both of them closelylinked to the subject of this study: in 1999 a conference titled ‘PeterMartyr Vermigli (1499–1562): Humanismus, Republikanismus, Refor-mation’ held at Kappel am Albis where Heinrich Bullinger began hiscareer as a teacher in the Klosterschule; and in 2004 another congresshosted in the precincts of the Großmunster at Zurich, ‘Der Nachfolger:Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575): Leben–Denkung–Wirkung’. Both occa-sions contributed decisive stimulus to the pursuit of the present inquiry.I acknowledge with gratitude the funding of my research by the

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada over thepast three years, both on my own behalf and on behalf of my two excel-lent research assistants—Jason Zuidema and Nicholas Dion, both grad-uate students in the Faculty of Religious Studies at McGill University—who also received funded support under the SSHRC grant. I thankMr Zuidema in particular for his excellent bibliographical contribu-tion to the present volume and Mr Dion for his work on the transla-tion of the scholium ‘De Magistratu’ from Vermigli’s In librum Judicumcommentarii (1561) for the second chapter. Very warm thanks are alsoextended to the Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Cam-bridge for their kind and generous hospitality during my time there as

x acknowledgements

a Visiting Research Fellow in 2005. I owe special thanks to Christopherde Hamel, Fellow Librarian of Corpus Christi, to Gill Cannell, ParkerSub-Librarian, for all her kindness and patience in introducing me tothe astonishing riches of this unique collection of medieval and early-modern manuscripts and printed books, and to Iwona Krasodomska-Jones, Butler Sub-Librarian at Corpus Christi. Matthew Parker’s col-lection of Medieval and Renaissance manuscripts in the Parker Libraryof Corpus Christi is astonishingly rich and is rivalled in England onlyby the British Library and the Bodleian Library, Oxford.1 In particu-lar the collection of sixteenth-century manuscripts is a treasure-trovefor students of the English Reformation, and most especially for thosein pursuit of the influential contributions of the continental reform-ers during the middle years of the sixteenth century.2 I also extend mythanks to the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C. for aResearch Fellowship in 2002 which enabled me to launch this study inthe first place and express my appreciation to Laetitia Yeandle, Geor-gianna Ziegler, and to all the friendly and accommodating staff of theFolger Library.Finally I would like to offer a wink of appreciation to Elizabeth

and Kate for maintaining their spirit of good humour throughout thisproject, for their delightful company punting on the Cam and strollingalong the path to Grantchester, and to thank Margaret for her constantpatience and support, without which nothing.Portions of this study have been published previously in various jour-

nals whose permission to reprint them here is gratefully acknowledged:“The Civil Magistrate and the ‘cura religionis’: Heinrich Bullinger’s pro-phetical office and the English Reformation,” pp. 935–950, in HeinrichBullinger (1504–1575): Leben, Denken, Wirkung. Internationaler Bullingerkongress2004, ed. Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz. Zürcher Beiträge zur Refor-mationsgeschichte, Bd. 24 (Zurich: Theologische Verlag Zurich, 2007);“‘Relics of the Amorites’ or adiaphora? The authority of Peter MartyrVermigli in the Elizabethan Vestiarian Controversy of the 1560s,” Refor-mation and Renaissance Review: Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies 6.3

1 See the catalogue published to accompany the marvellous exhibition of manu-scripts at the Fitzwilliam Museum and the Cambridge University Library from 26 Julyto 11 December 2005, The Cambridge illuminations: ten centuries of book production in themedieval west, edited by Paul Binski and Stella Panayotova (London: Harvey Miller,2005).

2 Montague Rhodes James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library ofCorpus Christi College, Cambridge, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912).

acknowledgements xi

(December, 2004): 313–326; “‘The Charge of Religion belongeth untoPrinces:’ Peter Martyr Vermigli on the Unity of Civil and EcclesiasticalJurisdiction,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 94 (2003): 131–145; “Vermil-ius Absconditus? The Iconography of Peter Martyr,” in Emidio Campi incooperation with Frank James III and Peter Opitz, eds., Petrus MartyrVermigli: Humanismus, Republikanismus, Reformation (Geneva: Droz, 2002)295–303.

My transcription of the manuscript of Vermigli’s ‘Sermon concernyngethe tyme of rebellion’ appended to the third chapter is printed bykind permission of the Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi College,Cambridge.

ILLUSTRATIONS

Cover D: Petrus Martyr Florentinus, Teologus Tigurinus

The cover reproduces a sixteenth-century hand-coloured, copper-plateengraving of Peter Martyr Vermigli in the collection of the Zentral-bibliothek, Zurich after a woodcut portrait by Jos Murer (1530–1580).Murer’s likeness, itself modelled on an earlier oil portrait by HansAsper (1499–1572), was first published as the frontispiece to Josiah Sim-ler, Oratio de vita et obitu clarissimi viri et præstantissimi theologi D. Petri MartyrysVermilii (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1563). See Marianne Naegeliand Urs Hobi, Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation: Hans Asper und seine Zeit:Katalog zur Ausstellung im Helmhaus, Zürich (Zürich: Schweizerisches Insti-tut für Kunstwissenschaft, 1981), nrs. 188, 170. The portrait is repro-duced in Hans Ulrich Bächtold, ed., Schola Tigurina: Die Zürcher HoheSchule und ihre Gelehrten um 1550; Katalog zur Ausstellung vom 25. Mai bis 10.Juli 1999 in der Zentralbibliothek Zürich, Institut für Schweizerische Refor-mationsgeschichte (Zürich; Freiburg im Breisgau: Pano Verlag, 1999),34, 54. See Appendix 1 below.

Fig. 1. Title page of The Common Places of Peter Martyr Vermigli

The Common Places of the most famous and renowned diuine Doctor Peter Mar-tyr: diuided into foure principall parts: with a large addition of manie theologicalland necessarie discourses, some neuer extant before. Translated and partlie gath-ered by Anthonie Marten (London: Henrie Denham, Thomas Chard,William Broome, and Andrew Maunsell, 1583). Note the use of theRoyal Arms with the device “ER”—Elizabetha Regina—and the Queen’smotto “Semper Eadem” (Forever the same) underneath the Tudor rose inthe Incipit ‘A’.

INTRODUCTION

Late in the year 1553, at the peak of a distinguished academic career,Peter Martyr Vermigli departed hastily from England en route to Stras-bourg and Zurich. The great Italian reformer had served for six yearsas Regius professor of divinity in the University of Oxford at the per-sonal invitation of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury. Whileat Oxford, Vermigli had participated in a critical disputation on theEucharist, assisted Cranmer in the revision of the Book of Common Prayer(1552), and served on a royal commission for the reform of the canonlaw. Following the death of Edward VI, the course of the Reformationin England was suddenly reversed. During the ensuing persecution ofProtestants under Queen Mary, numerous English scholars soon fol-lowed Vermigli to Strasbourg and thence to Zurich where they contin-ued to hear his lectures and to promote with him the cause of reli-gious reform throughout Europe. Several of these Marian exiles inZurich were to become prominent players in the Elizabethan Settle-ment; among them were no less than six future bishops, a clutch ofPrivy Councillors, and some of the leading lights of humanist, classicalscholarship in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Of twenty-three episcopal appointments made in the period 1559–1562, four-teen were returned Marian exiles.1 Among Elizabeth’s newly appointedbishops six had been Bullinger’s guests at Zurich: John Jewel of Salis-bury, Richard Cox of Ely, John Parkhurst of Norwich, Edwin Sandys ofWorcester, James Pilkington of Durham, Robert Horne of Winchester.In addition to these, two Edwardine bishops, John Ponet of Winchester(died 1557) and John Hooper (martyred 1555) of Gloucester, were alsoentertained by Bullinger in the Pfaarhaus located in the precincts of theGroßmunster during the latter part of the reign of Henry VIII. Amongthe distinguished company of scholars and clerics treated to the famous

1 For an exact analysis of the composition of the Elizabethan bench of bishops, seeScott Wenig, Straightening the Altars: The Ecclesiastical Vision and Pastoral Achievements of theProgressive Bishops under Elizabeth I, 1559–1579 (New York: Peter Lang, 2000), 22ff.

2 introduction

Tigurine hospitality were John Cheke,2 Thomas Smith,3 Richard Mori-son,4 Thomas Becon,5 Laurence Humphrey,6 Thomas Sampson,7 andThomas Lever8 to name just a few of the great and the good who foundtheir way to Zurich and the company of Bullinger and Vermigli duringthe mid-1550s. In the relatively brief period 1553 to 1558, and owing inlarge part to the influence of Vermigli, strong links were forged betweenthese exiles and their Zurich hosts which would have a profound andlasting influence on the subsequent course of the Reformation in Eng-land; thus began in earnest the “Zurich Connection.”9

Following the accession of Elizabeth in 1558 and the return homeof the exiles, an extensive correspondence flourished between Englandand Zurich which was to last for more than a generation. Althoughinvited to return to his former situation as Regius professor,10 Ver-migli remained in Zurich for the final years of his life and continuedto correspond frequently with influential Elizabethan divines, includ-ing Richard Cox, former Vice-Chancellor of Oxford and bishop of Ely,John Jewel, newly appointed bishop of Sarum, and Thomas Sampson,

2 Regius Professor of Greek, Cambridge (1540–1551), royal tutor (1544–1549) andPrincipal Secretary (1553).

3 Clerk of the Privy Council (1547), Secretary of State (1548–1549, 1572–1577) andAmbassador to France (1562–1566).

4 Ambassador to Charles V (1550), Gentleman of the Privy Chamber (1539).5 Poet, school-master, and prolific author.6 President of Magdalen College, Oxford (1562–1589).7 Dean of Christ Church, Oxford (1561–1565).8 Master of St. John’s College, Cambridge (1551–1553).9 See N.M. Sutherland, “The Marian exiles and the establishment of the Eliza-

bethan regime,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte [ARG] 78 (1987): 253–287; and AndrewPettegree, “The Marian exiles and the Elizabethan Settlement,” in his Marian Protes-tantism: six studies (Aldershot, UK: Scolar, 1996), 129–150. Also, C.H. Garrett, The MarianExiles: A Study in the Origins of Elizabethan Puritanism (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1938; repr. 1966) and Joan Lockwood O’Donovan, Theology of Law and Authority inthe English Reformation (Atlanta, GA: Scolar’s Press, 1991), 91–127.

10 John Jewel to Peter Martyr Vermigli, 28 April 1559, ZL 1: 20. “The Queen bothspeaks and thinks most honourably of you: she lately told Lord [Francis] Russell thatshe was desirous of inviting you to England, a measure which is urged both by himselfand others, as far as they are able.” See also Sir Antony Cook’s effusive letter toVermigli of 12 February 1559, ZL 2: 13. Vermigli was formally invited to return tohis post as Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford in 1561, but excused himself forreasons of health and his obligations to the Senate of Zurich. See Vermigli’s responseto Earl Russell, Divine Epistles, transl. Anthonie Marten (London: H. Denham, 1583),fols. 164–165. See also his reply “to a verie honourable Prince in England,” DivineEpistles, fols. 127–128.

introduction 3

Dean of Christ Church, Vermigli’s former college.11 In the disputeswhich arose as a consequence of the Settlement frequent appeals bymany of the principal figures of the Elizabethan establishment weremade to the judgement of both Vermigli and his host Heinrich Bullin-ger, Zwingli’s successor as Antistes of Zurich.12 In 1570 Bullinger wasenlisted by Richard Cox to respond to Pius V’s bull Regnans in excelsisexcommunicating Elizabeth and absolving her subjects of their obedi-ence.13 After Bullinger’s death in 1575 this correspondence continuedwith his successor as Antistes, Rudolph Gualter. By the 1570s Vermigli’sLoci Communes and Bullinger’s Decades had become the two standardtextbooks of theology in the English universities.14 Such was the influ-ence of the “Zurich Connection” that Zwinglian ideas in general, andBullinger’s and Vermigli’s in particular, came to hold greater sway inEngland than any other strand of Reformation thought throughout theremainder of the sixteenth century. Indeed magisterial reformed Protes-tantism was defined for the Elizabethan Church by these two eminentZurich theologians.The influence of Zurich theology is particularly evident in the theory

underpinning the political institutions of the Elizabethan Settlement,chief among them the Royal Supremacy, the lynchpin of the constitu-tion. In his defence of the royal headship of the church in the 1570sagainst the attacks of the disciplinarian puritans Thomas Cartwrightand Walter Travers, John Whitgift, then Master of Trinity College,Cambridge, relied closely on the political writings of Vermigli, Bul-linger, and two other prominent Zwinglians—Gualter and Wolfgang

11 See The Zurich Letters; or, the correspondence of several English bishops and others, with someof the Helvetian reformers, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, 1558–1579, First and SecondSeries, translated and edited Hastings Robinson (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1842,1845). Cited hereafter as ZL 1 and ZL 2.

12 Diarmaid MacCulloch, “Bullinger and the English-speaking world,” in EmidioCampi (ed.), Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575), Leben, Denken, Wirkung (Zurich: TheologischeVerlag, 2007).

13 Letter of Richard Cox to Heinrich Bullinger, ZL 1: 220–221. The bull is printed inJohn Jewel, Works, ed. John Ayre for the Parker Society [PS] (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1850), vol. 4: 1131–1132. See David J. Keep, “Bullinger’s Defence ofQueen Elizabeth,” in Ulrich Gäbler und Erland Herkenrath, Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575: gesammelte Aufsätze zum 400. Todestag (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975), 231–241.

14 All of the theological texts prescribed in the curriculum in Elizabethan Oxfordwere drawn from continental Reformed authors. See James McConica, ed., The Historyof the University of Oxford, vol. 3, ‘The Collegiate University’ (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1986), 327, 388–389. See also Christopher Dent, Protestant Reformers in ElizabethanOxford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983).

4 introduction

Musculus of Berne.15 Whitgift’s so-called “Erastian” conception of soci-ety as a unified “corpus christianum,” where civil and religious authoritywere understood to be coextensive, takes its name from the Zwingliantheologian Thomas Lieber or Lüber, alias “Erastus” of Heidelberg.16

The controversy between Whitgift and promoters of the Genevan mod-el of reform in England is in many respects a replay of the dispute onthe continent between Erastus and Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successorin Geneva.17 Richard Hooker’s celebrated defence of the Elizabethanconstitution published towards the end of the century is an elabora-tion of this same Zwinglian-Erastian political theology.18 It is worthyof note that Hooker’s patron while at Corpus Christi College in thelate 1560s and early ’70s was John Jewel, Vermigli’s disciple and secre-tary who had earlier followed his master into exile at Zurich; Hooker’slater patron while writing Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie was Whit-gift, who became Archbishop of Canterbury during the latter half ofElizabeth’s reign (1583–1604). This genealogy of influence lies behind afurther contention of the proposal, namely the existence of a continu-ous and coherent tradition of political theology in England throughoutthe latter half of the sixteenth century.

Interpreting the Zurich Connection

Should historians of the English Reformation be interested in the lifeand thought of a feisty Swiss republican who for most of his careerhardly ever set foot outside his home canton of Zurich, and who nevercame any closer to England than Cologne where he was an under-graduate? And why throw a spotlight on a Florentine aristocrat whospent just five years in England and who never mastered the English

15 Works of John Whitgift, DD, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. John Ayre for the ParkerSociety, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1851), 3:295–325.

16 J. Wayne Baker, “Erastianism,” in Hans Hillerbrand, ed., Oxford Encyclopedia ofthe Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), vol. 2, 59–61. Baker arguesthat Zurich provides Erastus with his model for the relation of civil and ecclesiasticalauthority. Erastus Evans, Erastianism: the Hulsean prize essay, 1931, in the University ofCambridge (London: The Epworth Press, 1933), 11–45.

17 Ruth Wesel-Roth, Thomas Erastus: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der reformierten Kirche undzur Lehre von der Staatssouveränität (Lahr/Baden: M. Schauenburg, 1954).

18 See O’Donovan, Theology of Law and Authority, 151–153. See also W J TorranceKirby, Richard Hooker’s doctrine of the Royal Supremacy (Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill,1990), chap. 4. See also O’Donovan, Theology of Law and Authority, 151–153.

introduction 5

tongue? It can be plausibly argued that Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli’ssuccessor as Antistes of the Church of Zurich, and Peter Martyr Ver-migli, sometime scholar at Padua, Abbot of Spoleto, and Prior of theAugustinian Canons at Lucca, were no less than chief architects of thereformation of the Church of England as it came to be formed in thereign of Edward VI and reached a more settled self-understanding inthe statutes of the Elizabethan religious settlement of 1559. In orderto make such a claim on behalf of Bullinger and Vermigli requires,nonetheless, a reappraisal of certain primary assumptions governingthe interpretation of the English Reformation. Chief among them isthe long and widely held assumption of the “exceptional” or “peculiar”character of the England’s experience of the Reformation which, for avery long time, has constituted an axiom of English Reformation histo-riography. Yet this assumption obscures the well deserved title of thesetwo continental figures to pivotal roles in the formation of the protes-tant religious settlement under Edward VI and its consolidation underElizabeth.Tied to this hermeneutic of English “exceptionalism” is the corollary

notion of the so-called via media of Anglicanism whereby the Reforma-tion in England is understood to be a sort of half-way house betweenRoman Catholicism and Reformed Protestantism. It is commonplaceto view the Church of England in the sixteenth century as the “cru-cible for an emerging Anglicanism.”19 One scholar recently referred to“recognition among some contemporaries that the English church rep-resented a kind of Protestant tertium quid among established Europeanchurches, whose character suggested the possibility of rapprochementwith Roman Catholic as well as fellow Protestant churches.”20 As pre-eminent defender of the Elizabethan Settlement, Richard Hooker, forexample, is classically held up as a key proponent of this theologicaland institutional middle way; and thus his theology is represented asbearing the mark of a distinctively “Anglican” approach with respectto both content and method. The other pre-eminent Edwardian andElizabethan divines—Thomas Cranmer, Matthew Parker, John Jewel,

19 See Speed Hill, gen. ed., The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker,Vol. 6, Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie, Books I–VIII, Introductions and Commentaryby John E. Booty, Georges Edelen, Lee W. Gibbs, William P. Haugaard, and ArthurStephen McGrade, contributing editors; with the assistance of Egil Grislis (Cambridge:Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, Binghamton, New York: Medieval & Renais-sance Texts & Studies, 1993) [cited hereafter as FLE] 6(1):2.

20 William Haugaard, ‘Introduction to Book I,’ FLE 6(1):6–7.

6 introduction

John Whitgift, et al—are frequently read in a proleptic light as alreadyat work in constructing this middle way formulated by Hooker with hismagisterial authority. The marks of this peculiarity of English theologyare frequently identified with the embrace of “neo-Thomistic” scholas-ticism, hyper-rationalism, Erasmian humanism, or better still a mix ofall three. According to the “exceptionalist” model, the construction ofthe Anglican middle way is ipso facto a rejection of the doctrinal normsof the magisterial reformers, and therefore with fog in the Channel, thecontinent is very effectively cut off.In a recent book, Diarmaid MacCulloch encapsulates this com-

monly received interpretation by describing the English Reformationof the 16th century as a “theological cuckoo in the nest.”21 This charm-ing simile suggests that the “egg” of Protestant reform is laid in a“Romish” nest. The “egg” of Reform is the affirmation of a clusterof key Reformation doctrines, such as one finds, for example, in the39 Articles of Religion—the authority of Scripture alone (sola scrip-tura) is sufficient to reveal the way to salvation without the necessaryaddition or mediation of ecclesiastical traditions (art. 6); justification byfaith alone (sola fide), that is the putting away of sin without any refer-ence to the merit of good works (arts. 11–13); salvation by grace alone(sola gratia) without reference to natural human capacity, or voluntaryobedience to the law; and by Christ alone (solus Christus), i.e. withoutthe mediation of the saints (art. 15). To continue with the other halfof MacCulloch’s simile, the “nest” adopted by the Protestant cuckooconsists of the ancient structures of government and worship of theChurch—the hierarchy of bishops, the complex medieval constitutionsof the cathedral and collegiate foundations, the traditional liturgicalforms, the splendour of a sensuous worship, the retention of images,candlesticks, stained glass, the ancient vestments, etc. etc. Much of theoutward institutional and liturgical forms of the English Church underEdward and later under Elizabeth render a “pre-Reformation” appear-ance as compared with some of the more radically iconoclastic expres-sions of reform on the continent as, e.g., in Zurich or Geneva. Thiscomparison was duly noted by more radical Protestants in the sixteenthcentury—called Puritans, or Separatists, or Disciplinarians, depend-ing on the specific thrust of their criticism of the Settlement. Thesemore “radical” reformers came to be identified by later historians as

21 Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Later Reformation in England, 1547–1603, 2nd ed. (NewYork: Palgrave Press, 2000), 29.

introduction 7

representative of a main-stream continental Protestantism whereas, inactuality, the 16th c. debate from the outset takes on quite a different,indeed alien aspect. This is where Vermigli and Bullinger become par-ticularly useful as “touchstones” of Reformed orthodoxy.Indeed the vexed question of interpreting “what it is to be reformed”

in the context of sixteenth-century England is our chief pretext forchoosing to look more closely at the influence of these continentaldivines on the self-understanding of the English Church in that period.In general, the more one examines the thought and influence of Bullin-ger and Vermigli as it bears upon the English Reformation, the moredifficult it becomes to sustain the “exceptionalist” claims of modernhistoriography. As we shall see, Bullinger and Vermigli are regardedby their contemporaries in England as leaders and determiners oftheological opinion on many of the crucial questions of the day.While various aspects of both Bullinger’s and Vermigli’s political

thought and the phenomenon of the “Zurich Connection” have beenaddressed by recent scholarship, there has been no thorough criticalexploration of the broader influence of this tradition on the politi-cal theology underpinning the Elizabethan religious settlement. Theprinciples of Vermigli’s political theology have been set out by RobertM. Kingdon in the introduction to his 1980 edition of a selection of theFlorentine’s political writings.22 Marvin Anderson addresses Vermigli’streatment of the claim of princes to religious authority in his article“Royal Idolatry.”23 Diarmaid MacCulloch has dealt with the main his-torical lines of the links between England and Switzerland during thisperiod in The Later Reformation in England and in his more recent vol-ume Reformation: Europe’s House Divided.24 The influence on England ofa covenant theology emanating from Zurich is examined by WayneBaker.25 A collection of papers delivered at a conference held in Zurich

22 See the Introduction to Robert M. Kingdon, The Political Thought of Peter MartyrVermigli: Selected Texts and Commentary (Geneva: Droz, 1980) and also Kingdon’s “Thepolitical thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli.” In Joseph C. McLelland, ed. Peter MartyrVermigli and Italian Reform (Waterloo, ON: Sir Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1980)121–140.

23 Marvin Anderson, “Royal Idolatry: Peter Martyr and the Reformed Tradition,”Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 69 (1978): 157–200.

24 Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided, 1490–1700 (London:Allan Lane, 2003) and The Later Reformation in England, 1547–1603 (New York: Palgrave,2001).

25 See the appendix to Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: the other Reformed Tradition(Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1980).

8 introduction

in 1575 contains important essays by Robert Walton and David Keepwhich address Bullinger’s relationship with reformers in England.26

Helmut Kressner explores the influence of the Zurich divines on thethought of John Whitgift and Richard Hooker27 and there is a provoca-tive discussion of Zwingli’s influence in England and Scotland by Got-tfried Locher in his monograph study of Zwingli’s thought.28 In a morerecent study, Scott Wenig has examined the policies of the “progres-sive,” mainly Zurich-trained bishops in the early decades of Elizabeth’sreign.29 Wenig sees the Royal Supremacy as a roadblock in the way torealisation in England of a genuinely Reformed church.30 This interpre-tation highlights a question central to the present study: was the churchconstituted by the Settlement of 1559 authentically “Reformed” by anaccepted continental measure? And, more particularly, was the royalheadship consistent with such reform of the Church of England? Thestudy of Bullinger’s and Vermigli’s contributions to the formulation ofa theology of the Royal Supremacy will provide a significant avenue ofapproach in our attempt to answer these critical questions.Although the subject of early-modern political theology has been

largely neglected by intellectual historians, renewed interest has recent-ly been shown as evidenced by the publication of Oliver and Joan Lock-wood O’Donovan’s compendium of sources in Christian political the-ology From Irenaeus to Grotius.31 As the O’Donovans’ study shows, many

26 David J. Keep, “Bullinger’s Defence of Queen Elizabeth,” in Ulrich Gäbler andErland Herkenrath, eds., Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 400. Todes-tag im Auftrag des Instituts für Schweizeriche Reformationsgeschichte (Zurich: TheologischerVerlag, 1975) 231–241, and Robert C. Walton, “Henry Bullinger’s Answer to JohnJewel’s call for help: Bullinger’s exposition of Matth. 16:18–19 (1571),” in Gäbler andHerkenrath, Heinrich Bullinger, 245–256.

27 Helmut Kressner, Schweizer Ursprünge des anglikanischen Staatskirchentums (Güterloh:C. Bertelsmann, 1953).

28 Zwingli’s thought: new perspectives (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981).29 Scott Wenig, Straightening the Altars, 22ff.30 Wenig, Straightening the Altars, 9–10. “Among the initial company of Elizabethan

bishops, there was a progressive wing visibly determined to create a truly Reformedchurch, independent of the Crown’s wishes … Forced by their own theologically-basedErastianism to submit to Crown’s will, the bishops’ drive for an authentically ReformedEnglish church was undermined at the national level.”

31 Oliver O’Donovan and Joan Lockwood O’Donovan, editors, From Irenæus to Gro-tius: a sourcebook in Christian political thought 100–1625 (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Cambridge:William B. Eerdmans, 1999). On the question of hermeneutical approaches to textsof political theology, see also the O’Donovans’ notable collection of essays Bonds ofimperfection: Christian politics, past and present (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Cambridge: WilliamB. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004).

introduction 9

of the weightiest contributions to the political and constitutional dis-course of the early-modern period are heavily laden with theologicalthemes and arguments. The present study seeks a substantive reap-praisal of Vermigli’s and Bullinger’s contribution to sixteenth-centurypolitical thought in England as much as possible in its own terms and inits own preferred mode of discourse, namely the theological. Althoughmuch neglected by historians and political theorists after 1600 (and onlyrecently having become a subject of keen scholarly interest), Vermigliand Bullinger were both regarded by their contemporaries in Edwar-dine and Elizabethan England as pre-eminent leaders of internationalReform throughout their careers, while their auctoritas among membersof the Elizabethan establishment was unmatched by other continen-tal reformers, Calvin included. In the dedication of his 1583 edition ofVermigli’s Commonplaces to Queen Elizabeth, Anthony Marten—sewerin the Queen’s chamber—observes as follows: “I cannot but call tomind with ioie and reuerence, that this our natiue countrie did firstof all kingdoms in the world, faithfullie receiue, and publikelie professethe religion of Christ. And it reioiseth me much more, that after solong and so foule a fall of the house of God, this of all other king-doms did first openlie indeuour to repaire the ruines thereof: a prin-cipall labourer in which worke was D. Peter Martyr, who long susteinedupon his owne, and almost onlie shoulders the greatest weight of thisburthen …”32

Bullinger’s and Vermigli’s decisive contributions to the formation ofthe Elizabethan religious and constitutional settlement have yet to begiven due acknowledgement by modern historiography of the EnglishReformation. By demonstrating the depth of Bullinger’s and Vermigli’sinfluence, and that of other Zurich divines on English political theol-ogy during the mid-Tudor period, i.e. from the accession of Edward VIin 1547 to the period of consolidation of the Elizabethan Settlementin the early 1570s, our chief endeavour is to open up a fresh perspec-tive on some of the principal arguments and theories of the religiousauthority of the civil magistrate, and to demonstrate that they them-selves understood the task of articulating the principles and aims of the

32 See The Commonplaces of the most famous and renowmed Diuine doctor Peter Martyr, dividedinto foure principall parts, translated and partlie gathered by Anthonie Marten, one of theSewers of hir Maiesties most Honourable Chamber (London: H. Denham, 1583) fol.Aiii verso-Aiv recto; cited hereafter as CP. On Bullinger’s auctoritas see the beginning ofchapter one below.

10 introduction

religious settlement of 1559 as intrinsically theological in scope. Thetraditional interpretation of the settlement is that political exigency andpragmatic compromise rather than any clear embrace of Reformed theo-logical principle dictated the terms, that this was a merely political set-tlement of religion but not truly a religious settlement. Such a readingbecomes increasingly difficult to sustain the more closely the writings ofthese two pre-eminent theorists of the Settlement are addressed. PatrickCollinson observed that “the accession of the Protestant Elizabeth atonce revived deeply rooted notions of the Church as a great publiccorporation, one with the commonwealth and presided over by royalgovernors.”33 Was this “Constantinianism” or Erastian impulse recon-cilable with the Church of England’s claim to adhere to the essentialtenets of Reformed Protestant orthodoxy? Were the doctrine and theinstitutions established in the Settlement of 1559 at some fundamen-tal level in mutual contradiction? Was the Settlement tantamount to a“theological cuckoo in the nest”, that is to say, an embrace of evangeli-cal teaching within a conservative institutional setting at heart inconsis-tent with the first principles proclaimed?34 This was certainly the viewtaken by the Puritan critics of the Settlement. It is proposed here thatan examination of the responses of Peter Martyr Vermigli and HeinrichBullinger to this nagging question will contribute towards a clarificationof the theological self-understanding of Elizabethan Protestantism. ForVermigli and Bullinger stood in the unique position of being acknowl-edged as arbiters of Reformed orthodoxy in their day by both the archi-tects of the 1559 Settlement and by some of the Settlement’s most vocif-erous critics.The aim of our interpretation of the primary texts included in this

volume is to explore in depth the alien mentalité of sixteenth-centurypolitico-religious discourse and to seek to avoid as far as possible theanachronism of imposing the categories of Enlightenment or post-Enlightenment methodological presuppositions on this early modernmode of discourse. It is not our intent to summon these early-modernauthors to the bar of some supposedly higher standard of critical judge-ment, and to insist that they give their reasons for their argumentsand judgements in terms and categories acceptable to a late- or post-modern sensibility. The governing intent of this study is to explore these

33 Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (London: Cape Press, 1967), 24.34 Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Later Reformation in England, 1547–1603, 2nd ed. (New

York: Palgrave Press, 2000), 29.

introduction 11

examples of mid-sixteenth-century political theology as much as pos-sible within the context of their own preferred theological grammar,and the success or failure of the undertaking must rest squarely on thismethodological approach of a conscious and deliberate sympathy. Thesuspension of interfering modern critical assumptions and presupposi-tions will by no means be an easy task. Our aim, therefore, is to readand interpret a selection of primary texts of Bullinger’s and Vermigli’spolitical theology with a view to disclosing so far as possible their owndeep presuppositions and distinctive modes of argument, on their ownterms and critical criteria, and thus with the highest degree of respectfor their alien character. Consequently we will be faced with such ques-tions as “what force do scriptural, Trinitarian, Christological, soterio-logical, and ecclesiological considerations bring to bear on the determi-nation of intrinsically political and constitutional questions?” Undoubt-edly for Vermigli, Bullinger and the others, the force of such consider-ations was considerable, indeed altogether decisive. Writing an accountof such an early-modern political theology encounters the determinedtendency of several centuries of critical presuppositions which predis-pose us to separate the subject matters of theological and political dis-course from the very outset. Any such impulse must be resisted if thereis to be any hope of penetrating the alien mentalité which confronts thereader of these writings. The present study will thus seek to establish anew footing for interpretation by means of a close and sympathetic areading of these sixteenth-century texts. It is chiefly on account of thismethodological approach that a selection of the principal primary textshas been appended to the five thematic interpretative essays. One veryimportant element of the undertaking is to invite the reader to enterinto this strange world of “theologico-political” discourse.Another central aim of focussing on Bullinger and Vermigli, the two

preeminent figures of the ‘Schola Tigurina’ during the middle years ofthe sixteenth century, is to highlight the decisive importance of con-tinental influence—both politically and theologically—on the formu-lation, enactment, and consolidation of the Elizabethan religious set-tlement, an influence which has yet to receive due recognition in thehistoriography of the English Reformation. In order to address thehighly distinctive quality of their discourse and mentalité, and to pur-sue these methodological goals, this volume will alternate original textsand interpretation in more or less equal measure. It is hoped thatthe encounter with these texts—all of them originally composed inLatin, the accepted lingua franca of sixteenth-century scholarship, and

12 introduction

reproduced here in sixteenth-century English translations with all theirpeculiarities of spelling, grammar, and diction—will provide the readerwith a good opportunity to address both formally and substantively thestrangeness of the theologico-political discourse of this decisive earlyphase of England’s modernity.

From Florence to Zurich via Oxford: Vermigli’s international career

While Heinrich Bullinger is thoroughly well-known and a much stud-ied Reformation figure, considerably less attention has been paid tohis onetime colleague, Peter Martyr. According to his contemporaryand biographer, Josiah Simler, Peter Martyr Vermigli “was no vulgarDiuine or of the common number of learned men, but he was ofso great wit, of so excellent learning, and therewithall of such god-linesse, modestie, and courteous behauiour, that both he was accept-able, beloued and reuerenced among them with whom he liued, andwas euen of the aduersaries also reckoned among the excellent men,and was had of them in great admiration.”35 Vermigli was born in1499 into the senatorial aristocracy of Florence and was named forSaint Peter Martyr of Verona who, according to legend, was killed byManichean heretics for his defence of the orthodox faith in 1252.36 Hisschool chums were young Florentines bearing such names of the nobil-ity as de Medici, Ricci, and Stuphas. At the age of 16 he was sent ashort distance up the hill from his home in Florence to the Augus-tinian canons of Fiesole where he read litterae humaniores. From thencehe went to the University of Padua where, for eight years, he wasimmersed in liberal studies, and chiefly Aristotle. Here he must haveacquired his thorough grasp of Aristotelian method and logic whichwas to become the acknowledged hallmark of his mature writing. Bythe age of 26 he had mastered Greek and offered lectures on Homer.Around 1525 he was appointed Deputy Prior of his order in Bolognaand, being required to preach on the scriptures of both Testaments,he applied himself to the study of Hebrew with the aid of a private

35 Josiah Simler, An Oration of the life and death of that worthie man and excellent Divuined. Peter Martyr Vermillius, professor of Diuinitie in the Schoole of Zuricke, in Another Collectionof certeine Diuine matters and doctrines of the same M.D. Peter Martyr, translated and partliegathered by Anthonie Marten (London: John Day, 1583), Pp. ij recto. See also theexcellent biography of Vermigli by Mark Taplin in ODNB (2004).

36 Born at Verona, 1206; died near Milan, 6 April, 1252.

introduction 13

tutor, a Jewish physician known to us only by the name of Isaac. Thiswas a decisive event, for Vermigli—like both Luther and Calvin—cameto devote the bulk of his scholarly energy to commentary on the OldTestament. Moving swiftly up the ladder of preferment, he went on tobecome Abbot of Spoleto for three years, and then Prior of the Col-lege of S. Pietro ad Aram in Naples where he met the great Spanishmystic Juan de Valdes, leader of the spiritual reform movement knownas the “alumbrados” or “spirituali”.37 Here Vermigli first met BernardinoOchino who was to become his close associate in both his migra-tion to Protestantism and his eventual flight from Italy. In the com-pany of the spirituali Vermigli was introduced to the writings of Mar-tin Bucer and Huldrych Zwingli. Building upon this new theologicalbearing he offered lectures debunking the traditional doctrine of Pur-gatory.On the path of his preferment he had already acquired numerous

powerful friends in Rome: Ercole Cardinal Gonzaga, Bishop of Man-tua, Gasparo Cardinal Contarini, Peter Bembo, Secretary to Leo X,and Henry VIII’s cousin Reginald Pole who went on to become Cardi-nal and Archbishop of Canterbury under Queen Mary and Vermigli’snemesis. Meanwhile Vermigli was promoted General Visitor of theentire Order of Augustinian Canons, elevated to the Priory and bish-opric of San Frediano in Lucca, and was by now clearly marked ason the path to becoming a prince of the Church. At Lucca he set upa trilingual College (Hebrew, Greek, and Latin) based upon the Eras-mian principles of Christian humanist education which had recentlyinspired the foundations of St John’s College, Cambridge and CorpusChristi College, Oxford. While at Lucca Vermigli entertained both theEmperor Charles V and Pope Paul III; he conferred daily with Con-tarini on matters theological, and had even begun to persuade thispowerful Cardinal of the validity of Martin Luther’s objections to theChurch’s teaching on purgatory, indulgences, and the doctrine of gracein general. At Rome, theological disputation had reached a crisis in1542, the year in which the Inquisition was established, and decisivemoves were made to call a General Council of the Church. Accusa-tions of heresy were levelled directly against Vermigli. As his protectorCardinal Contarini lay dying in Rome, Vermigli’s situation had become

37 See Philip McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy: an anatomy of apostasy (Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1967). José de Nieto, Juan de Valdés and the origins of the Spanish and Italian reformation(Genève: Droz, 1970).

14 introduction

so untenable that he fled to Zurich. Eighteen of his former students atLucca followed him, and he thus contributed to the establishment of anenduring community of Italian Protestants in exile, which included suchdistinguished reformers as Ochino, Emmanuel Tremellius, and JeromeZanchius.38 Heinrich Bullinger received Martyr warmly on his arrivalin Zurich, but there was no post for him then in the Schola Tigurina.Shortly thereafter Martin Bucer invited him to become professor ofHebrew at Strasbourg, and it was here that his reputation as a biblicalcommentator was well and truly launched. At Strasbourg he outshoneeven his distinguished host with his “exact method” and his “pure andplain stile.” Vermigli had the ability much admired in the Renaissanceto instruct and to delight in equal measure: “he pleased the mindes ofhis hearers, no onely for the grauitie of the things themselues, but alsofor the sweetnesse and elegancie of his stile: And moreouer euen inthe lectures themselues he with a singular grauitie sometime exhortedto godly life, sometime by a sharp rebuking he stirred vp to repen-tance, so that his lectures, being as it were sauced with all these thinges,and shewing an excellent doctrine and eloquence, ioyned with singularpietie, procured him great glorie in the iudgement of all men.”39

Following Bucer’s and Luther’s example, Vermigli took the positionthat marriage was an honourable estate for a clerk, and proceeded tomarry Katherine Dampmartin. Since he spoke no German and shevery little Italian, we are left to conjecture that domestic conversationwas conducted in Latin. After five years as professor at Strasbourg,Vermigli’s reputation as a leader of Protestant Reform had grown tosuch an extent that both he and his host Bucer were jointly invited byKing Edward VI through the offices of Archbishop Thomas Cranmerto take up senior positions at Oxford and Cambridge respectively. Bothwere appointed to the prestigious Regius chairs in Divinity.Once installed at Oxford Vermigli began to lecture on Paul’s first

epistle to the Corinthians and very swiftly became embroiled in a bitterdispute over the doctrine of the Eucharist.40 His initial opponent wasthe conservative Richard Smith, who had just been sacked from theRegius chair to make way for Vermigli. Smith, however, fled to Lou-

38 Mark Taplin, The Italian reformers and the Zurich church, c. 1540–1620 (Burlington, VT:Ashgate, 2003).

39 Simler, Oration, Pp vj verso. Horace, Ars poetica, v. 333, “prodesse et delectare.”40 Jennifer Loach, “Reformation Controversies,” in The History of the University of

Oxford, vol. 3, The Collegiate University, ed. James McConica (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1986), 368–375.

introduction 15

vain to join other Catholics in exile before the disputation was fullyunderway.41 The ensuing formal debate became an event of nationalsignificance. Richard Cox, Chancellor of Oxford, presided along withHenry Holbeach, bishop of Lincoln, and the great humanist scholarand Gentleman of the Privy Chamber, Sir Richard Morison. (Later,during the Marian exile, both Cox and Morison would visit Vermigliin Zurich as guests in the house of Heinrich Bullinger. Such were thevagaries of fortune in the mid-sixteenth century.) In this debate Ver-migli formulated what came to be recognized as both his single mostsignificant contribution to Reformation thought and also, though lesswell known, his lasting theological influence upon the liturgy of the Bookof Common Prayer.42 Vermigli’s account of the doctrine of the eucharistwas praised by John Calvin as the clearest, best formulated orthodoxstatement of the Reformed position. Known technically as “instrumen-tal realism,” this doctrine seeks to reconcile the conflicting positions ofZwingli’s anti-realist Sacramentarian memorialism and Luther’s hyper-realist consubstantiation, the conflict which caused the deep and lastingrift between the two main Protestant camps, i.e. the Lutherans and theReformed. Vermigli’s eucharistic position is set out in his Tractatio desacramento Eucharistiæ published in 1549.43 This formulation became thetouchstone of the great liturgical revision which resulted in the secondPrayer Book of Edward VI of 1552. Of special significance for the mea-sure of Vermigli’s influence on the English Church is the fact that the1552 Prayer Book sets the standard for all subsequent authorised revi-sions of the liturgy, including the two most important revisions of theElizabethan Settlement (1559) and the Restoration Settlement (1662).

41 Andreas Loewe, Richard Smyth and the language of orthodoxy: re-imagining Tudor Catholicpolemicism (Leiden; Boston: E.J. Brill, 2003).

42 For a discussion of Vermigli’s influence on Cranmer’s revision of the Prayer-Bookliturgy, see McLelland’s “The Second Book of Common Prayer,” in The Visible Wordsof God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of Peter Martyr Vermigli, Edinburgh 1957,28–40.

43 Tractatio de sacramento Eucharistiæ (London: R. Wolfe, 1549). See also A discourse ortraictise of Petur Martyr Vermilla Flore[n]tine, the publyque reader of diuinitee in the Vniuersitee ofOxford: wherein he openly declared his whole and determinate iudgemente concernynge the sacramentof the Lordes supper in the sayde Vniuersitee (London: Robert Stoughton at the signe of theBysshoppes Miter, 1550). For annotated modern English translation of the Tractatio, seePeter Martyr Vermigli, The Oxford Treatise and Disputation on the Eucharist 1549, transl. anded. Joseph C. McLelland, PML vol. 7 (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press,2000).

16 introduction

Shortly after the Oxford Disputation on the Eucharist, there wasan uprising of the Commons in Devonshire and Cornwall focussed onresistance to the recent imposition of the vernacular liturgy at Pente-cost in 1549.44 Although the object of this conservative popular protestwas the liturgy of the First Edwardine Prayer Book, of which bothVermigli and Bucer were critical as being insufficiently Reformed inits theological assumptions, Simler relates that Vermgli was nonethe-less singled out by the rebels as among those responsible for the 1549book and was the subject of death threats.45 During the Western Rising,sometimes referred to as the “Prayer Book Rebellion”, Vermigli wasforced to remove himself from Oxford. He was conducted safely by hisfriends to London, was received en route by the King at Richmond,and resided for a time with Cranmer at Lambeth. On his return toOxford, Vermigli was formally installed as a Canon of Christ Churchand created a Doctor of Divinity of the University. In July of 1549, atthe height of the Prayer-Book Rebellion, Vermigli composed “A Ser-mon concernynge the tyme of rebellion” in which he addressed thegrievances of the rebels, and offered a measured defence of the govern-ment’s proceeding against the insurrection.46 Both the autograph Latintext and the contemporary English translation of this sermon of PeterMartyr’s is in the Matthew Parker collection of MSS at Corpus ChristiCollege, Cambridge.47 The evidence points strongly to this sermon hav-ing been preached by Thomas Cranmer at St. Paul’s Cathedral on asolemn public occasion at the height of the insurrection in July 1549.48

During this unsettled period Vermigli was appointed by the Kingto a committee charged with the revision of the Canon Law of Eng-land. Initially the committee consisted of 24 members, but it was laterreduced to a working group of just four members, which includedCranmer, Vermigli, Walter Haddon, then Regius Professor of Civil Lawat Cambridge, and Rowland Taylor, Chancellor to Bishop NicholasRidley and, according to John Foxe, one of the first of the Marian

44 For a succinct description of the 1549 rebellion, see Anthony Fletcher and Diar-maid MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions (Harlow: Longmans, 2004). See also Francis Rose-Troup, The Western Rebellion of 1549: an account of the insurrections in Devonshire and Cornwallagainst religious innovations in the reign of Edward VI (London: Smith, Elder, 1913).

45 See Simler, Oration, Qq ij, verso.46 CCCC MS 102, no. 29.47 “Sermo Petri Martir manu propria scripta in seditionem Devonensium,” CCCC

MS 340, no. 4.48 See chapter 3 below.

introduction 17

martyrs, probably owing to his open support of Lady Jane Grey.49 Ver-migli contributed extensive emendations to the 1552 text of the Refor-matio legum ecclesiasticarum, a thorough reformation of the Canon Lawwhich was brought to completion just prior to the death of Edward VI;although printed in 1571 by John Foxe, it was abandoned after theaccession of Elizabeth.50 At the death of Edward, Vermigli was in anawkward position. Both Cranmer and Taylor were soon to be exe-cuted, and there were certainly many old adversaries at Oxford whowould doubtless have been happy to see the Florentine consigned tothe flames as well. Before receiving permission to depart the realm,Vermigli courageously consented to join Cranmer and other Protes-tant divines in a public disputation with representatives of the newCatholic establishment in defence of “doctrine and order of religionappointed” by Edward VI.51 Cranmer, however, was imprisoned andnothing came of the proposed disputation. Vermigli was allowed a pass-port, and departed for Strasbourg where he was reinstalled in his for-mer chair.52 Concerning his safe conduct Simler observes, “his friendesscarcelie beleeued, that although he had received the Queens Letters,that he could depart away safe. For his aduersaries said, that so greatan enemie of the Popes Religion should not be suffered to scape out oftheir hands, but should be plucked euen out of the ship to prison andpunishment.”53 At Strasbourg Vermigli wrote his most important workof political theology in the form of a Commentary on the book of Judges,54

49 James C. Spalding, ed., Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum: The Reformation of the Eccle-siastical Laws of England, 1552, Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, Vol. 19 (Kirksville,Mo: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1992). Spalding’s text includes Vermigli’semendations to text of the Reformatio Legum.

50 Gerald Bray, ed., Tudor church reform: the Henrician Canons of 1535 and the ReformatioLegum Ecclesiasticarum, (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000). According to Bray, JohnFoxe’s text was based on a lost final version of the Reformatio of 1552 so that it representsthe conclusions of Cranmer, Vermigli and their colleagues rather than a later revisionsupposedly supervised by Matthew Parker.

51 Simler, Oration, Qq iij recto.52 For Vermigli’s description of his flight from England after the death of Edward VI,

see his letter to Heinrich Bullinger dated 3 November 1553 at Strasbourg, LLS 126;Epistolæ Tigurinæ, 332.

53 Oration, Qq.iij. recto.54 The commentary on Judges was first published in a Latin edition at Zurich under

the title In librum Iudicum D. Petri Martyris Vermilij Florentini … commentarij doctissimi (Zurich:Christopher Froschauer, 1561) and three years later in English translation by John Day,Most fruitfull [and] learned co[m]mentaries of Doctor Peter Martir Vermil Florentine, professor ofdeuinitie, in the Vniuersitye of Tygure: with a very profitable tract of the matter and places (London:John Day, 1564).

18 introduction

and began a Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics which was pub-lished only last year (2006) for the first time in English translation.55 Healso wrote a lengthy reply on Cranmer’s behalf to Stephen Gardiner’sattack on the Archbishop’s Treatise on the Lord’s Supper.56 This alone isindicative of Cranmer’s great trust in Vermigli’s theological judgement.After a short second stint at Strasbourg, Vermigli became embroiledin further eucharistic controversy between the Lutheran establishmentand the minority of those who adhered to his own Reformed posi-tion. Owing, however, to the recent death of Conrad Pellikan, bibli-cal scholar and exegete of the Schola Tigurina, Vermigli finally realisedhis homecoming by being appointed to succeed in Pellikan’s place asProfessor of Hebrew in 1556.Vermigli was soon followed to the continent by his disciple and

amanuensis, John Jewel. At the accession of Mary, Jewel was chargednot only with having preached heretical doctrine, but also with havingbeen a diligent hearer of Vermigli’s lectures and of refusing to attendmass. He was expelled from Corpus Christi College, and after servingas notary to Cranmer and Ridley during their public disputation in1554, fled to Frankfurt where he joined Richard Cox, the exiled Dean ofChrist Church, Vermigli’s former College, and thence to Strasbourg atVermigli’s invitation. Jewel assisted Vermigli as his secretary, and bothhe and Cox eventually accompanied Vermigli to Zurich.Vermigli’s great stature as a reformer is indicated by some of the

events in the final years of his career at Zurich before his death in1562. While Professor of Hebrew he was invited by Calvin to takeup an appointment at the Geneva Academy, and after the death ofMary was invited most cordially by Elizabeth to return to his RegiusChair at Oxford. In April of 1559 John Jewel, lately appointed Bishopof Salisbury, had written to Vermigli in Zurich to convey that “TheQueen both speaks and thinks most honourably of you: she latelytold Lord [Francis] Russell that she was desirous of inviting you toEngland, a measure which is urged both by himself and others, as

55 In Primum, Secundum, et Initium Tertii Libri Ethicorum Aristotelii ad Nichomachum (Zurich:C. Froschauer, 1563). See also the modern annotated English translation Commentaryon Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, PML vol. 9, ed. Joseph McLelland and Emidio Campi(Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2006).

56 Vermigli, Defensio doctrinæ ueteris et apostolicæ de sacro sancto Eucharistiæ sacramento …In quatuor distincta partes aduersus Stephani Gardineri … librum … sub titulo … Confutatiocavillationum (Zurich: Froschauer, 1559).

introduction 19

far as they are able.”57 Vermigli was not formally invited to return tohis post as Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford until 1561, whenhe excused himself for reasons of health and his obligations to theSenate of Zurich. In a letter to the Earl of Bedford responding to theinvitation he replied “Truelie if I might haue mine owne will I wouldeno lesse serue the church of Englande than before time I haue doone:howbeit neither mine age nor the strength of my body wil any longerindure the same, being not able to indure a viage so long, so diuersand not altogether easie … it seemeth better for me that I remainewhere I am [i.e. in Zurich].”58 At the news of Elizabeth’s accessionVermigli penned an effusive panegyric to the young Queen containingboth fulsome praise and some fairly pointed advice.59 In an almosthyperbolic invocation of the Song of Zechariah from the Gospel of Luke,Vermigli evokes a striking comparison of Elizabeth’s accession to thescriptural trope of redemptive kingship. By means of an appeal to a hostof Old-Testament and early-Church examples of kingship he goes on toadvise Elizabeth on her duty of religious reform in England. Vermigliextends the metaphor of anointed kingship to the point of identifyingEngland as an “elect nation,” a conceit which was destined to becomea commonplace of Reformation historiography. As God’s anointed it isElizabeth’s divinely appointed task to “redeem” the nation through therestoration and establishment of her “godly rule.”With respect to Vermigli’s international stature perhaps most telling

of all is his appointment by the Senate of Zurich as principal repre-sentative of the Church of Zurich, along side Theodore Beza, Calvin’ssuccessor at Geneva, at the Colloquy of Poissy convoked by Cather-

57 Jewel to Vermigli, 28 April 1559, ZL 1: 20.58 See also Sir Antony Cook’s effusive letter to Vermigli of 12 February 1559, ZL

2: 13. See “Letter to the Right honourable the Duke [sic] of Bedford,” Divine Epistles,transl. Anthonie Marten (London: H. Denham, 1583), fols. 164–165: See also his reply“to a verie honourable Prince in England,” Divine Epistles, fols. 127–128: “it standeththus with mee, that I am appointed to the citie and Church of Tigure, and therefore Iam not at my owne libertie.”

59 Peter Martyr Vermigli, “To the Most Renowned Princess Elizabeth, by the graceof God Queene of England, France and Ireland,” published in Martyr’s Divine Epistles,an appendix to the English edition of Common Places, transl. Anthony Marten (London:Henry Denham and Henry Middleton, 1583), part V, 58–61. For the original Latinversion of the letter, see Martyris Epistolæ Theologicæ, appended to Loci communes, ed.Robert Masson (London: Thomas Vautrollerius, 1583), 1121–1124; first edition (London:John Kingston, 1576). For an excellent modern English translation, see Peter MartyrVermigli, Life, Letters, and Sermons, vol. 5 of the Peter Martyr Library, translated and editedby John Patrick Donnelly (Kirksville, MO: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1999).

20 introduction

ine de Medici, mother of King Charles IX and regent of France.Attended by Charles of Guise, Cardinal of Lorraine leading a contin-gent of several dozen Cardinals and bishops representing the FrenchChurch, the conference was a desperate bid to bring about recon-ciliation between Catholic and Protestant factions; but it founderedon the critical question of the manner of the “real presence” in theEucharist.60 Vermigli was able to address the Queen as a fellow Floren-tine, and she is recorded as having asked him frequently and cordiallywhat counsel he could give for bringing about a peaceful resolution tothe religious differences which were soon to engulf France in a bloodyconflict that would last into the next century. Here we see Vermiglias an international religious leader, courted by and giving advice toprinces. In the key disputation of the Colloquy, once again concerningthe Eucharist, Vermigli took the lead among the Protestant represen-tatives. After the failure of Poissy, Vermigli returned to Zurich where,within a few months, he died. His portrait, painted by Hans Asper asone of a series of the leading figures of the Schola Tigurina, now hangs inthe National Portrait Gallery in London.61

Throughout the Elizabethan era Vermigli’s influence can only besaid to have grown exponentially. Several of his biblical commentarieswere translated from Latin into English and published by John Day,the Queen’s Printer. The title pages are festooned with royal iconog-raphy—lions and unicorns, dragons and phoenixes, Tudor roses andcrowns, and always the knotted letters ER—all give evidence of Estab-lishment approval.62 The scholia from these commentaries were col-lected and published in a four-volume folio edition by John Kingstonin 1576, and later in English translation, under the title of The Common-places of Peter Martyr by Henry Denham.63 The Commonplaces were organ-

60 Donald Nugent, Ecumenism in the age of the Reformation: the Colloquy of Poissy (Cam-bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974).

61 Roy Strong, Tudor and Jacobean Portraits (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office,1969), NPG 195 (Pl. 635), 319, 320. See Appendix 1 below.

62 See, e.g., the title pages of his ‘Commentary on the Book of Judges’, Most fruitfull[and] learned co[m]mentaries of Doctor Peter Martir Vermil Florentine, professor of deuinitie, inthe Vniuersitye of Tygure: (London: Iohn Day, 1564); and of the Most learned and fruitfullcommentaries of D. Peter Martir Vermilius Florentine, professor of diuinitie in the schole of Tigure,vpon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes (London: Iohn Daye, cum gratia & priuilegioRegiæ Maiestatis per decennium, 1568).

63 Loci communes: Ex variis ipsius aucthoris & libris in unum volumen collecti, & quatourclasses distribute, ed. Robert Masson, 3 vols. (London: John Kingston, 1576) and TheCommonplaces of the most famous and renowmed Diuine doctor Peter Martyr, divided into foure

introduction 21

ised into four parts corresponding to the principal divisions of Calvin’sInstitution of the Christian Religion (1559). Over the next fifty years the com-mentaries and the Commonplaces went through multiple editions inboth Latin and English and the latter, together with Bullinger’s equallyfamous Sermonum Decades, became a standard theological textbook inboth universities. Vermigli’s theology was arguably more influential inboth Oxford and Cambridge than Calvin’s prior to the 1590s. Cer-tainly in the major disputes in the earlier part of Elizabeth’s reign—inthe Vestiarian Controversy of the mid-1560s and the Admonition Con-troversy of the 1570s—Vermigli’s authority was constantly invoked.

Summary of chapters

Each of the five chapters following takes up one of the central themesof Tudor political theology as addressed by either Heinrich Bullingeror Peter Martyr Vermigli, and in one case, namely the Vestiarian con-troversy treated in chapter five, by them both. Each theme is accom-panied by a relevant, annotated text. The first chapter looks at theoffice of the Civil Magistrate from the angle of the so-called “curareligionis”, the care or charge of religion. With the promulgation ofthe Act of Supremacy in 1534 Henry VIII assumed the title of head-ship of the Church of England.64 The royal assumption of supremeecclesiastical jurisdiction necessitated a new definition of the relation-ship between ministers of the Church and the magistrate. Accordingto Heinrich Bullinger, the relationship between the Church of Zurichand the City Council hinged upon what he termed the “prophet-icall office” of the church’s ministers. The aim of the first chapteris to investigate the peculiarly political, even constitutional empha-sis of Bullinger’s “prophetical office” with respect to England, and toexplore the close ecclesiological and constitutional similarities linkingmid-sixteenth-century Zurich and England. Bullinger’s extensive writ-ing on the relationship between magisterial and ministerial functionsreceived considerable attention in England with the publication of hisinfluential Sermonum decades.65

principall parts, translated and partlie gathered by Anthonie Marten, one of the Sewersof hir Maiesties most Honourable Chamber (London: H. Denham, 1583).

64 26 Henry VIII, cap. 1.65 Sermonum decades quinque, de potissimis Christianæ religionis capitibus, in tres tomas diges-

22 introduction

The second chapter seeks to unfold further the theme of the mag-istrate’s exercise of ecclesiastical power introduced in the first. PeterMartyr Vermigli constructs a sophisticated theological analysis of the‘hypostatic’ union of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the personof the godly Prince. Vermigli’s method is noticably more scholasticand complex than Bullinger’s. The Florentine displays in particular aremarkable grasp of the medieval canon law, and proceeds to engagepolemically the political theology of the late thirteenth-century canonlawyers pope Boniface VIII and Giles of Rome. The text accompany-ing this essay is Vermigli’s scholium ‘De Magistratu’ initially published inhis Commentary on the Book of Judges, and later republished in the fourthpart of his Loci Communes.66

Vermigli’s career in England was remarkable for the depth of hisinvolvement in public affairs virtually from the moment of his arrivallate in 1547. Shortly after his arrival at Oxford he delivered lectureson Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. His interpretation of PaulineEucharistic teaching caused a considerable stir, and drew him intoa vortex of theological controversy. This debate coincided with thepromulgation in 1549 of the new vernacular liturgy of the Book ofCommon Prayer. Popular resistance in parts of England to the new liturgyand to evangelical teaching in general launched a rebellion of almostunprecedented ferocity that same year. Vermigli fled Oxford for aperiod at the height of the insurrection and resided with ThomasCranmer at Lambeth Palace where he wrote an important discourseanalysing the causes and most likely remedies for the violent seditionthen racking the kingdom.67 The piece was subsequently translatedinto English and was preached by Cranmer at St Paul’s Cathedralon 21 July 1549 at the height of the rebellion. Aside from providinga unique window for viewing Vermigli in his special role as theologicalmentor to the English Archbishop, the sermon constructs what mightbe described as a “political theodicy” of the rebellion.The fourth essay examines Vermigli’s panegyric to Elizabeth I on the

news of her accession to the throne in November 1558.68 Having fled

tae, authore Henrycho Bullingero ecclesiae Tigurinae ministro (Zurich: Christopher Froschauer,1552).

66 The scholium appears at the conclusion of Vermigli’s commentary on the Book ofJudges, chapter 19, IUD, fols. 255 rº–267 rº, and CP fols. 245–270.

67 CCCC MS 340, 4, fols. 73–95.68 Martyris Epistolæ Theologicæ, ed. Robert Masson (London: Thomas Vautrollerius,

1583), fols. 1121–1124.

introduction 23

England after the death of Edward VI and by this time settled into hispost as Professor in the Schola Tigurina, Vermigli composed an effusivelyroyalist tribute to the young Queen. The jubilant tone of the addressborders on the ecstatic, and Elizabeth’s role as monarch is portrayed asquasi-messianic. It is no doubt remarkable that such praise could issuefrom the pen of a Florentine dwelling in a Swiss republic. Nonethe-less, the epistle encapsulates some important connections between thedoctrines of Providence and sacral kingship.In the last chapter the question of religious uniformity and the

authority of the magistrate is addressed in terms of Vermigli’s andBullinger’s decisive contributions to the Vestiarian Controversy duringthe years immediately following the Elizabethan religious settlement.Both Zurichers were held in extremely high regard both by the Eliza-bethan bench of bishops, many of whom had been guests in Bullinger’shouse in the period of the Marian exile, and by the non-conformingopposition, some of whom had also visited Zurich in the previousdecade. Consequently letters written by Vermigli and Bullinger on thesubject of the magistrate’s authority in matters concerning the out-wards forms of worship and ecclesiastical attire carried weighty author-ity among their English brethren. The text attached to this chapteris Heinrich Bullinger’s letter to Bishops Robert Horne of Winchester,Edmund Grindal of London, and John Parkhurst of Norwich.69 Bullin-ger’s and Vermigli’s common staunch defence of vestiarian conformityis grounded in a coherent ecclesiology and theology of the authority ofthe magistrate shared to a remarkable extent by the Churches of Eng-land and Zurich. From this perspective the Church of England underElizabeth can be seen as a flowering of the “other Reformed tradi-tion”.70

Finally, there is an account of the iconography associated with PeterMartyr Vemigli in an appendix. Hans Asper’s portrait of Vermigli,painted at Zurich as one of a series of portraits of the divines of theSchola Tigurina, now hangs in the National Portrait Gallery in London.In addition, an appendix to chapter three reproduces with annotations

69 Whether it be mortall sinne to transgresse civil lawes which be the commaundementes of civillmagistrates. The judgement of Philip Melancton in his Epitome of morall Philosophie. The resolution ofD. Henry Bullinger, and D. Rod[olph] Gualter, of D. Martin Bucer, and D. Peter Martyr, concerningthapparel of Ministers, and other indifferent things (London: Richard Jugge, Printer to theQueenes Maiestie, 1566).

70 Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: the other Reformed Tradition (Athens,OH: Ohio University Press, 1980).

24 introduction

a consolatory letter written by Vermigli to Edward Seymour, Duke ofSomerset, in 1550 after the latter’s fall from power. While there is evi-dence to suggest that Vermigli had a cordial relationship with the LordProtector, his “Sermon concernynge the tyme of Rebellion” nonethe-less contains some rather sharp, though veiled criticism of Somerset’spolicy of clemency towards the rebels.

chapter one

‘CURA RELIGIONIS’: THE PROPHETICALOFFICE AND THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE

John Jewel, Bishop of Sarum, once referred to Heinrich Bullinger as the“oracle of the churches.”1 While Jewel’s remark conveys a pithy assess-ment of the Zuricher’s pre-eminent role on the stage of internationalReform, it is particularly applicable to the case of England. Through-out his lengthy career as Antistes of the Church of Zurich (1531–1575),Bullinger exercised a unique influence on the Church of England bothas theologian and, on a practical level, as counsellor to both princesand bishops. Given the scope of this influence and its remarkable con-sistency over a considerable period of time (almost forty years), it isnow almost commonplace to include Bullinger among the first rank ofreformers of the English Church, although this is by no means univer-sally accepted.2 Indeed it is even arguable that no other divine exerciseda comparable degree of continuous influence over all of the principalstages of the English Reformation—from the Henrician and Edwar-dine reforms, through the crucible of the Marian exile, to the eventualimplementation and consolidation of the Elizabethan religious settle-ment. At every stage Bullinger was engaged as a significant player, andin later years was frequently appealed to as an arbiter of internal dis-putes and even as a public apologist of the Church of England on the

1 John Jewel styled Bullinger “oraculum ecclesiarum.” See Zurich Letters, ed. HastingsRobinson for the Parker Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1842), firstseries [ZL 1], 156. Theodore Beza spoke of Bullinger as “the common shepherd of allChristian churches,” in Icones, id est veræ imagines virorum doctrina simul et pietate illustrium,additis eorundem vitæ e operæ descriptionibus, quibus adiectæ sunt nonnullæ picturæ, quas emblematavocant (Geneva: Jean de Laon, 1580). Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 8‘The Swiss Reformation’ (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1892), 3rd edn. rev., 207.

2 One recent and otherwise very usefual and informative study of the early Eliza-bethan church completely ignores the central role played by Bullinger in the theologicaldefinition of the Settlement. See, e.g., Scott Wenig, Straightening the Altars: The Ecclesiasti-cal Vision and Pastoral Achievements of the Progressive Bishops under Elizabeth I, 1559–1579 (NewYork: Peter Lang, 2000) where Bullinger receives no mention whatever, in spite of hishaving acted as mentor to almost half the bench of bishops!

26 chapter one

international stage.3 One might even go so far as to say that Bullingerlays a fair claim to being the theologian par excellence of the reformedChurch of England.4

To employ one of his own categories, Bullinger’s distinctive role withrespect to the reformation of the Church of England is best described as“prophetical.” While there is nothing out of the ordinary in the claimthat the Zuricher saw his general ministerial function in such a light,our present aim is to investigate more closely the peculiarly political,even constitutional emphasis of Bullinger’s “prophetical office” withrespect to England. Concerning his prophetical role Bullinger held thatthere is a reciprocal obligation of magistrates and ministers of religion.In the context of Zurich, the chief public function of the ministers ofthe Church with respect to the community at large was to proclaim theWord of God freely and uncompromisingly to all, and, in particular,to the magistrates through the formal address known as the Fürträge:“To the magistrate is commanded [by God] that he hear the servantsof the church. On the other hand, the servant of the church shouldfollow the magistrate in all those things which the law commands.”5 AsI hope to show, Bullinger in a remarkable way extended the exerciseof his prophetical office to include the realm of England. He repeatedlyundertook to address England’s rulers in the service of true religion andfor the welfare of the Church militant. Throughout the forty-odd yearsof his support of the cause of religious reform in England, one recurrenttheme of his discourse stands out among the rest, and that concerns thevery pre-eminence of the civil magistrate’s authority in what Bullingerrefers to as “the care of religion” (cura religionis). In short, the proposalput forward is that Heinrich Bullinger’s distinctive contribution to the

3 Bullinger’s judgement proved critical in both the Edwardine and Elizabethanvestiarian controversies. See Walter Phillips, “Heinrich Bullinger and the ElizabethanVestiarian Controversy: an Analysis of Influence,” Journal of Religious History 11.3 (June,1981): 363–384.

4 David J. Keep did in fact go this far when he observed that “there is no theologianwho so accurately mirrors the Anglican settlement” as Heinrich Bullinger. See hisarticle “Theology as a basis for policy in the Elizabethan Church,” in L.D.G. Baker(ed.), Studies in Church History, vol. 2 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell for the EcclesiasticalHistory Society, 1975), 265.

5 The decades of Henry Bullinger, edited for the Parker Society by Thomas Harding,4 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849–1852), vol. II (1849), 323, citedhereafter as Decades, followed by volume and page number. For a full account andselected text of Bullinger’s Fürträge see Hans Ulrich Bächtold, Heinrich Bullinger vor demRat: zur Gestaltung und Verwaltung des Zürcher Staatswesens in den Jahren 1531–1575 (Bern: PeterLang, 1982).

the prophetical office and the civil magistrate 27

English Reformation is pre-eminently to be a prophet of the RoyalSupremacy.The institution of the Royal Supremacy provides what is arguably

the most conspicuous focal point for testing the function of Bullin-ger’s understanding of his prophetical office. Bullinger’s promotion ofa ‘high’ view of the civil magistrate’s ecclesiastical jurisdiction in theChurch of England can be traced back to the 1530s. In his dedicationto Henry VIII of a treatise of 1538 on the authority of sacred scripture,6

Bullinger presents one of his earliest attempts to formulate his under-standing of the royal exercise of the cura religionis. “First and above all itbelongs to the ruler to look after religion and faith,”7 Bullinger exhorts,and by way of example he encourages Henry to imitate the ancientmonarchies of Israel and Judah in taking up the sword and defend-ing the faith. (Henry, it should be remembered, had been granted thetitle ‘Fidei Defensor’ by Pope Leo X in recognition of his treatise Assertioseptem sacramentorum, written with the assistance of Thomas More, andin which he had vigorously defended the papal supremacy!) By virtueof his sacred office as the ‘living law,’ the Prince animates the entiretyof his realm, both civil and ecclesiastical. As the very ‘soul’ of the bodypolitic the godly prince is charged with the duty of leading his subjectsinto the way of true religion and virtue and guarding them against thefalse.8 Nicholas Eliot, closely connected with the circle of ArchbishopThomas Cranmer and with whom Bullinger had been cultivating linksas early as 1536, wrote to the latter after the publication of his treatiseon the authority of Scripture:

… this one thing you must know as a most certain truth, that yourbooks are wonderfully well received, not only by our king, but equallyso by the lord Crumwell, who is keeper of the king’s privy seal, and

6 De Scripturæ sanctæ authoritate, certitudine, firmitate et absoluta perfectione, de[que] episcoporum… institutione & functione, contra superstitionis tyrannidis[que] Romanæ antistites, ad Sereniss:Angliæ Regem Heinrychum VIII … libri duo (Zurich: Froschauer, 1538). See Pamela Biel,Doorkeepers at the house of righteousness: Heinrich Bullinger and the Zurich clergy 1535–1575 (Bernand New York: P. Lang, 1991), 34–37.

7 “Nam primum et potissimum quod ad Regnum curam pertinet est Religio acFides.” De scripturæ sanctæ, dedication [unfoliated]. See Biel, 34.

8 In sermon II.7 of the Decades, 1:339, Bullinger defines the magistrate as the“lex animata,” the living law. “For laws undoubtedly are the strongest sinews of thecommonweal, and life of the magistrates: so that neither the magistrates can withoutthe laws conveniently live and rule the weal public, nor the laws without the magistratesshew forth their strength and lively force … By executing and applying the law, the lawis made to live and speak.”

28 chapter one

vicar general of the church of England … your writings have obtainedfor you a reputation and honour among the English, so say nothing ofother nations, beyond what could possibly be believed. Wherefore I prayAlmighty God long to preserve you in safety, and not to suffer you to lackthat spirit, by which you may persevere in writing more, not only for theuse and benefit of the English alone, but of his whole church.9

It is also noteworthy that appended to this treatise in defence of theperfection of scripture is a second argument justifying the office andfunction of episcopacy. In the title of this second discourse, appended tohis treatment of the authority of scripture, Bullinger quite intriguinglyidentifies the Bishop of Rome with the title “Romanae Antistes,” since hehimself bore the title of “Antistes” in his office as chief pastor of theChurch of Zurich.10 In the course of justifying the final juridical separa-tion England had made from Rome through the Act of Supremacy of1534, Bullinger lends full prophetical support to the preservation of theHenrician episcopal hierarchy subject to the Crown. In his perorationBullinger asserts that “although the monarch certainly has the ultimateresponsibility for the state of the church in his land, the bishops carrysome of this weight by virtue of their advisory capacity.”11 The bish-ops propose while the king, exercising supreme ecclesiastical jurisdic-tion, disposes. The bishops, in short, exercise a “prophetical office” ofspiritual jurisdiction whereas it is the monarch’s task to promulgate thenecessary laws upon which the continued true worship of God depends.In his Dedication of a treatise on the authority of sacred scripture

to “a godly prince”, that is to Henry VIII, we discern an early, butnonetheless definitive instance of Heinrich Bullinger’s exercise of hisprophetical office with respect to the reform of the Church of England.In imitation of the more formalised institution of the Fürträge addressedto the Council by the Antistes in republican Zurich, Bullinger here ini-tiates, mutatis mutandis, what was to become his life-long role of advis-ing and exhorting England’s chief magistrate in the interest of pro-moting true religion after the pattern of the Old Testament prophets

9 Eliot’s letter to Bullinger is dated 21 August 1538, Original Letters relative to the EnglishReformation, ed. Hastings Robinson (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1847), 618, cited here-after as OL. For an account of the reception of Bullinger’s book by Henry, ChancellorCromwell, and Archbishop Cranmer, see also the letter of Nicholas Partridge to Bullin-ger dated at Frankfort, 17 September 1538, OL 610–612. Cf. Bruce Gordon, The SwissReformation (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2002), 300.

10 “Antistes” is derived from the Greek verb anhistemi, “to stand before or overagainst,” i.e. “to preside.”

11 Biel, Doorkeepers, 36.

the prophetical office and the civil magistrate 29

admonishing the kings of ancient Israel. From the standpoint of theunitary character of the Covenant the magisterial function of monarch(or Council, as in the case of Zurich) was for Bullinger really a contin-uation of the role of these ancient kings, just as the ministerial office ofthe clergy extended into the present the function of the prophet as themediator of God’s voice to the rulers.12

Royal Fürträge in Sermonum Decades

Without doubt the most influential of Bullinger’s writings in Englandwere his famous Sermonum Decades quinque. Initially published in 1552,the fifty sermons gained quasi-canonical status in the two universitiesafter the accession of Elizabeth. A full English translation was issued in1577 bound together with Bullinger’s explosive contribution to the Ves-tiarian controversy of the 1560s.13 The full extent of Bullinger’s influ-ence on the self-understanding of the Elizabethan church is difficultto gauge. It is noteworthy that at the Convocation of the Provinceof Canterbury held in 1586 Archbishop Whitgift required that “everyminister having cure, and being under the degrees of master of arts,and batchelors of law, and not licensed to be a public preacher, shallbefore the second day of February next provide a Bible, and Bullinger’sDecads [sic], in Latin or English, and a paper book, … and shall everyweeke read over one Sermon in the said Decads, and note likewise thechief matters therein contained in the said paper …”14 Bullinger’s royalFürträge appear in the Decades most explicitly in the form of two dedi-catory epistles addressed to the new Josiah, King Edward VI, and in

12 On the relevance of Bullinger’s doctrine of the covenant, see Wayne Baker, Hein-rich Bullinger and the Covenant: the other Reformed Tradition (Athens, OH: Ohio UniversityPress, 1980), 119.

13 Sermonum Decades quinque, de potissimis Christiane religionis capitibus, in tres tomas digestæ,authore Henrycho Bullingero ecclesiæ Tigurinæ ministro (Tiguri: Christoph. Froschauer, 1552).The first English translation was published in 1577 entitled Fiftie godlie and learned sermons,divided into fiue decades, tr. by H.I. (London: Ralph Newberie, cum gratia & privilegioRegiæ Maiestatis, 1577); repr. The Decades of Heinrich Bullinger, ed. Thomas Harding,PS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849); the latter edition is cited in thesenotes.

14 Synodalia: a collection of articles of religion, canons, and proceedings of convocations in theProvince of Canterbury, from the year 1547 to the year 1717, ed. Edward Cardwell (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1842), 2:562. Bullinger’s Catechism was required reading atOxford “ad informandum in vera religione juventutem.” Anthony à Wood, Historia etantiquitates universitatis Oxoniensis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1674), 1:296.

30 chapter one

a sequence of sermons in the second decade on “the sixth precept ofthe ten commandments.”15 Building upon Hollweg’s argument that theDecades were composed for a largely clerical audience, Pamela Biel hasclaimed that Bullinger employed these epistles with a view to supply-ing his clerical readers “a practical model for the prophetic role of theminister. He addressed the ruler, told him what he needed to know, andsought to win him to the cause.”16 In Biel’s estimation, however, thededication serves merely as a literary convention and reflects “the con-ditions and business practices of sixteenth-century publishing.”17 Never-theless, without the Prince himself and his Council as intended recip-ients of simultaneously ‘covenantal’ and ‘constitutional’ instruction inthese epistles, it is difficult to imagine how the prophetical office asBullinger explains it could otherwise hope to receive the magisterialhearing necessary to its success on his own prophetical terms.The actual action taken by Prince and Council to reform religion

may or may not be taken as a measure of magisterial response toprophetical monition. Be that as it may, the substance of Bullinger’sdiscourse can leave no theoretical doubt concerning the ultimate repos-itory of religious authority. The thesis of the dedicatory epistle is cate-gorical:

those kings shall flourish and be in happy case, which wholly give andsubmit themselves and their kingdoms to Jesus Christ, the only-begottenSon of God, being King of kings, and Lord of lords; acknowledging himto be the mightiest prince and monarch of all, and themselves his vassals,subjects, and servants: which, finally, do not follow in all their affairstheir own mind and judgment, the laws of men that are contrary toGod’s commandments, or the good intents of moral men; but do boththemselves follow the laws of the mightiest king and monarch, and alsocause them to be followed throughout their kingdom, reforming both

15 The first dedication is prefixed to the third decade, Sermonum decas tertia: de rebusquarum elenchum in fine libri inuenies/authore Heinrycho Bullingero; accesserunt huic decadi tertiæex quarta decade sermones duo, De Euangelio & De poenitentia; reliqui eius decadis sermones octo,propediem, uolente Deo, seorsim & peculiari libro edentur; tomus secundus (Zurich: C. Froschauer,1550). For the English translation, see Decades (1849) 2: 3–16. Consisting of just twosermons, the fourth decade was initially incomplete. The second royal dedication isprefixed to the third sermon of the fourth decade in fulfilment of Bullinger’s promisein his first epistle to Edward, viz. to “add the other eight sermons of the fourth decadewhich are behind.” See vol. 2:16.

16 Walter Hollweg, Heinrich Bullingers Hausbuch: eine Untersuchung über die Anfänge derreformierten Predigtliteratur (Neukirchen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehunsverein,1965), 42–48. Biel, Doorkeepers, 39.

17 Biel, Doorkeepers, 38.

the prophetical office and the civil magistrate 31

themselves and all theirs at and by the rule of God’s holy word. For inso doing the kingdom shall flourish in peace and tranquillity and thekings thereof shall be most wealthy, victorious, long-lived, and happy …the prosperity of kings and kingdoms consisteth in true faith, diligenthearing, and faithful obeying the word or law of God: whereas theircalamity and utter overthrow doth follow the contrary.18

In short, the ministerial or prophetical office is to interpret the law ofGod; the magisterial or ruling function is to act upon the interpretation.There follows on this a potted history of the kings of ancient Israel andJudah to illustrate the central thesis concerning the cura religionis. Thehappiness of Saul, David, Solomon and the rest, and of their kingdom,are all shown to rest on the self-same prophetical formula. King Uzziahenjoyed “singular felicity and most happy life, so long as he gainsaid notthe mouth of God; but when he would usurp and take upon him thatoffice, which God had properly appointed to the Levites alone, directlyopposing himself against the word of the Lord, he was stricken withleprosy.”19 (Doubtless the lesson to be drawn here is to avoid the mixingof ministerial and magisterial functions after the manner of the RomanAntistes or the Consistory of Geneva!)Bullinger dwells conspicuously upon the example of Josiah since “of

all the kings of Juda he was the flower and especial crown.” For “neitherstayed he to look for the minds and reformations of other kings andkingdoms; but, quickly forecasting the best for his people, he began toreform the corrupted religion, which he did especially in the eighteenthyear of his age. [Edward himself was fifteen at the time.] And in thatreformation he had a regard always to follow the meaning of the HolyScripture alone, to the prescribed order of long continuance, nor tothe common voices of the greatest multitude. For he assembled hispeople together, before whom he laid open the book of God’s law,and appointed all things to be ordained according to the rule of hiswritten word.”20 Bullinger draws his epistle to a close by referringback to his dedication in 1538 to Edward’s father of his treatises DeScripturæ sanctæ authoritate and De episcoporum institutione & functione. Headmonishes Edward to take note of the providential efficacy of kings’adherence to such sound prophetical advice. The example is KingHenry VIII himself: “now by experience know, that that labour of mine

18 Decades, 2:4, 5.19 Decades, 2:8.20 Decades, 2:10.

32 chapter one

brought forth no small fruit within the realm of England,”21—the fruit,of course, is Edward’s own zeal for evangelical reform. The overallconclusion is that the prophet has a definitively ‘public’ office, and thatthe ruler who wishes to secure his position and bring felicity both tohimself and to his people cannot afford to ignore the prophetical word.Moreover, as the scriptural history is supposed to demonstrate, truereligion is ordinarily brought about conjointly by spiritual and politicalmeans—first and foremost by the conversion of the magistrate throughthe ministerial agency of the prophetical office. Thus, on the basis of hisreading of the sacred political history and “to further the cause of truereligion, which now beginneth to bud in England, to the great rejoicingof all good people” Bullinger concludes that he is compelled to addresshimself to the Prince.22

In the seventh sermon of the Second Decade, in a more discursive(and less hortatory) fashion, Bullinger explores the extent to which thecura religionis pertains to the office of the Magistrate, and “whether hemay make laws and ordinances in cases of Religion.”23 Bullinger leadsoff the discussion by referring to the mysterious figure of Melchizedek, apriest-king interpreted typologically as a messianic precursor of Christ.Once again the history of ancient Israel is rehearsed, although withan added twist illustrative of Bullinger’s distinctive theology of theover-arching unity of the Covenant: “Those ancient princes of God’speople, Josue, David, and the rest, were Christians verily and indeed… the examples which are derived from them and applied to Christianprinces, both are and ought to be of force and effect among us at thisday … even now also kings have in the church at this day the sameoffice that those ancient kings had in that congregation which they callthe Jewish church.”24 For Bullinger, a single covenant links the worldbefore the Decalogue with the world of Israel’s kings, the world of theConstantinian Christian emperors, and the world of the godly princesof the Reformation. Just as the covenant is one and continuous, so is thebalancing of the prophetical and magisterial offices viewed as subject toa continuous pattern. Referring to the Old Testament account of KingUzziah’s leprosy, suffered owing to his presumption to perform the

21 Decades, 2:15.22 Decades, 2:15.23 Decades, 1:323.24 Decades, 1:326.

the prophetical office and the civil magistrate 33

exclusively Levitical act of making an offering at the altar of incense,25

Bullinger responds to the counter argument of Tridentine polemics thatkings, consequent on Uzziah’s example, presume to exercise the curareligionis at their peril. For Bullinger, the magistrate’s cura religionis isnot the mixing of magisterial and ministerial functions, but rather themeans of securing the distinction of these offices:

Our disputation tendeth not to the confounding of the offices and dutiesof the magistrate and ministers of the church, as that we would havethe king to preach, to baptize, and to minister the Lord’s supper; or thepriest, on the other side, to sit in the judgment-seat, and give judgmentagainst the murderer, or by pronouncing sentence to take up matters instrife. The church of Christ hath, and retaineth, several and distinguishedoffices (officia distincta); and God is the God of order, and not of confusion.Hereunto tendeth our discourse, by demonstration to prove to all men,that the magistrate of duty ought to have a care of religion (cura religionis),either in ruin to restore it, or in soundness to preserve it … The politicmagistrate is commanded to give ear to the ecclesiastical ruler, and theecclesiastical minister must obey the politic governor in all things whichthe law commandeth. So then the magistrate is not made subject byGod to the priests as to lords, but as to the ministers of the Lord: thesubjection and duty which they owe is to the Lord himself and to his law,to which the priests themselves also ought to be obedient, as well as theprinces.26

As in the dedicatory epistle, Bullinger seeks to clarify the distinctionbetween ministerial and magisterial functions, and consequently toavoid the perils posed by both Rome and Geneva. The magisterial curareligionis is itself the very means to secure this distinction of function,and thus to prevent the clerical presumption of magisterial jurisdictionimplied by the papal pretension to the “plenitudo potestatis”27 or, for thatmatter, comparable consistorial claims to juridical autonomy assertedby some adherents of Reform.

25 2Chron. 16:18, 19. Decades, 1:328.26 Decades, 1:329.27 For an example of this claim, see the opening sentence of Pius V’s Bull Regnans

in excelsis: “Regnans in excelsis, cui data est omnis in coelo et in terra potestas, unumsanctam Catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam, extra quam nulla est salus, uni soli interris, videlicet apostolorum principi Petro, Petrique successori Romano pontifici, inpotestatis plenitudine tradidit gubernandam.” Transl: “He that reigneth on high, to whomis given all power in heaven and earth, has committed one holy Catholic and apostolicChurch, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely toPeter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter’s successor, the pope of Rome, to be by himgoverned in fullness of power.” See note 38 below.

34 chapter one

In addition to the example of the ancient kings of Israel and JudahBullinger cites also the ecclesiastical supremacy exercised by the Chris-tian emperors of the early church: Arcadius and Honorius, Gratian,Valentinian, and Theodosius by whose example “we gather that theproper office of the priests is to determine of religion by proofs outof the word of God, and that the Princes’ duty is to aid the priestsin advancement and defence of true religion.”28 Here Bullinger quotesextensively the Codex Theodosianus and Justinian’s Novellis Constitutiones sothat scriptural authority is shown to be reinforced by early-church prac-tice and backed by imperial authority.29

The prophetical tone of the royal Fürträge becomes more pronouncedin the second Dedicatory Epistle prefixed to the third sermon of theFourth Decade where Bullinger takes up once again the authority ofcivil magistrates to reform churches.30 Is an individual prince or mag-istrate justified in presuming to undertake the reformation of religionwithin his own territory? Or does the calling of a general council trumpthe magistrate’s care of religion within the boundary of his realm?What are the claims of the unity of Christendom as against those ofthe unity of the Covenant? Inevitably, Bullinger’s prophetical theologyof the magistracy must address the matter of the division of Christen-dom.31 On this question the primacy of the authority of scripture, andthus of the unity of the Covenant, is altogether decisive for Bullinger.“The authority of the prophets and evangelists giveth counsel, fully toabsolve and perfectly to end the reformation of religion once begunwith the fear of God, out of or by the word of God; and not to lookfor or stay upon councils which are directed, not by the word of God,

28 Decades, 1:331.29 Decades, 1:331. Bullinger quotes: Codex Theodosianus, ‘de religione,’ XVI.1.2: “We

desire that all the people under the rule of our clemency should live by that religionwhich divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the Romans, and which it isevident that Pope Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity,followed; that is that we should believe in the one deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spiritwith equal majesty and in the Holy Trinity according to the apostolic teaching andthe authority of the gospel. Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius Augusti.” And alsoJustinian, Novellis 3, writing to Epiphanius, archbishop of Constantinople: “We have,most reverend patriarch, assigned to your holiness the disposition of all things that arehonest, seemly, and agreeable to the rule of holy scriptures, touching the appointmentand ordering of sacred bishops and reverend clerks.”

30 Decades, 2:115–122.31 See Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided, 1490–1700 (London:

Allan Lane, 2003).

the prophetical office and the civil magistrate 35

but by the affections and motions of men.”32 The prophetical officehas come to focus sharply on a specific matter of foreign policy. Whatshould the protestant princes look for in the Council of Trent? For Bul-linger the path is clear. Since the corruption of “the Roman See of thelast four hundred years” is perceptible “more clearly than the sun,” theprophet continues the royal Fürträge in the most confident terms; heurges the young King Edward to take decisive action “without stayingfor man’s [i.e. the Pope’s or Emperor’s] authority”:

Thou shalt, most holy king, do wisely and religiously, if, without lookingfor the determination of a general council, thou shalt proceed to reformthe churches in thy kingdom according to the rule of the books of bothTestaments, which we do rightly believe, being written by the inspirationof the Holy Ghost, to be the very word of God. By now, that it is law-ful for every Christian church, much more for every notable Christiankingdom, without the advice of the Church of Rome and the membersthereof, in matters of religion depraved by them, wholly to make refor-mation according to the rule of God’s most holy word, it is thereby man-ifest, because Christians are the congregation, the church, or subjects oftheir king, Christ, to whom they owe by all means most absolute and per-fect obedience. Now the Lord gave his church a charge of reformation:he commended unto it the sound doctrine of the gospel, together withthe lawful use of his holy sacraments … Therefore Christians, obeyingthe laws and commandments of their prince, do utterly remove or takeaway all superstition, and do restore, establish, and preserve true reli-gion, according to the manner that Christ their prince appointed them… Proceed, therefore, proceed, most holy king, to imitate the most godlyprinces, and the infallible rule of the holy scripture: proceed, I say, with-out staying for man’s authority, by the most true and absolute instrumentof truth, the book of God’s most holy word, to reform the church ofChrist in [thy most happy] England.33

The cura religionis—the magistrate’s authority to reform religion andworship—is a power derived immediately from heaven. This poweris authenticated by the sacred history of God’s revealed word in theScriptures (more particularly by the sacred political history of the kingsof Israel and Judah), and is interpreted by the prophetical word ofGod’s ministers including Bullinger himself in the royal Fürträge of hisdedicatory epistle.

32 Decades, Second Epistle Dedicatory, 2:116.33 Decades, 2:119–121.

36 chapter one

Bullinger’s Prophetical Office and the Elizabethan Church

In a letter written towards the end of his life to Edwin Sandys, thenBishop of London,34 Bullinger recapitulates the leitmotiv of his “prophet-ical office” respecting the Church of England. He mounts a vigorousdefence of the Queen’s jurisdiction over matters of religion or, put moreprecisely in the terms of the Elizabethan Settlement, the royal title tosupreme governance of the Church.35 The context of the letter, datedat Zurich on the 10th of March 1574, is the heated controversy thenbuilding up over the publication of the anonymous tract An Admoni-tion to the Parliament (1572), probably the work of two young presbyte-rian radicals, Thomas Wilcox and John Field.36 The Admonition rejectedthe institutions of the Elizabethan settlement to the core and sought toachieve a “further reformation” of the English Church after the pat-tern of Geneva. The liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer was casti-gated as “an unperfecte booke, culled and picked out of that popishedunghill, the Masse booke, full of all abhominations” and “against theword of God;” the jurisdiction of bishops as “strange and unheard of in

34 Sandys was one of the most influential figures of the Elizabethan establishment.Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University in 1553, he fled to the continent during theperiod of the Marian exile in the mid-1550s. He visited Strasbourg and Frankfurt,and enjoyed Bullinger’s personal hospitality while resident in Zurich. Under ElizabethSandys was appointed successively Bishop of Worcester (1559), London (1571) andArchbishop of York (1577).

35 In a letter to Bullinger, John Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich, Marian exile andformerly a guest in Bullinger’s house, wrote to advise that “the Queen is not willingto be called the head of the Church of England, although this title has been offeredher; but she willingly accepts the title governor, which amounts to the same thing. Thepope is again driven from England …” Parkhurst to Bullinger, dated at London, 21May 1559, ZL I.29. The original Act of Supremacy passed by Parliament in 1534designated Henry VIII “supreme head of the Church in England.” After an onlypartially successful attempt under Queen Mary to dismantle the royal headship, anew Act of Supremacy was passed in 1559 with a change of the title “SupremeHead” to “Supreme Governor,” 1 Eliz. I. c. 1. See Claire Cross, The Royal Supremacyin the Elizabethan Church (London: Allen and Unwin, 1969), 128–129. In the Thirty-NineArticles of Religion, approved by Convocation in 1562 and by Parliament not until 1571,the thirty-seventh reads “The Queen’s Majesty hath the chief power in the Realm ofEngland, and over her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates ofthis realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and isnot, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction.”

36 (Imprinted we know where, and whan [sic], judge you the place and you can[Hemel Hempstead?]: printed by J.S. [J. Stroud?], 1572); reprinted in Walter H. Frereand C.E. Douglas, Puritan Manifestoes: A Study of the Origin of the Puritan Revolt (London:SPCK, 1954).

the prophetical office and the civil magistrate 37

Chrystes church, nay playnely in Gods word forbidden;” and the royalsupremacy as a two-headed “monstrositie” which challenged Christ’ssole headship of the Church. The Archbishops’ and Commissary courtsrobbed “Christes church of lawfull pastors, of watchfull Seniors andElders, and carefull Deacons.”37 A key plank in the Admonition platformwas to replace the existing system of ecclesiastical courts with a pres-byterian discipline. In his letter to Sandys, Bullinger expresses markeddisapproval of this platform for “further reformation” of the Church ofEngland along lines inspired by the ecclesiastical disciplina of Geneva,a platform which maintained, according to Bullinger’s summary, that“the Civil Magistrate can have no authority in ecclesiastical mattersand, moreover, that the Church will admit no other government thanthat of presbyters and presbyteries.” Such claims advanced by the Dis-ciplinarians, according to Bullinger, rested upon an understanding ofthe relation between the spheres of magisterial and ministerial jurisdic-tion “held in common with the papists, who also displace the magistratefrom the government of the Church, and who substitute themselves [i.e.the papacy and the church hierarchy] in his place. Whose opinion Ihave confuted in my refutation of the pope’s bull, and in my defence ofthe Queen of England and her noble realm, &c., which I sent you twoyears since.”38

The Admonition Controversy, with its focus upon the institutionsof ecclesiastical discipline and the jurisdiction of both magistrate andbishops, was in many respects a replay in England of the disagree-ment over excommunication which erupted in the Palatinate in the late1560s. Caspar Olevianus, Court preacher in Heidelberg, had sought a“purer” church with powers of discipline independent of the Magis-trate;39 he was opposed by Thomas Erastus who defended the magis-

37 Puritan Manifestoes, 11, 21–23, 33.38 See Bullinger to Sandys, 10 March 1574, ZL 1, 242. Bullinger refers here to

his refutation of the papal bull issued by Pope Pius V, Regnans in excelsis (1570). Bullæpapisticæ ante biennium contra sereniss. Angliæ, Franciæ & Hyberniæ Reginam Elizabetham, &contra inclytum Angliæ regnum promulgatæ, refutatio, orthodoxæq[ue] Reginæ, & vniuersi regni Angliædefensio (London: John Day, 1571). See the discussion immediately below.

39 For an account of the differences between Zurich and Geneva on ecclesiasti-cal discipline, see Robert C. Walton, “The Institutionalisation of the Reformation inZurich,” Zwingliana XIII, 497–515. In an article published in the proceedings of theprevious Bullinger Kongress, Wayne Baker investigates the circumstances of Bullin-ger’s composition of the unpublished “Tractatus de excommunicatione,” Gäbler undHerkenrath, 141–159. On the Heidelberg controversy, see Wesel-Roth, Thomas Erastus,43–81 and for Bullinger’s role, see also Hollweg, Bullinger’s Hausbuch, 260–278.

38 chapter one

terial supremacy. This exchange concerning the disciplinary power ofexcommunication escalated into a full-scale dispute over the first prin-ciples of ecclesiology and the fundamental nature of the authority ofscripture. Bullinger interceded with the Elector Friedrich III in supportof his erstwhile pupil Erastus and set out reasons for his oppositionto the conduct of church discipline by presbyters independently of thecivil magistrate, a position shortly reiterated with reference to eventsacross the channel.40 The Heidelberg dispute highlights the differencebetween the Zurich and Geneva “brands” of Reform on the ques-tion of both the distinction and the interconnection between ministerialand magisterial jurisdiction. The result was something of a compro-mise between the two principal exemplars of a Reformed ecclesiology;by 1570 a presbytery had been established in Heidelberg, although itspower to excommunicate was subject to the consent of the magistrate.41

Bullinger’s reaction with respect to the English proponents of the disci-plina—such as Field and Wilcox, as well as Walter Travers and ThomasCartwright—is to view their challenge to the Elizabethan establishmentlargely in terms of this continental dispute, and to assure Bishop Sandysof his solid support of the status quo. England had become yet anotherbattleground between two competing visions of Reformed ecclesiasticalpolity with the Queen and her Zurich-trained bench of bishops rangedin support of the Tigurine model now openly challenged by disciplinar-ian critics of the 1559 Settlement, all sympathisers of the example ofGeneva. Bullinger’s 1574 response to Sandys in support of the Eliza-bethan establishment may be taken as emblematic of the propheticalrole he exercised towards England throughout his career.Meanwhile, on the other major front in the jurisidictional wars,

and just two years prior to his correspondence with Sandys, Bullin-ger had argued publicly at considerable length in support of the RoyalSupremacy in his refutation of Pius V’s bull Regnans in excelsis.42 The

40 28 October 1568. Autograph: Zurich StA, E ii 341, 3615–3619; cited by Baker,“In defense of Magisterial Discipline: Bullinger’s ‘Tractatus de excommunicatione’ of 1568,”Gäbler und Herkenrath, 143.

41 Thomas Erastus, Explicatio Gravissimæ questionis vtrum excommunicatio … (Pesclavii [i.e.London: J. Wolfe], 1589). Although the controversy transpired in 1568, Erastus’s tractwas not published until after his death. Theodore Beza responded to the Explicatio inthe year after its publication with De vera excommunicatione et Christiano presbyterio (Geneva:Jean Le Preux, 1590).

42 Bullæ papisticæ ante biennium contra sereniss. Angliæ, Franciæ & Hyberniæ Reginam Eliza-betham, & contra inclytum Angliæ regnum promulgatæ, refutatio, orthodoxæq[ue] Reginæ, & vniuersiregni Angliæ defensio (London: John Day, 1571), [HBB I.562]; hereafter referred to as the

the prophetical office and the civil magistrate 39

bull excommunicates Elizabeth and absolves her subjects of their obedi-ence on the ground that the “pretended Queen of England” has “mon-strously usurped” the supreme ecclesiastical authority and jurisdictionand has thereby reduced her kingdom to “miserable ruin.”43 In his refu-tation of Regnans in excelsis in the Defensio, Bullinger makes an extensive(and, it must be said, somewhat repetitive) argument for the view thatthe Queen “hath done nothing but that the Lord God himselfe hathcommaunded her to do, and which all good Princes among the peo-ple of God have done before her. For … by Gods ordinaunce [empha-sis added] it is lawfull for kinges and Magistrates to take upon themthe care and ordering both of cases and of persons Ecclesiasticall.”44

For, according to Bullinger, Elizabeth’s binding her subjects by an oathof Supremacy “to abiure the authoritie and obedience of the RomishByshop” is nothing more than “that she ought to do by virtue of her[divinely sanctioned] office.”45

“Defensio.” See also the English translation, A confutation of the Popes bull which was pub-lished more then two yeres agoe against Elizabeth the most gracious Queene of England, Fraunce, andIreland, and against the noble realme of England: together with a defence of the sayd true ChristianQueene, and of the whole realme of England (London: John Day, cum priuilegio Regiæ Maies-tatis per decennium, 1572). The Defensio was written at the invitation of Richard Cox,bishop of Ely, another of Bullinger’s close associates among the ranks of the Elizabethanepiscopate. For a full discussion of the circumstances of Bullinger’s authorship of theDefensio, see David J. Keep, “Bullinger’s Defence of Queen Elizabeth,” in Ulrich Gäblerund Erland Herkenrath, Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575: gesammelte Aufsätze zum 400. Todestag(Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975), 231–241; see also Robert C. Walton, “Henry Bul-linger’s Answer to John Jewel’s call for help: Bullinger’s exposition of Matthew 16:18–19(1571),” Gäbler und Herkenrath, 245–256. For a translation of the bull itself, see PhilipHughes, The Reformation in England, 3 vols. (London: Hollis and Carter, 1954), 3:418–420.For Richard Cox’s letter to Bullinger of 10 July 1570, see Zurich Letters, ed. HastingsRobinson for the Parker Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1842), firstseries [ZL 1], 220–221.

43 S.D.N. Pii Papæ V sententia declaratoria contra Elizabetham prætensam angliæ regem, et eiadharentes hæreticos (1570). In John Jewel, A viewe of a seditious bul sent into Englande, fromPius Quintus Bishop of Rome, anno. 1569. Taken by the reuerende Father in God, Iohn Iewel,late Bishop of Salisburie (London: R. Newberie & H. Bynneman, 1582). “Sed impiorumnumerus tantum potentia invaluit, ut nullus iam in orbe locus sit relictus, quem illipessimis doctrinis corrumpere non tentarint; adnitente inter cæteros, flagitiorum servaElizabetha prætensa Angliæ regina, ad quam veluti ad asylum omnium infestissimiprofugium invenerunt. Hæc eadem, regno occupato, supremi ecclesiæ capitis locumin omni Anglia, eiusque præcipuam authoritatem atque iurisdictionem monstrose sibiusurpans, regnum ipsum iam tum ad fidem Catholicam, et bonam frugem reductum,rursus in miserum exitium revocavit.”

44 This passage could be interpreted as alluding to Bullinger’s doctrine of the unityof the covenant in The Olde Fayth (London: W. Hill, 1547).

45 Confutation of the Popes bull, 54 recto.

40 chapter one

Without any doubt, Bullinger’s identification of the presbyterian as-sault on the authority of the magistrate with papal claims to the “plen-itude of power” displays a sharp polemical edge within the Reformedcamp, an approach which resonates closely with John Whitgift’s offi-cially sanctioned responses to the Admonition and to Thomas Cart-wright’s Replie.46 The conflict between Whitgift and Cartwright corre-sponds closely to that between Erastus and Olevianus; and both arewrit large in the competing ecclesiological paradigms of Zurich andGeneva. Viewed in this light, Bullinger’s prophetical role is plainly topromote consolidation of the Elizabethan Settlement with its reformedconfession and ecclesiastical discipline secured under the authority ofthe civil magistrate, consistently with the Zurich model. With an invo-cation of the Augustinian political theology of the “two cities,” Bullin-ger goes on to counsel Sandys “I wish there were no lust of dominion[libido dominandi] in the originators of this presbytery!” To the theolog-ically trained eye, Bullinger’s reference to the libido dominandi impliesthat by seeking to exclude the Magistrate from the “cura religionis” Eng-land’s disciplinarian radicals in effect had succeeded in confusing thespiritual aims of the civitas Dei with the external ends of the civitas ter-rena. That is to say, the presbyterian Disciplina obscured the proper dis-tinction between the spheres of ministerial and magisterial authority,and in such a way as to resurrect the jurisdictional pretensions of thepapacy.47 Bullinger concludes his letter to Sandys by urging the great-est caution in preserving the “supreme power” in the hand of the civilmagistrate. What is particularly revealing in the letter to Sandys is thetheological weight Bullinger attaches to his arguments in support of theRoyal Supremacy.The heart and substance of Bullinger’s prophetical office with respect

to England was to defend, to interpret, and to promote the Civil Mag-istrate’s pivotal role as the supreme governing power in the ordering ofreligion in the realm: the royal ‘cura religionis.’ Strange though it mayappear, the institution of the Royal Supremacy with its hypostatic con-junction of supreme civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Prince,

46 For a full historical account see Peter Lake, Anglicans and Puritans? Presbyterian andEnglish Conformist Thought from Whitgift to Hooker (London: Unwin Hyman, 1988). For atheological account of this exchange see W J Torrance Kirby, Richard Hooker’s Doctrine ofthe Royal Supremacy (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1990), ch. 3.

47 According to Augustine, the two cities—the civitas Dei and the civitas terrena—areconstituted by two modes of love, viz. amor Dei and libido dominandi. See de civitate Dei,XIV.1.

the prophetical office and the civil magistrate 41

constitutes for Bullinger a vivid exemplar of the unitary character ofChristian polity, and also of the distinction and cooperation of magiste-rial and ministerial power. From the standpoint of Bullinger’s uniquecovenantal interpretation of history, it is certainly arguable that theOld Testament exemplar is more completely realised under England’smonarchical constitution than under the republican conditions of Bul-linger’s own city and canton of Zurich. In this sense the institution ofthe Royal Supremacy in the reformed Church of England providedBullinger throughout his career with an invaluable testing ground forthe principles of his distinctive hermeneutic of salvation history.

text

HEINRICH BULLINGER

Of the Office of the Magistrate, whether the care ofreligion apperteine to him or no: and whether hee maymake lawes and ordinaunces in cases of Religion1

The first and greatest thing that chieflie ought to be in a magistrate,is easilie perceiued by the declaration of his office and duetie. In myyesterdayes sermon2 I shewed you what the magistrate is, how manykindes of magistrates there are, of whome the magistrate had his begin-ning, for what causes hee was ordeined, the maner and order how tochoose peeres, and what kinde of men should be called to be magis-trates. To this let us now adde what the office and duetie of a magistrateproperlie is.

The Magistrates offices

The whole office of a magistrate seemeth to consist in these 3. points.To Order, to Iudge, and to Punish. Of euerie one whereof, I meane tospeake seuerallie in order as they lye. The ordinaunce of the magistrateis a decree made by him for mainteyning of religion, honestie, iustice,and publique peace: and it consisteth on ij. points, in ordering rightlymatters of religion, and making good lawes for the preservation of hon-estie, iustice, and common peace. But before I come to the determiningand ordering of religion, I will brieflie and in few words, handle theirquestion, which demande, whether the care of religion do apperteine

1 Fiftie godlie and learned sermons, divided into fiue decades, transl. by H.I. [perhaps HughJones, Bishop of Llandaff?] (London: Ralph Newberie, cum gratia & privilegio RegiæMaiestatis, 1577), 177–191; a translation of Sermonum decades quinque, de potissimis Christianæreligionis capitibus, in tres tomas digestæ, authore Henrycho Bullingero ecclesiæ Tigurinæ ministro(Zurich: Christopher Froschauer, 1552) the second Decade, the seventh Sermon. Newedition by Thomas Harding, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, Minister of the Church of Zurich,4 vols., PS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849) 2: 323–344.

2 The sixth sermon of the Second Decade.

44 chapter one

to the magistrate, as part of his office or no? For I see many that areof opinion, that the care and ordering of religion doth belong to Bish-ops alone, and that kings, princes, and senatours ought not to medletherewith.3

Whether the care of religion belong to the Magistrate

But the catholique veritie teacheth that the care of religion doth espe-ciallie belong to the magistrate, and that it is not in his power onely, buthis office and duetie also to dispose and aduaunce religion. For amongthem of old, their kinges were priestes, I meane maisters and ouerseersof religion. Melchisedech that holie and wise Prince of the Chananitishpeople, who bare the type or figure of Christe our Lord, is wonderful-lie commended in holie Scriptures: Now he was both king and priesttogether.4 Moreouer in the booke of Numbers, to Iosue newlie ordeinedand lately consecrated, are the lawes belonging to religion giuen up anddelivered.5 The kings of Iuda also, and the electe people of God, hauefor the wel ordering of religion (as I will by examples anon declare untoyou) obteyned verie great praise: and againe as many as were slacke inlooking to religion, are noted with the mark of perpetuall reproch. Whois ignoraunt that the magistrates especiall care ought to bee to keepethe common weale in safegard and prosperitie? Which undoubtedlie hecannot do, unless he prouide to haue the word of God preached to his

3 For Bullinger’s views on episcopal jurisdiction, see his tractate addressed to KingHenry VIII, De episcoporum, qui verbi Dei ministri sunt, institutione & functione, contra super-stitionis tyrannidisq[ue] Romanæ antistites, ad Sereniss. Angliæ Regem Heinrychum VIII (Zurich:Christopher Froschauer, 1538). For the papalist defence of episcopal title to the ‘curareligionis’ see Reginald Pole, Ad Henricum Octavum Britanniæ regem, pro ecclesiasticæ unitatisdefensione, libri quatuor … Excussum (Romæ: Apud Antonium Bladum Asulanum, 1536)and Albertus Pighius, Hierarchiæ ecclesiasticæ assertio (Cologne: Melchior Neuss, 1538). Fora later formulation of this doctrine in the reign of Elizabeth, see Nicholas Sanders,The rocke of the Churche wherein the primacy of s. Peter and of his successours the bishops of Romein proued out of Gods worde (Louvaine, 1567). The heading for the sixteenth chapter ofSanders’s book conveys the key objections: “good Christian Emperors and Princes didnever think themselves to be the supreme heads of the Church in spiritual causes; butgave that honour to Bishops and Priests, and most specially to the see of Rome, for SPeter’s sake, as well before as after the time of Phocas.” See also Thomas Dorman’sreply to John Jewel’s famous ‘Challenge Sermon’ preached at Paul’s Cross on 30March1560: A Proufe of Certayne Articles in Religion, Denied by M. Juell (Antwerp: John Latius,1564), B4 verso et seq.

4 Gen. 14:17–24.5 Numbers 27:18–23.

text: bullinger, office of the magistrate 45

people, and cause them to be taught the true worship of God, by thatmeanes making himself as it were the minister of true religion. In Leuiti-cus6 and Deuteronomie7 the Lord doth largelie set downe the good pre-pared for men that are religious, and zealous in deede, and reckonethuppe on the other side, the euil appointed for the contemners of truereligion. But the good magistrate is commaunded to reteine and keepeprosperitie among his people, and to repel al kinde of aduersitie. Letus heare also what the wise man Salomon saith in his Prouerbes: Godlinesand trueth preserue the king, and in godlines his seate is holden vp. When the iust aremultiplied, the people reioyce, and when the wicked ruleth, the people lamenteth. Theking by iudgement stablisheth his dominion, but a tyrant oruerthroweth it. Whenthe wicked increase, iniquitie is multiplied, [179] and the iust shall see their decay.Where the word of God is not preached the people decay, but happie is hee thatkeepeth the lawe.8 Whereby we gather that they, which would not hauethe care of religion to apperteine to princes, doe seeke and bring in theconfusion of al things, the dissolution of princes, and their people, andlastlie the neglecting and oppression of the poore.Furthermore the Lord commaundeth the magistrate to make triall of

doctrines, and to kill those that do stubbornelie teach against the scrip-tures and draw the people from the true God. The place is to be seenein the 13. of Deut.9 God also forbad the magistrate to plant groauesor erect images: as is to be seene in the 17. of Deut.10 And by thoseparticularities he did insinuate things general, forbiding to ordeine, tonourish, and set forth superstition or idolatrie, wherefore he commaun-ded to aduaunce true religion: and so consequently it foloweth thatthe care of religion belongeth to the magistrate. What may be thoughtof that moreouer, that the most excellent princes and friends of God,among Gods people, did challeng to themselues the care of religion asbelonging to themselues, in so much that they exercised and toke thecharge therof, euen as if they had beene ministers of the holie things?Iosue in the mount Hebal caused an altar to be builded, and fulfilled allthe worship of God, as it was commaunded of God by the mouth ofMoses.11 Dauid in bringing in and bestowing the arke of God in hisplace, and in ordering the worship of God, was so diligent, that it is

6 Lev 26.7 Deut 28.8 Prov 20:28; 29:2, 4, 16, 18.9 Deut 13:7–11.10 In AV, Deut 16:21–22.11 Joshua 8:30–35.

46 chapter one

wonder to tel.12 So likewise was Salomon Dauids sonne. Neither doe Ithinke that any man knoweth not how much Abia,13 Iosaphat, Ezechias,and Iosias, laboured in the reformation of religion, which in their timeswas corrupted and utterlie defaced.The verie heathen kings and princes are praised, because when they

knew the trueth, they gaue out edicts for the confirmation of truereligion against blasphemous mouthes. Nabuchodonosor the Chaldean, themost mightie Monarch of all the world, than who I doubt whetherany more greate and mightie did reigne in the world, publisheth adecree that he should be torne in pieces, and his house made a iakes,whosoeuer spake reprochfullie against the true God which made bothheauen and earth.14 The place is extant in the third Chapiter of Danielsprophecie. Darius Medus the sonne of Assuerus king Cyrus his uncle, saith:I haue decreed that all men in the whole dominion of my kingdome doe fear theGod of Daniel.15 Cyrus king of Persia looseth the Iewes from bondage,and giueth them in charge to repaire the temple, and restore their holierites againe.16 Darius Persa the sonne of Hystaspes saith: I haue decreed foreuerie man which chaungeth any thing of my determination touching the reparation ofthe temple, and the restoring of the worship of god, that a beame be taken out of hishouse, and set vp, and he hanged theron, and his house to be made a iakes.17 Theverie same Darius again who was also called Artaxerxes18 saith: Whosoeuerwil not doe the lawe of thy God (Esdras) and the law of the king, let iudgementstraight way passe vpon him, either to death, or to vtter [180] rooting out, or toconfiscation of his goods, or imprisonment.19 All this we find in the booke ofEsdras.

An answer to an obiection

The men, which are persuaded that the care and ordering of religiondoth belong to bishopps alone, do make an obiection, and say, thatthese examples which I haue alledged, do nothing apperteine to us

12 2Sam 6.13 ‘Asa’ in the Latin edn. of Sermonum Decades.14 Dan 3:95–100.15 Dan 6:25–27.16 Ezra 1:1–4.17 Ezra 6:11.18 Also called Artaxerxes Longimanus.19 Ezra 7:26.

text: bullinger, office of the magistrate 47

which are Christians: because they are examples of the Iewish people.20

To whom mine aunsweare is: The men of this opinion ought to prouethat the Lord Jesus and his Apostles, did translate the care of religionfrom the magistrate unto bishops alone: which they shal neuer be ableto doe: But wee on the other side will briefly shew that these auncientprinces of Gods people, Iosue, Dauid, and the rest were Christiansverilie and in deede, and that therefore the examples, which are deriuedfrom them and applied to Christian princes, both are and ought to beeof force and effect among us at this day. I wil in the end adde alsothe prophecie of the Prophet Esai, wherby it may appere that euennow also kings haue in the Church at this day the same office, thatthose ancient kings had in that Congregation which they call the IewishChurch.21 There is no doubt but that they ought to be accepted trueChristians, which being annoynted with the spirite of Christ, do belieuein Christ, and are in the Sacramentes made partakers of Christ. ForChrist (if ye interprete the verie word) is as much to say, as annointed.Christians therefore according to the Etymologie of their name areannoynted. That annointing according to the Apostles interpretation isthe spirite of God, or the gift of the holie ghoste.22 But S. Peter testifieththat the spirit of Christ was in the kinges and Prophets.23 And Paulaffirmeth flatly that wee haue the verie same spirite of faith, that theyof old had.24 And doth moreouer communicate our sacraments withthem, where hee saith that they were baptised under the cloud, andthat they all dranke of the spirituall rocke that followed them, whichrock was Christe.25

Since then the case is so, the examples truyly which are deriued fromthe words and workes of those auncient kinges for the confirmationof faith and charitie, both are and ought to be of force with us. Andyet I know that euerie thing doth not consequently folow uppon thegathering of examples. But here wee haue for the making good ofour argument, an euident prophecie of Esai, who fortelleth that kinges

20 See The seditious and blasphemous oration of Cardinal Pole both against god [and] hiscou[n]try which he directid to themperour in his booke intytuled the defence of the eclesiastical vnitye,mouing the emperour therin to seke the destruction of England and all those whiche had professid thegospele translated into englysh by Fabyane Wythers (London: Owen Rogers, 1560), with theepigraph “Reede all and than Judge.” (STC 20087).

21 Isaiah 49.22 1 John 2:20, 27.23 1Peter 1:11.24 2 Corinth 4:13.25 1 Corinth 10:2–4.

48 chapter one

and princes after the times of Christ, and the reuealing of the Gospell,should haue a diligent care of the Church, and should by that meanesbecome the feeders and nourices of the faithfull.Now it is euident what it is to feede and to nourish: for it is all one as

if he shold haue said, that they should be the fathers and mothers of theChurch. But hee could not haue said that rightly, if the care of religiondid not belong to Princes, but to Bishops alone. The words of Esaie arethese: Behold I wil stretch out my hand vnto the Gentiles, and set vp my token tothe people, and they shal bring thee thy sonnes in their lappes, and thy daughterson their shoulders. And kinges shalbe thy nourcing fathers, and Queenes thy nurcingmothers, they shal fal before thee with their faces flatte vppon the earth, and licke vpthe duste of thy feete &c.26 Shal not wee say, that all this is fulie performedin some Christian princes?Among whom the first was the holie Emperour Constantine, who by

calling a general counsell [181] did determine to establish true andsincere doctrine in the Church of Christe, with a settled purpose utterlyto roote out all false and hereticall phantasies and opinions.27 And whenthe bishopps did not go rightly to worke by the true rule and touchstoneof the gospel and of charitie, hee blamed them, upbrayding them withtyrannical crueltie, and declaring therwithal what peace the Lord hadgraunted by his meanes to the Churches. Adding moreouer that it werea detestable thing, if the bishopps forgetting to thancke God for hisgift of peace, should goe on amonge themselues to baite one anotherwith mutuall reproches and taunting libells, thereby giuing occasionof delight and laughter to wicked idolatrers: when as of dutie theyought rather to handle and treat of matters of religion. For (sayth hee)the bookes of the Euangelistes, Apostles, and Oracles of the auncientProphetes, are they which must instruct us to the understanding ofGods holie lawe.28 Let us expell therefore this quarelling strife, andthincke uppon the questions proposed to resolue them by the woordesof Scripture inspired from above.

26 Isaiah 49:22–23.27 The Council of Nicæa, called by the Emperor Constantine in AD 325.28 Ecclesiasticæ historiæ autores Eusebij Pamphili Cæsariæ Palæstinæ episcopi historiæ Ecclesias-

tic[a]e lib. x Vuolfgango Musculo interprete … Theodoriti Episcopi Cyri, Ioachimo Camerario inter-prete libri v (Basle: Froben, 1549), Bk. 1, cap. 7. Note that this edition of the EcclesiasticalHistories is published with the commentary of Wolfgang Musculus, professor of theol-ogy, leader of the Reformed Church of Berne, and a close ally of Bullinger’s in theecclesiastical politics of the Swiss cantons. Bullinger may also have consulted the Greekedition published by Robert Stephanus, Ekklesiastikes historias Eusebiou tou Pamphilou …(Paris: Stephanus, 1544).

text: bullinger, office of the magistrate 49

After him againe, the holie emperours Gratian, Valentinian andTheodosius, make a decree, and giue out the edicte in these veriewoords: Wee will and commaund all people that are subiecte to our gratiousEmpire, to be of that religion, which the verie religion taught and conueighed fromPeter till now doth declare, that the holie Apostle Peter did teach to the romanes.29

And so forward. By this (derely beloved) ye perceiue how kings andPrinces, amonge the people of the new Testament, haue been the fosterfathers and nourices of the Church being persuaded that the care ofreligion, did first of all and especially belong to themselues.

The seuerall offices of the Magistratesand the ministers must no be confounded

The second obiection that they make is the leprosie of Osias kingof Iuda, which hee gatt by challenging to himselfe the office of thePriest, while hee presumed to burne incense on the incense altar.30

They obiect the Lords commaundement, who hadd Iosue stand beforeEleazar the Prieste, and gaue the king in charge to receiue the booke ofthe law at the Leuites hands.31 But our disputation tendeth not to theconfounding of the offices and duties of the magistrate, and ministersof the Church, as that wee would haue the king to preach, to baptize,and to minister the Lords supper: or the priest on the other side to sitin the iudgment seate, and giue iudgement against a murderer, or bypronouncing sentence to take uppe matters in strife. The Church ofChrist hath, and reteyneth seuerall and distinguished offices, and Godis the God of order, and not of confusion.32

Hereunto tendeth our discourse by demonstration to proue to allmen that the magistrate of duetie ought to haue care of religion, eitherin ruine to restore it, or in soundnesse to preserue it, and still to seethat it proceede according to the rule of the woord of the Lord. Forto that end was the law of God giuen into the kinges hands by the

29 Bullinger quotes the title “on Religion” from the Theodosian Code. See CodicisTheodosiani libri XVI: Qiubus [sic] sunt ipsorum principum autoritate adiectæ novellæ. Theodosij.Valentiniani. Martiani. Maioriani. Seueri. Caij Institutionum lib. II … (Basle: Henricus Petruus,1528), Cod. Th. XVI.1.2. For a modern English translation see Henry Bettenson, ed.,Documents of the Christian Church (London: Oxford University Press, 1943), 31.

30 2Chron 26:18. 19.31 Numb 27:22; Deut 17:18.32 1 Corinth 14:33.

50 chapter one

priestes, that hee should not be ignoraunt of Gods will touching mattersEcclesiasticall and politicall, by which lawe hee had to gouerne thewhole estate of all his realme. Iosue the Capitaine of Gods peoople isset before Eleazar in deede, but yet hee hath authoritie to commaundethe priestes, and being a politique gouernour is ioyned as it werein one bodie with the ecclesiasticall [182] ministers.33 The politiquemagistrate is commaunded to giue eare to the ecclesiastical ruler, andthe ecclesiastical minister must obey the politique gouernour in allthinges which the law commaundeth. So then the magistrate is notmade suiect by God to the priestes as to Lords, but as to the ministersof the Lord, the subiection and duetie which they owe, is to the lordhimself and to his law, to which the priestes themselues also ought tobe obedient, as well as the Princes. If the lipps of the priest erre fromthe truth and speake not the word of God, there is no cause why any ofthe common sort, much lesse the Prince, should either hearken unto, orin one tit[t]le reuerence the priest. The lippes of the priest (sayth Malachie)keepe knowedge, and they seeke the Lawe at his mouth: because he is the messingerof the lord of hoastes.34 To refuse to hear such priestes, is to repell Godhimself. Such priestes as these the godly princes of Israell did alwayesayde and assist, false priestes they did disgrade, those which neglectedtheir offices they rebuked sharpelie, and made decrees for the executingand right administring of euerie office.

Princes haue done and dealt in religion

Of Salomon wee read, that hee put Abiathar beside the priesthoode ofthe Lord (that hee might fulfil the word of the Lord which he spakeof Heli in Silo) and made Zadok priest in Abiathars steede.35 In thesecond booke of Chronicles, it is said: And Salomon set the sorts of prieststo their offices as Dauid his father had ordered them, and the Leuites in theirwatches, for to praise and minister before the priestes day by day, as their coursedid require.36 In the same booke againe Ioiada the priest doth in deedeannointe Ioas king,37 but neuerthelesse the king doth call the priest, and

33 Numb 27:15–23.34 Malachi 2:7.35 1Kings 2:27.36 2Chron 8:14.37 2Chron 23:11 “Then they brought out the king’s son, and put upon him the

text: bullinger, office of the magistrate 51

giue him a commaundement to gather money to repaire the temple.38

Moreouer that religious and excellent Prince Ezechias, called the priestesand Leuites, and said unto them: Bee ye sanctified and sanctifie ye the houseof the Lord our God, and suffer no vncleannesse to remaine in the sanctuarie.My sonnes be not slacke now, because the Lord hath chosen you to minister vntohimselfe.39 Hee did also appoint singars in the house of the Lord, andthose that should play on musicall instruments in the Lords temple.Furthermore king Ezechias ordeyned sondrie companies of priestes andLeuites, according to their sondrie offices, euerie one according to hisowne minsterie.40

What may be sayd of that too, that euen hee did diuide to thepriestes their portions and stipends throughtout the priesthoode? Thesame king gaue charge to all the people, to keepe holie the feast ofPasseouer, writing to them all such letters as priestes are wont to write,to put them in mind of religion and repentaunce.41 And after all this,there is added: And the king wrought that which was good, right, and iust beforethe Lord his God.42 When Princes therefor doe order religion according tothe woord of God, they do the thing that pleaseth the Lord. This andthe like is spoken againe by the godly Prince Iosias.43 Who therefore willhereafter say, that the care of religion belongeth unto bishops alone?

Princes have appointed orders for religion

The Christian Emperours following the example of the auncient kingsas of their fathers, did with greate care prouide for the state of true reli-gion in the Church of Christe. Arcadius and Honorius did determine, thatso often as matters of religion were [183] called in question, the bish-opps should be sommoned to assemble a counsell.44 And before themagaine, the emperours Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, established a

crown, and [gave him] the testimony, and made him king. And Jehoiada and his sonsanointed him, and said, ‘God save the king’.”

38 2Chron 24:4, 5.39 2Chron 29:5, 11.40 2Chron 31:11–20.41 2Chron 30:1–21.42 2Chron 31:20.43 For Josiah’s Passover, see 2Chron 35.44 Codicis Theodosiani, XVI.11.1, ‘De religione’: “Impp. Arcad. et Honor. aa. Apol-

lodoro proconsuli Africæ. quoties de religione agitur, episcopos convenit agitare; ceterasvero causas, quæ ad ordinarios cognitores vel ad usum publici iuris pertinent, legibus

52 chapter one

lawe wherein they declared to the world, what faith and religion theywould haue all men to receiue and reteine, to witte the faith and doc-trine of S. Peter. In which edicte also they proclaimed all them to beheretiques, which thought or taught the contrarie: allowing them aloneto be called catholiques, which did perseuere in S. Peters faith.45 Bythis we gather that the proper office of the priests, is to determine ofreligion by proofes out of the word of God, and that the princes dutieis to aide the priestes, in aduauncement and defence of true religion.But if it happen at any time, that the priests be slack in doing theirduetie, then is it the princes office by compulsion, to inforce the priestesto liue orderlie according to their profession, and to determine in reli-gion according to the woord of God. The Emperour Iustinian, in Nouel-lis Constitut. 3. writing to Epiphanius Archbishop of Constantinople, saith:Wee haue (most reuerend Patriarch) assigned to your holinesse the disposition ofall things that are honest, seemelie, and agreeable to the rule of the holie scrip-tures, touching the apointing and ordering of sacred bishops and reverend clearkes.46

And in the 7. Constitution hee saith: Wee giue charge and commaundementthat no bishop haue license to sell, or make away any immoueables, whether it be

oportet audiri. dat. xiii. kal. sept. patavio, theodoro v. c. cos. hæc lex interpretationenon indiget.”

45 Codicis Theodosiani, XVI.1.2: “Impp. Gratianus, Valentinianus et Theodosius aaa.edictum ad populum urbis constantinopolitanæ. cunctos populos, quos clementiæ nos-træ regit temperamentum, in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum Petrumapostolum tradidisse romanis religio usque ad nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat quamquepontificem damasum sequi claret et petrum alexandriæ episcopum virum apostolicæsanctitatis, hoc est, ut secundum apostolicam disciplinam evangelicamque doctrinampatris et filii et spiritus sancti unam deitatem sub parili maiestate et sub pia trinitatecredamus. (380 febr. 27).” We desire that all the people under the rule of our clemencyshould live by that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to theRomans, and which it is evident that Pope Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria,a man of apostolic sanctity, followed; that is that we should believe in the one deity ofFather, Son, and Holy Spirit with equal majesty and in the Holy Trinity according tothe apostolic teaching and the authority of the gospel.

46 Bullinger quotes from the fourth portion of the Corpus Iuris Civilis, viz. Novellæconstitutiones, authenticum collatio 1, Tit. 3, Novell. 3. See Ius civile manuscriptorum librorumope, summa diligentia et integerrima fide infinitis locis emendatum, et perpetuis notis illustratum(Antwerp: Christopher Plantin, 1567). Under the direction of the eminent Roman juristTribonianus, the Corpus Iurus Civilis was issued in three parts between 529 and 533CEat the order of the Emperor Justinian: the ‘Codex’ which compiled all extant imperialconstitutiones since Hadrian; the ‘Digest’ or ‘Pandects’ which comprised the opinionsof great Roman jurists such as Gaius, Ulpian, Papinian, et al; and the ‘Institutes’ whichwere intended to provide a legal textbook and contained key extracts from the Codexand Digest. When Justinian issued new laws they were added to the Corpus under afourth division, the ‘Novellæ’, quoted here by Bullinger.

text: bullinger, office of the magistrate 53

in houses or landes belonging to the Churches.47 Againe in the 57. Constitu-tion, hee forbiddeth to celebrate the holie mysteries in priuate houses.Hee addeth the penaltie and saith: For the houses wherein it is done shalbeconfiscate and sold for money, which shalbe brought into the Emperours Exche-quer.48 In the 67 Constitution, hee chargeth al bishops not to be absentfrom their churches: but if they be absent, he willeth that they shouldreceiue no commoditie or stipend of the prouinciall stuards, but thattheir reuenue should be imployed on the Churches necessities.49 In the123. constitution the lieutenauntes of euerie prouince are commaundedto assemble a counsell for the use and defence of ecclesiasticall lawes,if the bishops bee slacke to looke thereunto.50 And immediatelie afterhee saith: Wee do vtterly forbid all bishoppes, prelates and clearkes, of what degreesoeuer, to play at tables, to keepe companie with diceplayers, to bee lookers on vpongamesters, or to runne to gaze vppon Maygames or pageants.51 I do not alledgeall this as Canonical Scriptures, but as proofes to declare that Princes inthe primatiue church had power, officiall authoritie, and a usuall cus-tome, graunted by God (as Esai did prophecie) and deriued from theexamples of auncient kinges to commaund bishops, and to determineof Religion in the Church of Christ.

Ecclesiasticall priuileges

As for them which obiect the churches priuilege, let them knowe that itis not permitted to any prince, nor any mortal man, to graunt priuilegescontrarie to the expresse commaundements and verie truth of godsword. S. Paul affirmed that he had power giuen him to edifie but not todestroy. I am the briefer, because I wil not stand to proue that they areunworthie of indifferent (æquis) priuileges which are not such as priestesand Christ his ministers should be, but are souldiers rather and wickedknaues, full of all kind of mischiefe. Amonge other thinges in the CanonLawe Distinct. 40 wee finde [184] this written. See to your selues, bretherne,how ye sitte uppon the seate: for the seat maketh not the priest, but the priest theseate: the place sanctifieth not the man, but the man the place. Euerie priest is not

47 Novellæ constitutiones, auth. coll. 2, Tit. 1, Novell. 7, cap. 1.48 Novellae constitutiones, auth. coll. 5, Tit. 12, Novell. 58 [sic].49 Novellæ constitutiones, auth. coll. 5, Tit. 22, Novell. 67, cap. 3.50 Novellæ constitutiones, auth. coll. 9, Tit. 6, Novell. 123, cap. 44.51 Novellæ constitutiones, auth. coll. 9, Tit. 6, Novell. 123, cap. 10.

54 chapter one

a holie man, but euery holie man is a priest. Hee that sitteth wel uppon the seate,receiueth the honour of the seate: but he that sitteth ill uppon the seate, doth iniurieunto the seate. Therefore an euil priest getteth blame by his priesthoode, and not anydignitie.52 And thus much thus farre touching this matter. Since now thatI haue declared unto you (derely beloued) that the care of religion dothbelong to the magistrate too, and not to the bishopps alone, and thatthe magistrate may make lawes also in cases of religion, it is requisitethat I inquire what kinde of lawes those are that the magistrates maymake in matters of religion.

What lawes the magistrate ought to appoint concerning religion

There is no cause whie the king or magistrate should suppose thatpower is giuen to him to make newe lawes touching God, the worshipof God, or his holie mysteries: or to appoint a new kind of true iusticeand goodnesse. For as euery magistrate is ordeyned of God, and is Godsminister, so must hee be ruled by God, and be obedient to Gods holieword and commaundement, hauing euermore an eye unto that, anddepending stil uppon that alone. The scripture which is the word ofGod, doth abundauntly enough set downe al that which is proper totrue religion: yea the Lord doth flatly forbidde to adde too, or takeany thing from his holy word. The magistrate therefore maketh nonewe lawes touching God, and the honour to be giuen to God, butdoth religiously receiue and keepe, doth put in use and publish thoseauncient lawes in that kingdome which God hath allotted him unto.For hereunto apperteineth the giuing of the booke of gods law untothe kinges of Israell, that they might learn therby the way to do thethings which they of duetie ought to see done.53 To Iosue the Lord dothsay: See that thou doest obserue and doe according to all that Moses my servauntcommaunded thee. Thou shalt not tourne from it, either to the righte hand or to theleft. Neither shall the booke of this lawe depart out of thy mouth, but occupie thyminde therein day and night, that thou maist obserue and doe according to all that iswritten therin. For then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt dowiselie.54

52 CICan, Decreti, ‘Multi sacerdotes’, 1.40.12, ed. Friedberg, vol. 1, col. 147–148.53 Deut. 17:18, 19; 2Kings 11:12.54 Joshua 1:7, 8.

text: bullinger, office of the magistrate 55

Devout and holie Princes therefore did doe their faithfull and diligentindeuour to cause the word of God to be preached to the people,to reteine and preserue among the people the lawes, ceremonies andstatutes of god, yea they did their best to spread it to al men as farre asthey could, and as place and time required, to applie it holilie to thestates and persons: on the other side they were not slack to banishand driue away false doctrine, prophane worshipings of God, andblasphemies of his name, but settled themselues utterlie to ouerthrowand roote it out for euer. In this sort (I say) godly magistrates, did makeand ordeine deuoute lawes for the maintenaunce of religion. In this sortthey bore a godlie and deuout care for matters of religion.The cities which the Leuites had to possesse, were of old their scholes

of Israel. Now Iosue did appoint those cities for studies sake, and thecause of godlines.55 King Ezechias was no lesse carefull for the sure pai-ment and reuenue of the ministers stipends, than [185] he was for therestoring and renuing of euerie office.56 For honour and aduauncementmaketh learning to flourish: when neede and necessitie is driuen toseeke out sondrie shiftes: beggarie setteth religion to sale, much morethe inuented lyes of mens owne mouthes. Iosaphat sendeth Senatoursand other officers with the priestes and teachers through al his king-dome. For his desire was by all meanes possible to haue Gods wordpreached with authoritie and a certaine maiestie, and being preachedto haue it defended and put in ure to the bringing forth of goodworkes.57 King Iosias doth together with idolatrie and prophane wor-shippinges of God, destroy the false priestes that were to be found: set-ting uppe in their steeds the true teachers of Gods word, and restoringagaine sincere religion:58 euen as also king Ioas (hauing rebuked theLeuites) did repaire the decayed buildings of the holie temple.59 I amnot able to runne through all the Scriptures, and rehearce al the exam-ples in them expressed: let the Godly Prince or magistrate learne bythese fewe what and how hee ought to determine touching lawes forreligion.

55 Joshua 21.56 2Chron 31.57 2Chron 17:7–9.58 2Kings 23.59 2Kings 12.

56 chapter one

Devisers of new fanged worshippes are cursed of God

On the other side Ahia the Silonite saith to Ieroboam. Thus saith the Lord:Thou shalt reigne according to all that thy soule desireth, and shalt be king ouerIsrael. And if thou hearken vnto all that I commaunde thee, and wilt walke inmy wayes, and doe that is right in my sight, that thou keepe my statutes and mycommaundements, as Dauid my seruaunt did, then will I be with thee, and build theea sure house.60 But the wretch despised those large promises, and reiectingGods word, his temple at Ierusalem, and his awfull worship, refusingalso the Leuites, hee made him priestes of the dregges and rascall sortof people, he built himself new temples, which hee decked, nay ratherdisgraced with images and idolls, ordeyning and offering sacrifices nottaught in Gods woord, by that meanes inuenting a certain new kindof worshipping god and a new maner of religion. And although hisdesire was to seeme to be willing to worshippe God, yet is he byGod condemned for a wicked man. Hearken I pray, the sentence ofthe Lord, which hee denounceth against him: Thou hast done euil (saithAhia as the Lord had taught him) aboue all that were before thee. For thouhast gone and made the other Gods, and moulten images, to prouoke mee, andhast cast mee behinde thy backe. Therefore I will bring euill vppon the houseof Ieroboam, and wil roote out from Ieroboam euen him that pisseth against thewall, and him that is in prisonn and forsaken in Israel, and will take away theremnaunte of the house of Ieroboam, as one carieth away dunge till all be gone.61

And al these thinges were fulfilled according to the saying of the Lordas the Scripture witnesseth in these words: When Baasa was king, hesmote all the house of Ieroboam, and left nothing that breathed, of that that wasIeroboams.62 But the very same king being nothing the better or wiser byan others mishap, and miserable example of his predecessour, stickethnot to continue, to teach the people, to publish and defend the straungand forreine religion, contrarie to the woord of God, which Ieroboamhad begunne. But what followed thereuppon? Forsothe the Lord by thepreaching of Hanani the Prophete doth say unto him: Forasmuch as Iexalted the[e] out of the dust, [186] and made thee prince ouer my people Israell,and thou hast walked in the way of Ieroboam, and hast made my people Israellto sinne, to anger mee with their sinnes, behold I will roote out the posteritie ofBaasa, and the posteritie of his house, and wil make thy house like the house

60 1Kings 11:38.61 1Kings 14:9–10.62 1Kings 15:29.

text: bullinger, office of the magistrate 57

of Ieroboam.63 Which was perfourmed (as the scripture saith) by Simricapitaine of the hoaste of Israel. For he destroyed king Hela the sonneof Baasa when he was drunken, and all his posteritie. Amri succeeded inthe kingdome who was the father of Achab that mischefous cutthroate,whom the Syrians slue in fighting a battaile.64 After him reigned hissonnes Ochosias and Ioram. But when they left the religion taught inthe woord of God, to follow the new tradition of king Ieroboam, and hadthereunto added the worshipping of the shamefull idole Baal, they wereutterly (at last) destroyed by the meanes of Iehu a very iust, although arigorous prince.65 The offspring of Amri reigned about the space of 40.yeares, not without the sheading of much innocent bloud, but it wasat last destroyed, when the measure of iniquitie was fulfilled, and wasutterly plucked up at the rootes by the iust iudgment of Almightie God.Let all princes and magistrates therfore learne by these wonderfull

and terrible examples, to take heede to themselues how they deuise anynew religion, or alter the lawful and auncient maner of worshipping,which God himselfe hath ordeined alreadie. Our faithfull Lord is ourgood God, who hath fullie, simplie, and absolutely set downe in hisword his true religion and lawfull kind of worshippe, which hee hathtaught all men to keepe alone for euermore: Let all men thereforecleaue fast unto it, and let them die in defence thereof that meaneto liue eternallie. They are punished from abouve whosoeuer doe addetoo or take away any thing from the religion and kind of worshippefirst ordeined and appointed of God. Marcke this ye great men andPrinces of authoritie. For the keeping or not keeping of true religion,is the roote from whence aboundant fruite of felicitie, or else utterunhappinesse doth spring and bud out. Hee therefore that hath earesto heare let him heare. Let no man suffer himsefe to bee seduced andcarried away, with any coloured intent, how goodly to the eye soeuer itbee, which is in deede a meere vanitie and detestable iniquitie. To Godobedience is much more acceptable than sacrifices are. Neither doe thedecrees of the highest need any whit at al our fond additions.66

63 1Kings 16:2, 3, 9–13.64 1Kings 22:34.65 2Kings 9 and 10.66 This concludes the first part of II.7, sermon seven of the second Decade. The

second part moves on from the question of the “cura religionis” to address the magis-trate’s duty of “making good lawes for the preseruation of honesty, iustice, and publiquepeace.”

chapter two

‘THE GODLY PRINCE’: THE UNION OF CIVILAND ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION

In various scholia respecting the office and authority of the civil mag-istrate scattered through several of his biblical commentaries, PeterMartyr Vermigli mounts a sustained Augustinian critique of medievalscholastic as well as Tridentine assumptions concerning the relationbetween civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Vermigli affirms in particu-lar the need for uniting civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the personof the supreme magistrate. The argument of this Protestant scholasticis remarkable for its simultaneous adherence to an Aristotelian concep-tion of the unifying, architectonic function of the sovereign authority,and to a thoroughly Augustinian understanding of the clear distinctionbetween the realms of operation of coercive and spiritual power. Inhis Commentary on the Two Books of Samuel, Peter Martyr Vermigli stakesout his claim with the confident assertion that “the charge of Religionbelongeth unto Princes.”1 He appeals initially to the authority of Aristo-tle for whom political association (koinonia politike) is the highest form ofcommunity (teleia koinonia) on the ground that it aims at the highest hap-piness and the highest good; the ultimate goal (telos) of the polis is “toprovide that the people may live well and vertuously.” Vermigli con-cludes, “no greater vertue there is, than Religion.” Vermigli gives noprecise reference, but very likely is referring to the opening discussionin the Politics where Aristotle argues that the polis is the perfect formof community (teleia koinonia) on the ground that it aims to realise hap-piness (eudaimonia) in the highest degree through the practice of virtue.“If all communities aim at some good, the state or political commu-nity, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims

1 This is the title given to his scholium on ISamuel 28.3. See In Duos Libros SamuelisProphetæ … Commentarii (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1564); for an English translation see Thecommon places of the most famous and renowmed diuine Doctor Peter Martyr: diuided into foureprincipall parts: with a large addition of manie theologicall and necessarie discourses, some neuer extantbefore, Bk. 4.14.2. Translated and partlie gathered by Anthonie Marten (London: HenrieDenham, Thomas Chard, William Broome, and Andrew Maunsell, 1583), 246; citedhereafter as CP.

60 chapter two

at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.”2

Through this identification of the Christian commonwealth with Aris-totle’s community of virtue, Vermigli attributes the care of religion tothe sovereign power (to kurion) which directs the life of the state towardsits appointed end. He appeals moreover to Aristotle’s claim that gov-ernment, that is the exercise of sovereign power, is the principal andarchitectonic art of all practical activity.3 There is indeed a hierarchy ofpractical “Arts” where the art of government stands pre-eminent:

Wherefore seeing the office of a Magistrate is the chiefe and principallscience, he ought to rule all the partes of a commonweale. In deedhe himself exerciseth not those [particular] Arts, but yet ought he tosee that none doe corrupt and counterfeit them. If a Phisitian cure notaccording to the prescript of Galen or Hypocrates, or if an Apothecariesell naughtie and corrupt drugges, the Magistrate ought to correct themboth. And if he may doe this in other artes, I see no cause why he maynot doe it in Religion.4

Vermigli follows up this Aristotelian analysis of the magistrate’s officewith a list of Old Testament kings and Roman emperors who “shewedverie well that religion belonged unto their charge.”5 In a letter toQueen Elizabeth on her accession to the throne of England in 1558Vermigli urges her to take command in the reform of the Churchsince it is the duty of a godly Prince to defend both tables of the “lawdivine.”6 He interprets the two tables of the Decalogue in Deuteronomyas representing the ordering respectively of religion and matters of civil

2 Aristotle, Politics, 1.1 (1252a3–6) See also Politics 3.6 (1278b15–24) where “well-being” (eu zein) is defined as the “chief end both of individuals and the state.”

3 Aristotle, Ethics I.2 (1094a17–1094b10) According to Aristotle, the art (techne) whichaims at the highest good “is most truly the architectonic art. And politics appears to beof this nature; for it is this that ordains which of the sciences should be studied in a state,and which each class of citizens should learn and up to what point they should learnthem … now, since politics uses the rest of the sciences, and since, again, it legislatesas to what we are to do and what we are to abstain from, the end of this science mustinclude those of the others, so that this end must be the good for man … though it isworth while to attain the end merely for one man, it is fine and more godlike to attainit for a nation or for commonwealths (poleis).”

4 CP 4.14.2, 247. See also Vermigli’s Introduction to In Primum, Secundum, et InitiumTertii Libri Ethicorum Aristotelii ad Nichomachum (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1563), fols. 1–10;cited hereafter as NE. See CP 1.1.5–11 and Joseph C. McLelland, Philosophical Works ofPeter Martyr: on the Relation of Philosophy to Theology, PML vol. 4 (Kirksville: Truman StateUniversity Press, 1996), 12, 13.

5 CP 4.14.2, 247.6 Divine Epistles, CP, vol. 5, 61. See Marvin Anderson, “Royal Idolatry: Peter Martyr

and the Reformed Tradition,” ARG, Jahrgang 69 (1978): 186, 187.

the union of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction 61

obligation; both are committed to the power of the godly magistrate.Furthermore, in a paraphrase of Romans 13 Vermigli maintains thatthe magistrate is God’s own Vicar or representative and for this reason“everie soule ought to be subject unto the higher power.”7

In his Commentary on Romans chapter 13 Vermigli commences thediscussion with a formal and thoroughly Aristotelian definition of thesubject matter in hand:8

A magistrate is a person elected by God so that laws and peace may beprotected, evil may be repressed by means of penalties and the sword,and virtue maybe promoted by every means. In this the efficient cause9

is God; the final cause or purpose is the protection of the laws andpeace from the troubles associated with vice and corruption as well asthe increase of virtues. The formal cause is the order constituted inhuman affairs by divine providence. The material cause is a man, anindividual person, since whoever is chosen to be a magistrate is selectedfrom among men.10

This twofold goal of the magistrate’s power is well articulated by Thom-as Cranmer in the intercessory prayer in the Communion Order of thesecond Book of Common Prayer (1552) of King Edward VI: “We besechethee also to saue and defende all Christian Kynges, Princes, and Gov-ernoures, and speciallye thy servaunt, Edward our Kyng, that underhym we maye bee godlye and quietly governed: and graunt unto hyswhole counsayle, and to all that be putte in aucthoritie under hym, thatthey may truely and indifferently minister justice, to the punishementof wickednes and vice, and to the mayntenaunce of God’s true religion

7 The magistrate stands “in the stead and place of God.” CP 4.14.2, 247.8 In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli Ad Romanos D. Petri Martyris Vermilij Florentini, Professoris

diuniaru[m] in schola Tigurini, com[m]entarij doctissimi, cum tractatione perutili rerum & locorum,qui ad eam epistolam pertinent (Basle: Petrus Perna, 1558; repr. Perna 1560, 1568), fol. 640;cited hereafter as ROM. The translation here is mine; see “The Civil Magistrate: PeterMartyr Vermigli’s Commentary on Romans 13” in J.P. Donnelly, Frank James III,and J.C. McLelland, eds., The Peter Martyr Reader (Kirksville, MO: Truman StateUniversity Press, 1999), 223; cited hereafter as PMR.

9 In this formal definition Vermigli employs Aristotle’s teaching concerningthe “four causes.” See, e.g., Physics 2.1 (192b8–193b22) and Metaphysics 5. 2 (1013a24–1013b28).

10 See also the scholium “De Magistratu” which appears at the conclusion of hiscommentary on Judges 19, based on lectures given at Strasbourg 1553–1556. In librumIudicum D. Petri Martyris Vermilij Florentini … commentarij doctissimi: cum tractatione perutilirerum & locorum (Zurich: Christopher Froschauer, 1561), fols. 897–911; cited hereafter asIUD.

62 chapter two

and vertue.”11 Emphasis on the divine provenance of the magistrate’sauthority is the keynote of this political segment of the commentary.12

According to Vermigli “those who condemn the magistrate are againstGod to their own considerable harm.”13 While there are manifold con-stitutional forms—and here he cites the Aristotelian six-fold classifica-tion of monarchy, aristocracy, and polity along with their corrupt ana-logues tyranny, oligarchy and democracy14—all are divinely sanctioned,for as the Apostle asserts, “there is no power but of God.” Regardless ofthe manner of the magistrate’s selection, whether “done by consent ofthe Senate, by the voyces of the people, or by the will of the souldiers,or else by succession of inheritance” these human forms of politicalprocess are all “mere instruments” whereas in fact “the proper cause ofmagistrates is God himself.”15 Like the sun and the moon, the officeof the magistrate is ordained by God’s providential cosmic design.16

The magistrate is to be acknowledged as the supreme vicegerent ofGod on earth since “the Prince is appointed to be in God’s place,between GOD and men.”17 This function of the magistrate as mediatorof divinely ordained governance constitutes a key axiom in Vermigli’ssubsequent account of the complex relation between civil and ecclesi-astical power. While the magistrate’s power is defined as deriving froman infinite divine sanction, the proper sphere of its exercise is nonethe-less very carefully circumscribed. It is restricted specifically to “lawestouching outward discipline” as distinct from those which more directly

11 The First and Second Prayer Books of King Edward VI (London: J. Dent, 1913; repr.1999), 382. For a full discussion of Vermigli’s influence on Cranmer’s revision ofthe English liturgy see J.C. McLelland, “The Second Book of Common Prayer,” inThe Visible Words of God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of Peter Martyr Vermigli,(Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957), 28–40.

12 See also CP 4.13, fols. 226–235. A sixteenth-century translation of these scholiaby Anthony Marten in Common places is reprinted together with the original Latintext in Robert M. Kingdon, The Political Thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli: Selected Textsand Commentary (Geneva: Droz, 1980), 26–61. A magistrate is “a person chosen by theinstitution of God to keep the laws as touching outward discipline, in punishing oftransgressors with punishment of the bodie, and to defend and make much of thegood.”

13 PMR, 224.14 Aristotle, Politics, 3.7 (1279a22–1279b10). See PMR, 226; see also Kingdon, Political

Thought, 3: “And although the latter three kinds are extremely corrupt and defective, yetGod is the author even of them. For there is in them a force and power to govern andto coerce men which certainly could by no means come to be unless by God.”

15 IUD, fol. 898; Kingdon, Political Thought, 28.16 IUD, fol. 899; Kingdon, Political Thought, 30.17 ROM, fol. 646; Kingdon, Political Thought, 12.

the union of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction 63

concern “the inwarde motions of the minde.”18 By virtue of this thor-oughly Augustinian distinction between spiritual and external spheresof power, Vermigli links his treatment of the authority of the magis-trate to his basic soteriological assumptions regarding the right relationbetween the orders of nature and grace. While there are other kindsof offices depending upon the direct institution of God, they need notconflict with the appointed function of the magistrate to rule in theforum externum.

It is the office of ministers through the Word of God to pearse even to theinward motions of the minde: because the Holy Ghost joineth his power, bothto the right preaching of his word, and also to the sacraments which areministered in the Church. The magistrate only exerciseth outward disciplineand punishment upon transgressors. The minister in the name of God,bindeth the guilty and unpenitent, and in his name excludeth them fromthe kingdome of heaven, as long as they shall so remaine. The Magistratepunisheth with outwarde punishments, and when need requireth, useththe sword. Both of them nourish the godly, but diversely.19

Both civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction serve the “safetie” or nour-ishment of the people, but this “safetie” is interpreted as intrinsicallytwofold, namely as belonging either to the operation of grace and eter-nal salvation, or to the order of nature and temporal peace. This dis-tinction between spiritual and external jurisdiction recalls Augustine’sdelineation of the twofold peace of the earthly and heavenly cities.20

Princes and the Papacy

Vermigli then proceeds to observe that such an identification of thecivil magistrate with the divinely ordained “higher power” of Paul’sEpistle is challenged by certain “ecclesiasticall men,” as he calls them,proponents of papal authority who maintain their exemption from thejurisdiction of the “publike and ordinarie power” of the civil magistrate:“But the Papistes and they which will be called Ecclesiasticall men, willnot give eare hereunto: for they cry, that they are exempted from pub-like and ordinarie powers, whereas yet the Apostle used no exception,when he said, Let every soule be subject to the higher powers.”21 Per-

18 IUD, fol. 897; Kingdon, Political Thought, 26.19 IUD, fol. 897; Kingdon, Political Thought, 26, my italics.20 On this see, for example, De Civitate Dei, XIX.12–17.21 IUD, fol. 899; Kingdon, Political Thought, 30. See also CP 4.2.10 & 11, fol. 33–

64 chapter two

haps he has in mind such apologists of the papal plenitudo potestatis asReginald Pole, a contemporary of Vermigli’s in Italy before the latter’sflight. First cousin to Henry VIII, Pole was a student in Padua in the1520s during Vermigli’s time there, was created a cardinal by Paul IIIin 1536, and conferred at the Conference of Ratisbon in 1541 with Gas-paro Contarini in a failed attempt to conciliate the Protestants. He wasone of three papal legates at the Council of Trent and was consecratedArchbishop of Canterbury in 1556 under Queen Mary.22 In a pamphletcritical of his claim to headship of the Church in the Act of Supremacy of1534 Pole addressed himself to King Henry VIII as follows:

Your whole reasoning comes to the conclusion that you consider theChurch a corpus politicum … Great as the distance is between heavenand earth, so great also is the distance between the civil power andthe ecclesiastical, and so great the difference between this body of theChurch, which is the body of Christ, and that which is the body politicand merely human.23

On the ground of his supposition of the inherent superiority of thespiritual to the temporal sword Pole rejects Henry’s claim to supremeecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Church of England. Pole’s ecclesi-ology expresses a fundamentally disparate interpretation of the senseof Romans 13 when compared with Vermigli’s. The reformer, how-ever, chooses not to dispute directly with his contemporaries, but ratherto examine the arguments for the Papal supremacy set out in early

35: “the Clergie and Ecclesiasticall men contend, that they by the benefite of Princesare exempted from tributes and customes.” Vermigli cites Decretales Gregorii IX, “Nonminus” 3.49.4 in Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Emil Friedberg (Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz,1879; repr. Graz: Akademische Druk-u. Verlagsanstalt, 1955, 1959) vol. 2, col. 654, 655;cited hereafter as CICan. See also Boniface VIII’s Bull of 1296 “Clericis Laicos” underthe title De Immunitate ecclesiarum in Liber Sextus decretalium cum Clementinis, in CICan vol. 2,col. 1287, 1288.

22 In “Royal Idolatry,” 192, Marvin Anderson notes that Vermigli owned a copy ofVergerio’s 1555 Strasbourg edition of Reginald Pole’s treatise Pro ecclesiasticæ unitatis.

23 Ad Henricum Octavum Britanniæ regem, pro ecclesiasticæ unitatis defensione, libri quatuor …Excussum (Romæ: Apud Antonium Bladum Asulanum, 1538); repr. in Juan T. Roca-berti, Bibliotheca maxima pontificia, Rome, 1698, XVIII, 204: “Tota tua ratio concludit teEcclesiam existimare corpus politicum esse quod si ita est: equidem hac in parte crim-ine malitiæ te libero, sed idem perniciosa ignorantia obcæcatum esse dico. Quantumenim distat cælum a terra, tantum inter civilem potestatem, et ecclesiasticam interest:tantum hoc corpus Ecclesiæ, quod est corpus Christi, ab illo, quod est politicum, etmere humanium differt.” Translated by E. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Studyin Medieval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), 229. See alsoReginald Pole, De Summo Pontifice Christi in terris Vicario, eiusque officio & potestate, Louvain:Apud Ioannem Foulerum Anglum., 1569; facsimile reprint, Farnborough 1968.

the union of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction 65

fourteenth-century canon law.24 While Vermigli cites a variety ofsources from the canon law, he undertakes a particularly extensive anal-ysis of the Bull Unam Sanctam promulgated by Pope Boniface VIII at theRoman Council of October 1302 during his dispute with Philip the Fair,King of France.25 This document sets out a series of dogmatic propo-sitions culminating in the assertion of Papal supremacy. Unam Sanctamis remarkable both for succinctness and for theological clarity and thusproves to be most useful to Vermigli in his summary of the scholasticrationale for the subordination of temporal to spiritual power. Scholarsnow think it likely that the great canonist and theologian Giles of Romewas the chief architect of the text of the Bull.26

At the outset of his discussion of the Bull Vermigli remarks thatit is “a worlde” (pretium) to read the arguments of those “ecclesiasti-call men” who seek exemption from the jurisdiction of the magistrate(IUD, fol. 899). While the translator intended to convey the sense of“marvel” or “wonder,” there is something quite appropriate about hisrendering pretium as “worlde.” For in the appeal of Unam Sanctam tothe hierarchical logic of the “Lex Divinitatis” of the sixth-century Chris-tian neoplatonist Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Boniface VIII for-mulates a distilled expression of a “political ontology”—indeed of a

24 See “Of a Magistrate, and of the difference betweene Civill and EcclesiasticallPower,” IUD, fols. 899–907; Kingdon, Political Thought, 31ff., CP 4.13.7–9 and 14–23;see also the scholia on “The powers that be are ordained of God,” ROM, fol. 642–644;Kingdon, Political Thought, 5, 6; and “Whether two heads may be in the Church, onevisible and another invisible,” In Duos Libros Samuelis, CP 4.3.10. For a critical discussionof Vermigli’s use of the Corpus Iuris Canonici see Kingdon, Political Thought, viii & ix.

25 The Bull was formally issued on 18 November of the same year. The original isno longer in existence; the oldest text in the registers of Boniface VIII in the Vaticanarchives, Reg. Vatic., L, fol. 387. There is no doubt of the genuineness of the Bull. UnamSanctam is incorporated under Extravagantes Decretales Communes, I.8.1, ‘De Maioritateet Obedientia’, CICan, vol. 2, col. 1245–1246. An English translation of the Bull isavailable in Brian Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, 1050–1300 (Toronto: Universityof Toronto Press, 1988), 188–189; see also Tierney’s discussion of the dispute betweenBoniface VIII and Philip the Fair, 180–185.

26 For a discussion of the authorship of the Bull see David Luscombe, “The ‘LexDivinitatis’ in the Bull ‘Unam Sanctam’ of Pope Boniface VIII,” in C.N.L. Brooke, et al.,eds., Church and Government in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1976), 215. Aegidius Romanus or Giles of Rome, Archbishop of Bourges (1243–1316),was the author of De ecclesiastica potestate (On Ecclesiastical Power), edited and translatedby Arthur P. Monahan, Texts and Studies in Religion, vol. 41 (Lewiston, Queenston,and Lampeter: Mellen Press, 1990); there is another recent translation by R.W. Dyson,(Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1986). Giles, known as doctor verbosus, presents herea considerably extended version of the argument of the Bull; he also dedicated thetreatise to his patron Boniface.

66 chapter two

complete cosmic vision—which is deeply, though as we shall see, nottotally at odds with the Augustinian assumptions underpinning Ver-migli’s own thought. Through his polemical use of the Bull, Vermiglisucceeds in elevating the conflict between the traditional scholasticinterpretation of Romans 13 and his own reformed reading of the textto the profound level of a theological tension between the two leadingtraditions of Christian Platonism, viz. the Pseudo-Dionysian and theAugustinian.27 At the Augustinian pole, emphasis is placed upon theutter incommensurability between the orders of grace and nature. Ver-migli, along with the reformers generally, follows Augustine in lookingdirectly to the incarnate Christ to accomplish an immediate union of thesoul with God by grace alone in a “forensic” justification. Luther, forexample, adopts a consciously Augustinian stance in his criticism of thelack of an explicitly Christological mediation between the soul and thedivine in the Pseudo-Dionysian spirituality.28 By contrast, at the pole ofPseudo-Dionysian spirituality, the orders of grace and nature constitutea contiguous, ascending hierarchy wherein the soul’s approach to Godis accomplished by a graduated process of mediation. Consistent with thislatter approach, the hierarchical mediation of certain communal, litur-gical, and sacramental functions is deemed necessary in the “transfor-mational process” of salvation.29 The tension between these two greattheological traditions of Christian Platonism lies at the very heart ofVermigli’s critique of the fourteenth-century canonists’ interpretationof Romans 13 and, by extension, of the hermeneutic embodied in theecclesiology of the Council of Trent.

27 For a particularly helpful discussion of the historical interplay between the polit-ical theologies of Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius, see Wayne J. Hankey, “‘Diony-sius dixit, lex divinitatis est ultima per media reducere:’ Aquinas, Hierocracy and the‘Augustinisme Politique’,” Medioevo XVIII (1992), 119–150 and idem “Augustinian Imme-diacy and Dionysian Mediation in John Colet, Edmund Spenser, Richard Hooker andthe Cardinal de Bérulle,” in Dominique de Courcelles, ed., Augustinus in der Neuzeit(Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), 125–132, 159, 160. See also Louis Dupré, Passage to Moder-nity: An Essay in the Hermeneutics of Nature and Culture (New Haven: 1993), 167–189.

28 Paul Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius: A Commentary on the Texts and an Introduction to theirInfluence, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) 126, 220.

29 See, e.g., Pius IV, Professio Fidei Tridentinæ, first published in the bull “Injunctumnobis” of 13 November 1564; repr. H. Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum etDeclarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum, 37th edition, (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1991),587–589 (nos. 1862–1870). For an English translation see Martin D.W. Jones, The CounterReformation: Religion and Society in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1995), 70.

the union of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction 67

Unam Sanctam, as the Bull’s title suggests, is concerned chiefly withthe unity of the Church.30 To this end Boniface propounds the doctrineof the papal plenitude of power (plenitudo potestatis) and consequentlyupholds first and foremost the subordination of temporal to spiritualjurisdiction:

One sword ought to be subordinated to the other, and temporal author-ity subjected to spiritual power. For, since the Apostle said: ‘There is nopower except from God and those that are, are ordained of God’ [Rom13:1–2], they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinatedto the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards bythe other. For according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is the law of divinity(lex divinitatis) that the lowest things are led to the highest by intermedi-aries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not ledback equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, andthe inferior by the superior … Therefore if the terrestrial power err, itwill be judged by the spiritual power.31

The document epitomizes the scholastic interpretation of the Gelasianecclesiology of the “two swords” as shaped by Hugh of St. Victor,Bernard of Clairvaux, Albertus Magnus, St. Bonaventure and ThomasAquinas, all of whom were deeply influenced by the Pseudo-Dionysianspiritual and theological tradition.32 In Vermigli’s summary of this alter-

30 The reference is to the Nicene Creed: “et [credo] in unam sanctam catholicam etapostolicam ecclesiam.”

31 CICan, vol. 2, col. 1245–1246. The passage continues: “Therefore if the terrestrialpower err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual powererr, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of allerr, it can be judged only by God, and not by man … This authority is not humanbut rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him and hissuccessors … Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists theordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings …” SeeTierney, Crisis of Church and State, 188, 189. David Luscombe notes the close similaritybetween the logic employed here and the argument put forward by Giles of Rome inhis treatise on ecclesiastical power, “Lex divinitatis in Unam Sanctam,” 206, 215–217.See also Giles of Rome, De ecclesiastica potestate, I.4, pp. 17–20 and Arthur Monahan’sintroduction, xxvii.

32 Luscombe, “Lex divinitatis in Unam Sanctam,” 208–217. Hugh of St. Victor, Onthe Sacraments of the Christian Faith, transl. Roy J. Deferrari, Cambridge, Mass. 1951, 2.2.4–7, 256–258 and also Hugh’s Commentariorum in Hierarchiam Coelestem S. Dionysii Areopagite,PL 175, 1099. Bernard of Clairvaux, Five Books on Consideration: Advice to a Pope, transl.J.D. Anderson and Elizabeth T. Kennan, Kalamazoo 1976. See “Super Dionysium decælesti hierarchia” in Albertus Magnus, Opera omnia, Monasterii Westfalorum 1951–,t. 36, Ia pars. For Aquinas’s formulation of the lex divinitatis see Summa Theologica IIa,IIæ Q. 172, art. 2. See also Monahan’s introduction to Giles of Rome, De EcclesiasticaPotestate, ix–xxvii.

68 chapter two

native exposition of Romans 13, the ecclesiology of the Bull is reducedto a single, straightforward syllogism:33 all power is ordained by God; allpowers are hierarchically ordered with respect to one another accord-ing to the lex divinitatis; therefore, given Christ’s affirmation in the gospelof the sufficiency of the two swords,34 the spiritual sword must by neces-sity regulate the temporal.35 The syllogism thus hangs on the interpre-tation of the precise manner of divine ordination, that is to say howexactly the higher powers are “ordained of God.” According to Gilesof Rome, the putative architect of Unam Sanctam, “if the lower thingswere brought to the highest in the same way an intermediary is, therewould be no right order in the universe.”36 On this account, the tempo-ral authority cannot claim an “immediate” relation to the divine sourceof power without violating the “order of the universe,” for accordingto the lex divinitatis the due subordination of the lower things to thehighest is nothing less than a cosmic law. For Vermigli, however, whofollows a distinctly Augustinian logic, the first principle of order doesnot consist primarily in a gradual, hierarchical mediation but rather ina simple, binary distinction between two principal species of subjection,namely the political/external and the spiritual/ internal. Unlike Boni-face’s appeal to a subordination of the temporal to the spiritual poweraccording to the lex divinitatis, Vermigli’s two species of power cannot beordered hierarchically, as remarked previously, owing to their incom-mensurability. Thus, there are simply “two subjections,” one civil andthe other spiritual.According to Boniface, however, such an assertion of the incommen-

surability of the two swords risks the charge of Gnostic dualism. Thepapal plenitude of power “is not human, but rather divine, granted toPeter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him and his successors …Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists theordinance of God [Rom 13: 2], unless he invent like Manicheus two

33 J. Rivière, Le problème de l’église et de l’état au temps de Philippe le Bel: Étude de théologiepositive, Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, VIII (Paris: Librairie Ancienne H. Champion,E. Champion, 1926), 396.

34 Luke 22:38.35 In a series of important monographs Walter Ullmann has designated this the

“descending theme” in medieval discourse on ecclesiastical power. See Principles ofGovernment and Politics in the Middle Ages, 3rd ed., New York 1974; see also WalterUllmann, Law and Politics in the Middle Ages: An Introduction to the Sources of Medieval PoliticalIdeas, Ithaca 1975, 30ff.

36 De Ecclesiastica potestate, I.4, transl. Monahan, 18.

the union of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction 69

beginnings …”37 On the one hand, it might appear, at least superfi-cially, that Vermigli’s Augustinian insistence upon the incommensura-bility of the “two subjections” has led him precisely into the Manicheandualism envisaged by Boniface. On the other hand, however, Vermigli’sascription of ecclesiastical supremacy to the magistrate appears to con-flate the civil and ecclesiastical powers and thus to raise the contrarylogical difficulty. Both his first principles and his practical conclusionstake issue with the hierarchical logic of the lex divinitatis as interpretedin Unam Sanctam.

The Prince as Supreme Hierarch

How, then, in the light of these difficulties, does Vermigli interpret thealternative Augustinian dialectic of the “two subjections?” He arguesthat princes are to be called not only “Deacons or Ministers of God,but also Pastors” of the people.38 As pastors the magistrates have thecare of holy things. On the basis of this claim alone, it would seemthat the inversion of the Bull’s logic is complete; the Prince is divinelyappointed to the office of Supreme Hierarch, that is the magistratewhose highest care is for the souls of his subjects: “For we doe notimagine that a Prince is a Neteheard [cowherd] or Swineheard, towhom is committed a care onlie of the fleshe, bellie, and skinne of hissubjectes, yea rather he must provide that they may live vertuouslieand godlie.”39 As we have seen, according to Vermigli’s Aristotelian

37 Unam Sanctam, in CICan, vol. 2, col. 1246.38 IUD, fol. 898; Kingdon, Political Thought, 27. See Anderson, “Royal Idolatry,” 171.39 IUD, fol. 901; Kingdon, Political Thought, 34. For a remarkably similar account see

Richard Hooker, Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie, VIII.3.5; The Folger Library Edition ofthe Works of Richard Hooker, W. Speed Hill (ed.), 7 vols. (London and Cambridge, Mass.:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977–1997), vol. 3, 352.20–353.1: “A grosseerrour it is to think that regall power ought to serve for the good of the bodie andnot of the soule, for mens temporall peace and not their eternall safetie; as if Godhad ordained Kings for no other ende and purpose but only to fatt up men like hoggesand to see that they have their mast? Indeed to leade men unto salvation by the handof secret, invisible and ghostly regiment or by the externall administration of thingesbelonging unto priesly order (such as the worde and Sacramentes are) this is deniedunto Christian Kings, no cause in the world to think them uncapable of supremeauthoritie in the outwarde govement which disposeth the affayres of religion so farrforth as the same are disposable by humane authoritie and to think them uncapablethereof only for that, the said religion is everlastingly beneficiall to them that faythfulliecontinue in it.”

70 chapter two

understanding of the commonwealth as the community of virtue (teleiakoinonia), the promotion of “true religion” is the magistrate’s highestcare. Where in this argument is the Augustinian distinction betweenthe “two subjections?” In making his case, Vermigli both complicatesand clarifies the question by arguing for a mutual subjection of civil andspiritual jurisdiction:

The civill power ought to be subject to the word of God which ispreached by the Ministers. But in lyke manner the Ecclesiasticall poweris subject unto the civill, when the ministers behave themselves ill, eitherin things humane, or things Ecclesiasticall. For these powers are aftera sort interchangeable, and sundrie wayes are occupied about the selfe-same things, and mutuallie helpe one another … The Ecclesiasticall power,is subject unto the Magistrate, not by a spirituall subjection but by a politicke. For astouching the Sacraments and Sermons, it is not subject unto it, becausethe Magistrate may not alter the word of God, or the Sacramentes whichthe Minister useth. Neither can he compel the Pastors and teachers ofthe church to teach otherwise, or in any other sort to administer theSacraments, than is prescribed by the word of God. Howbeit Ministersin that they be men and Citizens, are without all doubt subject togetherwith their landes, riches, and possessions unto the Magistrate.40

Preservation of the right distinction between “spiritual subjection” and“political subjection” demands recognition of the inherently equivocalnature of ecclesiastical power. To the extent that ecclesiastical jurisdic-tion is involved in the “lawes touching outwarde discipline” it is prop-erly subordinated to the rule of the civil magistrate. At the same time,the magistrate is bound to submit to the jurisdiction of that aspectof ecclesiastical power exercised in matters concerning “the inwardemotions of the minde.”41 Thus in the internal and invisible realm of thecivitas Dei, power is immediately derived from the divine source withoutthe mediation of the magistrate; in the external and visible realm ofthe civitas terrena, on the other hand, civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictionare united in the Prince or magistrate. This distinction between twospecies of ecclesiastical subjection reveals how Vermigli is able both tooverthrow and to retain the logic of hierarchical mediation. Closely fol-lowing Augustine, he upholds a Christocentric immediacy in the relation

40 IUD, fol. 901; Kingdon, Political Thought, 35, my italics.41 IUD, fol. 897; Kingdon, Political Thought, 26. In the exercise of spiritual jurisdic-

tion, Christ alone is Supreme Hierarch: “For he is our King … [who] is now gone upinto heaven, yet doeth governe this kingdome of his, indeed not with a visible presence,but by the spirit and word of the holie scriptures.” CP 4, 60. See Anderson, “RoyalIdolatry,” 163.

the union of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction 71

between soul and God in the internal sphere of “spiritual subjection.”In the external sphere of “politike subjection,” however, the logic ofhierarchical mediation continues to lend stability to the institutions ofthe Christian commonwealth. According to Vermigli, bishops, doctors,elders and other ecclesiastical rulers are subject to the architectoniccorrection of the sovereign power “as when David, Joas, Hezekiah andJosiah reformed the religion and priestes.”42 Those “ecclesiasticall men”who deny the supremacy of the magistrate in ecclesiastical matters

still dreame of one civill power that is Ecclesiasticall, and of an other thatis profane. The one of the which they attribute unto the Pope, and theother unto the Magistrate: but all in vaine: for as much as pertainethunto Ecclesiasticall power, the civill Magistrate is sufficient. For he, assaith Aristotle, in his Politikes, must provide, that all men doe theirduetie: both laiers, phisitians, husbandmen, Apothecaries: among whomwe may also recken ministers and preachers … For the church hathElders, who must provide in what order all things ought to be doone,and that all things be in order the Magistrate ought to provide.43

Vermigli’s overriding concern in his rejection of the traditional exemp-tions of the clergy from civil jurisdiction is unity and order in the com-monwealth comprising “all sorts and conditions of men.” Hierarchy issustainable, therefore, not as a principle governing the relation betweenthe spiritual and temporal realms, but rather as the means for securingthe stability and unity of all matters concerning “outward discipline.”Thus, Vermigli overturns Reginald Pole’s claim that civil and ecclesias-tical power are as far distant from one another as heaven and earth andin his Commentary on Samuel observes that the title of headship claimedby King Henry VIII in relation to the Church of England is indeed jus-tified: “And this perhaps is it, why the king of England would be calledhead of his own Church next unto Christ. For he thought that thatpower which the Pope usurped to himselfe was his, and in his ownekingdome pertained to himselfe. The title indeed was unwonted anddispleased manie godlie men: howbeit if we consider the thing it selfe,he meant nothing else but that which we have now said.”44

42 CP 4, 61.43 See the scholium on ISam. 8.7, “Whether two heads may be in the Church, one

visible and another invisible.” CP 4.3.5, fol. 38; compare CP 4.13.7.44 CP 4.3.6, fol. 38. It is probable that Vermigli is alluding here, among others,

to John Calvin who had accused of blasphemy those who used this title to referto the position of Henry VIII with respect to the Church of England. See Calvin’s“Commentary on Amos,” 7:10–13, Opera quæ supersunt omnia, ed. G. Baum, E. Caunitz

72 chapter two

What conclusions, then, may we draw from this inquiry? First—andperhaps most remarkably—the uniting of civil and ecclesiastical juris-diction in the person of the civil magistrate becomes for Vermigli thevery instrument whereby the binary Augustinian distinction betweenthe “two kindes of subjection” is finally and safely secured. Indeed theclear distinction between the orders of Grace and Nature reflected inVermigli’s own reformed soteriology appears to lead him to this for-mulation of the constitutional arrangement of civil and ecclesiasticalpower. In this argument there is, moreover, a remarkable conjunctionof Aristotelian and Augustinian political theory. Vermigli’s Augustiniancritique of the Dionysian lex divinitatis as interpreted in the Bull UnamSanctam, renders ecclesiastical power simultaneously both more radi-cally spiritual and more human and worldly: the power exercised byministers through the Word in the “inward motions of the minde”is sharply distinguished from that wielded by the magistrate throughthe sword in matters of “outward discipline.”45 Conversely, civil powerhas become sacralised, chiefly owing to its unmediated link with thedivine fount of power. And while Boniface VIII’s interpretation of theDionysian lex divinitatis has been repudiated, the hierarchical princi-ple itself has nonetheless been reconfirmed in a secular guise. Indeed,owing to Vermigli’s adherence to the Aristotelian conception of thearchitectonic function of political power, the logic of hierarchical medi-ation is reaffirmed by him as essential to the stable ordering of externalpolitical community, both civil and ecclesiastical. It is the hierarchicalprinciple itself which demands the subordination of ecclesiastical per-sons to the ruling authority of the civil magistrate in all matters whichtouch “outward discipline.” In his interpretation of Romans 13 Ver-migli’s Augustinian Christo-centrism is normative in shaping his rejec-tion of the hierarchical mediation between the orders of nature andgrace, between the realms of the “two subjections.” At the same time,however, within the order of nature—that is within the external, tem-poral realm of political existence—the hierarchical rule that the loweris led back to the higher through the intermediate power continues tohold. In the realm of “the inwarde motions of the minde,” however,“Christ alone is given to be head of the Church for the Church is acelestial, divine, and spirituall bodie; … for regeneration and remission

and E. Reuss (Brunswick: 1963–1900), vol. xliii. 134. I am grateful to one of thereviewers of this essay for this reference.

45 IUD, fol. 897; Kingdon, Political Thought, 26.

the union of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction 73

of sinnes doe flowe from the spirite of Christ and not from man … . Sothat everie sense and moving of the church floweth from Christ alone,not from any mortall man.”46 In the realm of “politike subjection,” onthe other hand, the magistrate assumes the role of Supreme Hierarch,the very “lex animata” who gives life and orderly motion to the manifoldmembers of the body politic:

And kings maie be called the heads of the Commonweale … For evenas from the head is derived all the sense and motion into the bodie, sothe senses by good lawes, and motions, by edictes and commandementsare derived from the prince unto the people. And this strength exceedethnot the naturall power … For vertue springeth of frequented Actions. Sowhen as princes by lawes and edictes drive their subiects unto actions,they also drive them unto vertues. But the spirit of God and regenerationare not attained by manie actions, but onelie by the blessings of God.47

Thus, Vermigli’s rejection of the hierarchical lex divinitatis is best under-stood as qualified. By this argument, the goals of unity, order and peacepursued by Boniface VIII by means of the assertion of the papal pleni-tude of power are sought equally by Vermigli in the Christian common-wealth, albeit through the due subordination of all subjects, in all mat-ters civil and ecclesiastical, to the supreme magistrate. In this fashionthe lex divinitatis is reinterpreted within an Augustinian and Aristotelianframework as a key stabilising principle of early-modern, secular politi-cal life in general and of the Tudor state in particular.

46 CP 4.3.2, fol. 36.47 CP 4.3.1, 2, fols. 35, 36.

text

PETER MARTYR VERMIGLI

Of a Magistrate, and of the differencebetweene Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall power1

Now it remains to address the Magistrate,2 [897] whom I judge canbe described as a person chosen and instituted by God to defend thedivine laws in matters of external discipline, by inflicting bodily punish-ment upon transgressors and by supporting and encouraging the good.The divine plan selects many people who do not act as magistrates.The ministers of the Church are such an example. They still defend

1 I wish to thank my research assistant, M. Nicholas Dion, graduate student in theFaculty of Religious Studies at McGill University, for his contribution to the translationof this text from the Latin original. The text reproduced here is an extended scholiumdrawn from lectures given on the Book of Judges during Vermigli’s second periodas professor at Strasbourg in the presence of Marian Exiles resident there, includingRichard Cox and John Jewel. Following the death of Edward VI in 1553, Vermigli hadbeen provided by the government with a passport of safe conduct “which after he hadobtained yet his friendes scarcelie beleeued, that although he had had received theQueens Letters, that he could depart away safe. For his aduersaries said, that so greatan enemie of the Popes Religion should not be suffered to scape out of their hands, butshould be plucked euen out of the ship to prison and punishment.” His good friendThomas Cranmer met with a less fortunate end. Josiah Simler, “An Oration of thelife and death of that worhtie man and excellent Diuine D. Peter Martyr Vermilius,professor of Diuinitie in the Schoole of Zuricke,” Another Collection of certein Diuine mattersand doctrines of the same M.D. Peter Martyr, translated by Anthonie Marten (London: HenryDenham, 1583), Qq.iij. recto.

2 Titled ‘De Magistratu’, the scholium appears at the conclusion of Vermigli’s com-mentary on the Book of Judges, chapter 19. The commentary was first published in aLatin edition at Zurich under the title In librum Iudicum D. Petri Martyris Vermilij Florentini… commentarij doctissimi (Zurich: Christopher Froschauer, 1561) and three years later inEnglish translation by John Day under the title Most fruitfull [and] learned co[m]mentaries ofDoctor Peter Martir Vermil Florentine, professor of deuinitie, in the Vniuersitye of Tygure: with a veryprofitable tract of the matter and places (London: John Day, 1564), fols. 255 recto–267 recto.For a recent edition of this sixteenth-century translation, see Kingdon, Political Writings,26–61. Professor Kingdon’s edition is most helpful and has provided a solid foundationfor the annotation of this new translation. The foliation provided in square bracketsrefers to the authoritative Latin text of the scholium published in Loci communes: Ex variisipsius aucthoris & libris in unum volumen collecti, & quatour classes distribute, ed. Robert Mas-son, 3 vols. (London: John Kingston, 1576).

76 chapter two

God’s word and laws, but not only in matters of external instruction. Itis the duty of ministers to reach into the depths and motions of soulsby way of the divine word. The Holy Spirit acts here as well, joiningHis strength with that of orthodox preaching and of the sacramentsdistributed by the Church. The magistrate works alone in edifying andpunishing transgressors. The minister binds the guilty and the incor-rigible in the name of God, and excludes them from the kingdom ofHeaven unless they correct their ways. The magistrate inflicts exter-nal punishment, working through the use of the sword. Both ministersand magistrates act to nurture the pious, but in different ways. Themagistrate increases them in works, honours and merits. The ministerconsoles them through the promises of God and the sacraments. Themagistrate assures that the laws are kept most carefully, the guilty arepunished, and the good are both helped and nurtured. The law actsas a mute magistrate, while the magistrate represents the moving andspeaking law. Certainly he is also a minister of God since, as Paul said,magistrates sing the praises of those who live justly.3 The magistratewields the sword against the wicked, acting as the avenger and cham-pion of God, and looks to nothing else but the salvation of men.

The manifold forms of the Magistrate’s power

There is no single form for a magistrate. He may be a monarch, anaristocrat, a constitutional man or tyrant, an oligarch or a democrat.4

Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers [898] have elegantly expoundedthe descriptions and natures of these forms.5 Of all these forms, the

3 Rom. 13:3.4 See commentary on 1Samuel 8:6, In duos libros Samuelis Prophetæ qui vulgo Priores libri

Regum appellantur D. Petri Martyris Vermilii Florentini, professoris diuinarum literarum in scholaTigurina, Commentarii doctissimi, cum rerum & locorum plurimorum tractatione perutili (Zurich:C. Froschauer, 1564).

5 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, VIII.10.1–3 (Bekker 1160a31): “Now there are threeforms of constitution, and also an equal number of perversions or corruptions of thoseforms. The constitutions are Kingship, Aristocracy, and thirdly, a constitution based ona property classification, which it seems appropriate to describe as timocratic, althoughmost people are accustomed to speak of it merely as a constitutional government orRepublic. The best of these constitutions is Kingship, and the worst Timocracy. Theperversion of Kingship is Tyranny. Both are monarchies, but there is a very widedifference between them: a tyrant studies his own advantage, a king that of his subjects.For a monarch is not a king if he does not possess independent resources, and is notbetter supplied with goods of every kind than his subjects; but a ruler so situated lacks

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 77

best one must provide a good or tolerable state for everyone lest itdegenerate into vice. When tyrants or princes who conduct mattersshamefully come to power, they must be endured as much as is per-mitted by the word of God. When the Jews were oppressed by thestrength of the Babylonians, God warned them to endure6 and prayfor the king7 although he was a tyrant, and had captured the king-dom of the Hebrews most unlawfully. Even though Cæsar held Judeaby tyranny, still Christ said, Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Cae-sar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.8 The Apostles also taught thatwe must serve princes and pray for them.9 Nero was a most impurebrute, yet in the Epistle to the Romans, the Apostle shows that we mustobey princes not only out of fear but because of conscience.10 Phocasobtained the Empire of Rome by a most evil device, and killed bothhis Prince Mauritius and his sons.11 Still the Romans recognised him asEmperor, and Pope Gregory I was allowed to read his commands andwritings to the people. One may wish to identify the characteristics of aCommonwealth, and ask whether the Jews possessed one. This is easyto explain. At first, the Jews had an aristocracy. Approving of Jethro’scounsel, God declared that the wise, the strong and those fearful of Godshould be chosen to manage the Commonwealth.12 As was prophesied,God ordered that seventy men be chosen to help Moses manage thestate, and He breathed his spirit into them.13 Thus were the Israelitesruled, although a monarchy was later instituted.

nothing, and therefore will not study his own interests but those of his subjects. (A kingwho is not independent of his subjects [i.e., elected by them] will be merely a sort oftitular king). Tyranny is the exact opposite in this respect, for the tyrant pursues hisown good. The inferiority of Tyranny among the perversions is more evident than thatof Timocracy among the constitutions, for the opposite of the best must be the worst.”See also Plato, Republic 544C; Cicero, De Republica, I.41–45.

6 Jer. 27:12.7 Jer. 29:7.8 Matt. 22:21.9 Rom. 13:1; 1Pet. 2:13. These two texts are the scriptural loci classici for Reformed

political theology.10 Rom. 13:5.11 Phocas was a non-commissioned officer in the Roman army when he seized

power by murdering the emperor Mauritius in 602CE. He ruled for eight years.12 Deut. 1:9; Exod. 18:14.13 Num. 11:16.

78 chapter two

That Princes may be called Pastors

It must not be omitted that princes are not only referred to in holywritings as deacons or ministers of God, but also as pastors. Ezekielcomplained heavily of this, for these pastors cruelly and perversely fedthe people.14 Homer called his king Agamemnon π��μενα λ�ν, “shep-herd of the people”.15 These pastors should not behave like soldiers ormercenaries, oppressing and skinning the people, but they should serve,nurture and feed like shepherds. Princes are also called fathers, for theRomans called their senators patres conscripti, “enlisted fathers.”16 Norwas there a greater or more ancient honour in the Commonwealththan to be called pater patriae, “father of the homeland.”17 Therefore, thedivine commandment “Honour your father and your mother” mustalso apply to princes, who should give paternal adoration in return.18

Princes should never forget that they do not rule over beasts but overmen, and that they themselves are also men. They should therefore bemuch better and superior to those men whom they rule. Otherwise,they are not fit to rule. We do not give any sheep command over theother sheep. It is given first to a ram, and then to a shepherd abovehim. Just as a shepherd rules the sheep, so is a magistrate commis-sioned to rule his people. Therefore, magistrates should surpass theirpeople. We must also consider who installs magistrates. Sometimes thisis done by a consenting senate, sometimes by popular vote, by mili-tary decision, or by hereditary succession. These are but instruments.God Himself is the proper cause of magistrates. This may be shown inmany ways. First, a certain light is ignited in the souls of men, allowing

14 Ezek. 34.15 Homer, Iliad, transl. Richmond Lattimore (Chicago: Chicago University Press,

1951), II.244.16 In Latin, ‘Patres et conscripti,’ i.e. the Roman senate. See T. Livy, Ab urbe condita, 2.1.

According to ancient tradition, Romulus instituted a senate consisting of one hundredelders called Patres. After the Sabines joined the State, another hundred were added.Tarquinius Priscus, the fifth king, added a third hundred, called Patres Minorum Gentium.When Tarquinius Superbus, the seventh and last king of Rome, was banished, severalof the senate followed him, and the vacancies were filled up by Junius Brutus, the firstconsul. The new members were enrolled in the senatorial register, and called Conscripti;the entire body was then addressed as Patres [et] Conscripti or Patres Conscripti.

17 The epithet pater patriæ was first conferred by the Roman Senate on M. TulliusCicero for his role in the suppression of the conspiracy of Catiline. It was later con-ferred on Julius Cæsar, Cæsar Augustus, and many other emperors, but was not theemperor’s title by right.

18 Exod. 20:12.

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 79

them to understand that they cannot live without a prince. Out of thisthe office of the magistrate emerges. The divine law also commandsthat one should obey the magistrate.19 Even before the gift of the law,this same command was given by Moses in the book of Genesis. Godhad appointed that whoever sheds human blood, his blood should alsobe shed.20 Certainly, this should not be done thoughtlessly or by any-one, for that would be absurd. God did not order this secretly withthe intention of giving His approval to murder. Paul writes that Thereis no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.21

Christ responded to Pilate, You would have no power over me unless it had beengiven you from above.22 These passages and arguments make it clear thatGod is truly the proper cause of magistrates.This argument is mocked by others. They say that if every magistrate

is divinely given, then each should always rule without fault. Yet thereare many examples of princes acting perversely and viciously towardsthe Commonwealth. Under the rule of Nero, Domitian, Commodus,Caracalla and Heliogabalus, good laws were condemned, good menwere killed, and the discipline of the city was corrupted.23 If the magis-trate were truly from God, they claim, these things should never haveoccurred. This reason does not move us, nor should it. The office mustbe distinguished from the individual. An evil and wicked magistratemay still possess a good and useful power. There is nothing so goodthat evil men cannot use it to their ends. It is not surprising that goodmen still drew good and pleasant experiences from the rule of kingsand emperors who abused the power given to them. I have shown suchcases previously. The testimony of Daniel makes it plain that magis-trates are divinely ordained,24 for God gives and transfers kingdoms atHis own discretion. Then we see that the monarch has been at times inthe east, at times in the south, and afterwards in the west, and some-times has been compelled into the north. At times there were goodprinces, at other times evil. Sometimes noble men ruled, and often menof ordinary birth did. Of course these men were often unable to gain

19 Deut. 17:12.20 Gen. 9:6.21 Rom. 13:1.22 John 19:11.23 This theme is emphasized, e.g., by Lactantius in his essay De mortibus persecutorum.

See L. Coeli Lactantii Firmiani Divinarum institutionum libri septem (Antwerp: Johannes Stel-sius, 1570).

24 Dan. 2:21 & 37.

80 chapter two

the power necessary either to acquire or to hold a kingdom. It is mostabsurd to think that these things were done by chance and without theprovidence of God.

The alterations of Princes must not be attributed to the stars

An astronomer may perhaps argue that such changes are under theinfluence of the stars. Daniel, the minister of truth, said that God altersthe times. Just as He has set seasonal changes within a year, so attimes he has set up or removed princes according to His judgement.He cast down Saul and lifted up David, foretelling His own actionslest it appear to occur by chance or accident.25 [899] Kingdoms andCommonwealths can thus be called workshops of the divine will. Thedivine will exists in these kingdoms, even though most princes donot understand it, because God ordered their creation. God calledon the Medes and the Assyrians to afflict the Israelites. Once thiswas accomplished, He repelled and drove away the invaders.26 Heroused the Persians against the Chaldeans, then the Greeks againstthe Persians, and finally the Romans against the other nations. Whodivided the kingdom of the Hebrews into Judea and Israel if not God?Abia the Silonite predicted that this division would occur, saying thatword would soon come forth from the Lord.27 Who overthrew Ahab?Who took care that Jesse was anointed if not God? While I grantthat there are certain tyrants who would break apart commonwealths,nonetheless we deserve these actions by virtue of our wickedness.We pose so many shameful acts that they cannot all be corrected by

the magistrate’s usual means, by gentle and soft management of things.God wills that tyrants should strike the people, at times restrainingand calming His petitions to insert good and pious princes. After Godbrought down Nero, He installed Vespasian, then Domitian, Nervaand Trajan. They were followed by Commodus, Pertinax and Severus.Then came Heliogabalus and Alexander. There are those who saythat the wicked acts of tyrants are not from God, but that the tyrantsthemselves cause such things. They thus conclude that empires andkingdoms are not from God. Here, they are making conclusions based

25 1Sam. 16:1.26 Isaiah 10:5 & 22.27 1Kings 11:30.

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 81

on a false syllogism from that which is in some respect unto that whichis without qualification (a secundum quid ad simpliciter). It is incorrect toconclude that since certain actions of a magistrate are not from God,the magistrate is not from God. Either this, or they argue falsely fromaccidental causes (ab accidentibus). Vicious and wicked things occur topublic powers, but their nature is not necessarily responsible for this. Acertain man will doubt whether it is permitted for a pious man to seekthe help of a magistrate who is both a gentile and also a tyrant. Whatof it? Paul appealed to Cæsar, one of the worst tyrants.28 At first glance,it may appear that Paul acted against his own precept, for he criticisedChristians who pleaded their cases in the tribunals of gentiles.29 On thisaccount Paul exposes the Corinthians, because there were Christiansin the Church who could have heard their cases. Paul did not agreethat Christians should quarrel with other Christians before a tribunalof impious men.30 When Paul appealed to Cæsar, his business was notwith other Christians, but with the Jews and the Roman ruler only.Since Paul did not share his faith with the magistrate and, with his lifebeing sought, he could not have acted otherwise. Therefore, he did nowrong in imploring the aid and intervention of the common magistrate,even although he was a gentile. Just as we make daily use of the sunand the moon so is it permitted to employ the services of the publicmagistrate, of whatever sort he may be.

The gentiles made use of a gentile magistrate

The Christian Church behaved similarly when the emperors were notChristian. Paul of Samosata was condemned as a heretic and cast downfrom his rank of bishop. Since he did not want to vacate the bishop’spalace, help was sought from the emperor Aurelianus who saw to itthat the house was handed over to the new bishop.31 Who would saythat the Church sinned here in making use of a public magistrate whowas not faithful? Let us return to our original argument and firmlyacknowledge that the magistrate is from God, even though our sins

28 Acts 25:11.29 1Corinthians 6:3.30 1Corinthians 6:1–6.31 D. Eusebii Pamphili Cæsareæ Palestinæ episcopi ecclesiasticæ historiæ libri IX, ed. Beatus

Rhenanus (Antwerp: Johannes Steelsius, Anno 1548), VII.30.19.

82 chapter two

bring about many wicked and unfair things. This position appears tocontradict the prophet Hosea, who wrote They have set up kings, but notthrough me.32 One must realise that Hosea was speaking of tyrants, whoneither looked to laws, nor nurtured the good, nor removed evil fromamong the people. For these reasons their reign did not come fromGod, but was grounded in their own desires and feelings, which hadno regard for the divine law. These tyrants invaded kingdoms underthe direction of their own passions and ambitions, unlike those whofelt the call of God to a kingdom. Nor did they assume power by awill to obey the divine call, but sought instead to satisfy their ownambitions. This cannot be called reigning by divine authority. Yet tosuppose that they were not promoted to a kingdom through the willof God is effectively contrary to the entirety of Scripture. God calledNebuchadnezzar as his servant because He wished to abuse the king’sposition in order to injure the Israelites.33 Had he not been impelledby the divine will but had instead been pursuing his own passions anddesires, one could have said that Nebuchadnezzar did not rule fromGod when he fought against the Jews. Therefore, Hosea’s statementin no way contradicts us, since we believe the magistrate to be fromGod and we should obey him. Paul wrote, Let every person be subject tothe governing authorities.34 The same is said in his letter to Titus and inthe First Epistle of Peter.35 In his Epistle to Timothy, Paul adds that oneshould pray for these authorities.36 But the Papists and those who wouldcall themselves churchmen (ecclesiastici) will not hear this argument.They insist on their exemption from ordinary public authority, eventhough the Apostles did not consider themselves exempt when theysaid, Let every person be subject to the governing authorities and, He who resiststhe authorities resists what God has appointed.37 Commenting on this passageChrysostom wrote that this law includes apostles, prophets, evangelistsand monks. Chrysostom wrote this of men within the church, eventhough he himself was patriarch (praesul) of Constantinople, and theemperors were then Christian.38

32 Hosea 8:4.33 Jeremiah 27:6.34 Romans 13:1.35 Titus 3:1; 1Peter 2:13–14.36 1Timothy 2:2.37 Romans 13:1, 2.38 John Chrysostom, In Epistolam Divi Pauli ad Romanos Homiliæ octo priores, Germano

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 83

Indeed it is truly a marvel (pretium) to hear arguments that are usedby these false churchmen. Boniface VIII (of whom they write that hewalked like a fox, reigned like a lion, and died like a dog) says thatthere are two swords in the Church.39 Though this seemed to be saidrashly, Boniface cited these words from Luke 22: When I sent you outwith no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything? They said, Nothing.40

Christ added, But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag.And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. And they said, Look,Lord, here are two swords. And he said to them, It is enough.41 Boniface saysthat two swords are enough for the Church, and that one indeed istemporal while the other is spiritual. Those who claim that Peter didnot literally have a sword fail to understand the words of Christ whenHe said to Peter, Bury your [900] sword in its sheath.42 Yours, Christ said,not another man’s. Peter owned a sword, but he was ordered to keep itsafe. Still, some order must be conserved in these swords. These powerswere ordained by God. There would be great confusion in the Churchif one of these swords was not ruled by the other. Boniface claims,therefore, that the temporal sword should be ruled by the spiritual. Toexplain this further, he says that the church has two swords, but thatit does not use them both in the same way. She wields the spiritualsword directly, but the temporal sword should be bound by the will andsufferance of the Church. This is difficult to see, as is often the casewith allegories. The idea is that the sword of the emperor should betrained as subject solely to the Pope’s will and judgement. When hegives his consent, it (viz. the temporal sword) should strike. It shouldalso hasten to strike as long as the Church suffers or strikes with its ownsword. These things must be set in order so that the temporal swordmay be led back to God through the mediation of the spiritual sword.Dionysius (who is thought to be the Aeropagite, although he may infact be another) says concerning this that everything lower is led tothe highest by means of something intermediate. The temporal sword

Brixio … Interprete, Nunc primum & uersæ & editæ (Basle: Froben, 1533) 23.1; PG 60,615.

39 Vermigli refers to Boniface VIII’s famous bull Unam Sanctam, incorporated in theCorpus Iuris Canonici under the title Extravagantes Decretales Communes, I.8.1, “De Maioritateet Obedientia,” ed. Emil Friedberg (Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1879; repr. Graz:Akademische Druk-u. Verlagsanstalt, 1955, 1959) vol. 2, col. 1245–1246.

40 Luke 22:35.41 Luke 22:35–38.42 Matthew 26:52.

84 chapter two

must be bound to the Pope’s approval in order for it to be led backto God.43 This is the case even now. Whenever the Most Holy Fatherapproves taking up arms against the Lutherans, he expects the emperorto obey immediately.44 If one prince is not sufficiently obedient to him,ambassadors are immediately sent here and there, so that every kingand prince may conform to the Pope’s will, while those who refuse areturned around and shaken.Boniface later added that he was above all kings and princes, since

the importance of a given jurisdiction should be judged according tothe value of the matters that it deals with. Popes are associated withspiritual matters, he said, and magistrates with temporal matters. Thetemporal sword is therefore inferior to the spiritual sword. Bonifaceproposed another reason, saying that magistrates paid tithes to theChurch, and that tithes are paid by the lower authority to the higher.So when kings and princes pay tithes, they admit that their lands andrevenues pertain to the Church, and that they are therefore liable.45

43 CICan, Extravagantes decretales communes, 1.8.1, ed. Friedberg, vol. 2, col. 1245–1246:“One sword ought to be subordinated to the other, and temporal authority subjectedto spiritual power. For, since the Apostle said: ‘There is no power except from Godand those that are, are ordained of God’ [Rom 13:1–2], they would not be ordained ifone sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, werenot led upwards by the other. For according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is the law ofdivinity that the lowest things are led to the highest by intermediaries. Then, accordingto the order of the universe, all things are not led back equally and immediately, butthe lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior … Therefore if theterrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritualpower err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest powerof all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man … This authority is nothuman but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to himand his successors … Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God,resists the ordinance of God [Romans 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two begin-nings …”.

44 By way of example, in the autumn of 1546, four months after Martin Luther’sdeath, the Pope and the Emperor agreed to force Protestants to acknowledge thedecrees of the first session of the Council of Trent by enforcing subscription to the Augs-burg Interim. Sacræ Cæsareæ Maiestatis Declaratio: quomodo in negocio religionis per imperiumusque ad definitionem Concilij generalis uiuendum sit, in Comitijs Augustanis XV. maij, anno 1548.proposita, & publicata, & ab omnibus imperij ordinibus recepta: e germanica lingua in latinam …uersa/Huic accessit reformatio, a Cæsarea Maiestate in declaratione hac promissa ([Cologne]: cumprivilegio Cæsareo Iaspar Gennepæus excudebat, 1548).

45 CICan, 2:1245–1246: “We must recognize the more clearly that spiritual powersurpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual thingssurpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, andconsecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 85

Boniface continues by arguing that he who blesses is greater than hewho is blessed. Furthermore, bishops consecrate and anoint kings. Thegloss adds that only the right arm of kings is anointed in this way, whilebishops are anointed on the head. While kings are anointed with oliveoil, bishops are anointed with the oil of chrism.46 Kings are thereforenecessarily inferior to bishops. Furthermore, kings receive their crownsfrom bishops, as well as their sceptres.47 Samuel installed both Saul andDavid.48 The prophet sent by Elisha anointed Jesse.49 These mattersassociated with bishops are therefore greater than those affairs handledby the kings. Christ said to Peter, Whatever you bind on earth shall be boundin heaven.50 This power is greater than any human power. God said toJeremiah, I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck upand to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.51 Bonifaceconcludes from all of this that the Church is more powerful than anyking and is rightfully exempt from their rule. The profane, lay powerof emperors and kings is judged by ecclesiastical persons. If these menappoint magistrates, they should be allowed to overthrow them. It isfor him who builds to destroy. The spiritual magistrate should thereforejudge the civil magistrate.52 By whom should the spiritual magistrate bejudged if he should commit an offence? Boniface says that the greatershould judge the lesser. If the Pope is the highest power, by whomwill he be judged? By no one, Boniface says, but by God alone.53 Thespiritual power can be judged by no one but by him who judges all

even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establishthe terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good.”

46 Liber sextvs Decretalivm D. Bonifacii Papæ VIII. Suæ integritati vna cum Clementinis &Extrauagantibus, earumque glossis restitutus. Ad exemplar Romanvm diligenter recognitus (Paris:[s.n.], 1612).

47 These are themes noted for their prominence in the Investiture Controversy of theeleventh and twelfth centuries. Uta-Renate Blumenthal, The Investiture Controversy: Churchand Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century (Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, 1988).

48 1Sam. 1:10.49 1Sam. 16:1, 2Kings 9:1.50 Matthew 16:19.51 Jeremiah 1:10.52 CICan, 2:1246: “For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to

establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good.”53 CICan, 2:1246: “if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior

spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, andnot by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle.”

86 chapter two

things.54 Has he not built his tyranny beautifully? He calls himself alone“spiritual”. As if this were not gross enough, the glosser is too foolishto see these absurdities before him when he asks “Can the Pope bespiritual even if he is wicked and unclean?”55 Boniface himself explainsthis distinction. There is but one kind of spiritual person, and anothertype for the temporal estate. Such a spiritual person may reprimand allothers with a brotherly suggestion. He himself should be reprimandedby no one, for if he is spiritual, none of his actions can be admitted asimproper. One who does not live and behave spiritually should neverbe called spiritual because of his rank. Yet many bishops and popesare so called. One must nonetheless acknowledge the Roman bishopas the most spiritual and holy. They teach us to lie, for they wishto call a filthy scamp the holiest. Boniface concludes finally that allkings and emperors should be subject to his power alone. This mustbe done to avoid creating two beginnings (principia), like the Manicheesdid.56 We should obey the words of Moses, and he did not say “Inthe beginnings” but rather “In the beginning (principium), God createdHeaven and earth”.57 Consequently, Boniface claims to define, discernand pronounce that all should obey the Pope as the highest power outof necessity for their salvation. Thus, he concludes that all churchmenare exempt from the civil power.

Of the two powers, civil and ecclesiastical

Before I come to reject this excessively ‘Thrasonical’ boasting,58 it maybe useful to speak a bit more concerning the two powers, which I willcall civil and ecclesiastical. When it is said that the ecclesiastical power

54 1Cor. 2:15.55 See note 209 above.56 CICan, 2:1246: “Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists

the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings,which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses,it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth.Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary forsalvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

57 “In principium creavit Deus cœlum et terram.” Gen. 1:1.58 That is to say “boastful,” after the braggart Thrason, a character in the play

Eunuchus by Terence (158BC). A commentary on this play appeared while Vermigliwas Regius Professor at Oxford. Petri Menenii Lvgdvnensis Commentaria in P. Terentii Andriam& Eunuchum … Quibus accessit Libellus de fabularum origine & earum differentia, de ludorum

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 87

is preferred over all other civil duties, this must be understood rightlyand completely. The word of God supports all ecclesiastical power, soit is nothing without it. Moreover, the word of God is a common ruleby which everything should be arranged and which everyone shouldobey. It teaches how the external sword and the commonwealth shouldbe managed. It shows us how all things should be done by all men.Thus, when the emperor Theodosius raged cruelly and inconsideratelyagainst the Thessalonians, Ambrose persuaded him to wait thirty daysbefore handing down any further death sentence, lest the magistrateact impetuously out of rage and take a decision that might not beremedied afterwards. Ambrose explained that if the emperor punishedthe transgressors later, they could be corrected more effectively.59 Manybishops have often used their authority to intervene in very seriousmatters, either calming or ending cruel wars, by preaching from theword of God. [901] In this way, the ecclesiastical power encompasseseverything, because it draws its propositions from the word of God.There is nothing in this world to which the word of God fails toextend. Those who seek to know what churchmen have to do withthe commonwealth, with warfare, pharmacy, or cooking falter seriously.They say that when a minister of the word takes notice of these things,he violates the law of God, and should be reprimanded according tothe word. Why not warn them? Why not command them to stop theirsinning? The minister’s duty is to correct sinners, not with the swordor through fines, not through prison sentences or exile, but rather byhis own proper function, which is through power of the word of God.Political power extends to all things that pertain to political power, yetin what way? Does the civil power command the appropriate motionsof the soul and of inward repentance? It cannot bring about thesethings. Instead, it provides the individual with the means to bring thesethings about on his own. The civil authority ensures that bishops,pastors and doctors teach purely, reprimand in a fatherly way, andadminister the sacraments according to the word of God. Surely themagistrate cannot do these things by himself, but he should take carethat those who can do it well are available to the people. Both powers

generibus ac tibiarum, quibus modis fiebant, quæ non sunt hactenus à quoquam vel amplius vel magisperspicue tractata (Lvgdvni [Lyon]: I. Tornæsium et G. Gazeium, 1552).

59 Theodoriti episcopi Cyrensis Rerum ecclesiasticarum libri quinque, conversi in Latinum aIoachimo Camerario Pabergensi (Basle: Apud Ioannem Hervagium, 1536), V.17–18.Also Cassiodorus, Historia ecclesiastica tripartita, 9.30.21; CSEL 71, 544.

88 chapter two

thus extend most widely and include all things, but not in the same way.The proper methods of ruling for both powers must be taken from theword of God, which is in the Church.60

Two kinds of subjection

There are, moreover, two kinds of subordination. The first is politicaland civil to which all men are subject. If they offend against these laws,they may rightly expect to be incarcerated, or fined a certain sum ofmoney, exiled, put to death, or otherwise externally punished by themagistrate. If they should behave righteously, they may receive honours,rewards, merit and praise. By this account, the civil power is notsubject to the ministers of the word, because the latter cannot coerceby external punishment. The second kind of subordination is spiritual,that is, through faith and obedience. As some men obtain their officefrom the word of God, they often behave in a certain manner, actingor avoiding, giving way or complying, because they feel that it is thecommand of the word of God. These are the limits of either power.We must also accept the words of Valentinian Cæsar, available in theHistoria Tripartita: “Value that bishop,” he says, “to whom we who rulethe empire can submit our neck, and use his advice like medicine”.61

These words make it clear that the power of the Church lies in givingadvice from the word of God concerning salvation. However, that sameemperor later erred by allowing the people to elect Ambrose bishopof Milan when he was already designated prætor of that city. Whenthe emperor found out that this had happened, he gave thanks toGod, saying that while he had appointed Ambrose to rule the bodiesof men, God wished him to rule their souls as well.62 Valentinian

60 That is to say, the “prophetical office” of the ministry defines both itself and themagisterial function.

61 Cassiodorus, Roman consul and monk (died c. 562), composed a widely usedabstract of the works of the early church historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret,published under the short title of Historia ecclesiastica tripartita. For an edition most likelyavailable to Vermigli see Autores historiæ ecclesiasticæ: Eusebij Pamphili Cæsariensis libri IX.Ruffino interprete. Ruffini Presbyteri Aquileiensis, libri duo … Item ex Theodorito Episcopo Cyrensi,Sozomeno, & Socrate Constantinopolitano libri XII. uersi ab Epiphanio Scholastico, adbreuiati perCassiodorum Senatorem: unde illis tripartitæ historiæ uocabulum, ed. Beatus Rhenanus (Basle:Froben, 1528), 7.8.2–3; CSEL 71,394. See also CICan, Decreti, ‘Valentinianus inperator’,1.63.3, ed. Friedberg, vol. 1, col. 236.

62 CICan, Decreti, ‘Valentinianus inperator’, 1.63.3, ed. Friedberg, vol. 1, col. 235–236.

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 89

did not correctly distinguish between the two functions. How is this?Should the bishops not care for both souls and bodies? If bishopsshould give themselves to gluttony, drunkenness or lascivious living,should they not be punished? Certainly, they should be. Neither mustthe civil magistrate have care for the bodies of men while neglectingthe souls. We do not suppose that the magistrate is a mere cowboyor swineherd, caring only for the stomach, the flesh, and the outerman. Rather, the magistrate should provide that his people may livevirtuously and piously. What if Christian princes fail to correct gravepublic sins committed, ignoring the advice given to them from the wordof God? What should a bishop do then? Ambrose excommunicated theemperor Theodosius because he imposed such grave tyranny upon theThessalonians.63 Pope Innocent excommunicated Arcadius for sendingJohn Chrysostom into exile after he had freely and truly advised him.64

There are also the decrees of the sixth general council requiring thatthere should be two synods in one year. If the princes should desire toimpede this process, they should be excommunicated.65

What does this have to do with our prior argument? We read inEusebius that the Emperor Philip, the first Christian magistrate livingin the times of Origen, wished to be present with the faithful at theEaster Vigil, and to communicate with them in their prayers.66 Thebishop prevented the emperor from being present until he made afull confession of his wicked and disgraceful ways before the wholeassembly of the Church. The bishop argued that the emperor shouldopenly acknowledge his sins, for otherwise he could not be admittedto communion. The bishop applied this to the highest monarch in thewhole world. In such manner the civil power should be subjected to theword of God, which is preached by the ministers.The ecclesiastical power, on the other hand, is subjected to the

civil when the ministers behave badly in civil or ecclesiastical matters.

The office of “Prætor” was one of the ancient magistracies of Rome and carried withit judicial function and elite status. See Claudia Rapp, “The Elite Status of Bishopsin Late Antiquity in Ecclesiastical, Spiritual, and Social Contexts,” Arethusa 33.3 (Fall2000): 379–399.

63 Theodoriti episcopi Cyrensis Rerum ecclesiasticarum libri quinque conversi in Latinum a Ioachi-mo Camerario Pabergensi (Basle: Apud Ioannem Hervagium, 1536), V.17–18.

64 CICan, Decreti, ‘Duo sunt’, 1.96.10, ed. Friedberg, vol. 1, col. 339–340.65 CICan, Decreti, ‘Quoniam quidem’, 1.18.7, ed. Friedberg, vol. 1, col. 55–56.66 D. Eusebii Pamphili Cæsareæ Palestinæ episcopi ecclesiasticæ historiæ libri IX, ed. Beatus

Rhenanus (Antwerp: Joannes Steelsius, Anno 1548), VI. 34.

90 chapter two

These two powers are in a certain way interchangeable, and dealwith the same issues in various ways, and mutually reinforce eachother. Aristotle told Theodectes that rhetoric and dialectic can alsobe called interchangeable skills, because they both deal with similarmatters although in different manners.67 The ecclesiastical power issubject to the magistrate not by a spiritual subjection, but by a politicalone. As it pertains to the sacraments and preaching ecclesiastical poweris not subjected to the political. The magistrate cannot bend the wordof God concerning the sacraments that are employed by ministers. Norcan he call together the pastors or doctors of the Church and tellthem to teach or administer the sacraments in a way other than thatprescribed by the word of God. Nonetheless, seeing that ministers arestill men and citizens with fields, wealth and possessions of their own,they are subject to the scrutiny of the magistrate. Thus both Christ andthe Apostles were accustomed to paying tribute and the entire earlychurch did the same, back in the days when they were most holy men.Their customs also are subject to the censure and judgement of themagistrates.It must be added that ministers are subjected to magistrates not only

concerning those things mentioned above, but also (as I have explainedearlier) concerning their function. If ministers do not teach correctly, orfail to administer the sacraments properly, [902] it is the responsibilityof the magistrate to call them together and see that they do not teachimproperly, nor mix fact with fiction, nor abuse the sacraments, norotherwise betray the divine order. If ministers live badly and wastefully,the magistrate should reject them from the sacred ministry. Solomondid this when he cast down Abiathar and replaced him with Zadok.68

And also in the New Testament. Justinian removed Silverius and Vig-ilius.69 I do not doubt that similar actions were performed by other

67 Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1.1 (Bekker 1345a1–5): “Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic.Both alike are concerned with such things as come, more or less, within the generalken of all men and belong to no definite science. Accordingly all men make use,more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statementsand to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others.” Theodectes wasa rhetorician, tragic poet, and friend of Aristotle. Some ancient writers believed theRhetoric of Aristotle to be the work of Theodectes (Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 2.15.10).Rhet. III.9 is sometimes identified as the ‘Theodectea’.

68 1Kings 2: 26–27.69 Vigilius was pope (537–555) and successor of St. Silverius. The Empress Theodora

exiled Silverius and made Vigilius pope in the expectation that he would compromisewith the Monophysites. Silverius died shortly thereafter. Vigilius himself was later

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 91

princes. I will not argue how just these actions were, but I will say thatthey appeared to be lawful based on the reasons which were presented.Some will say that I speak concerning fact but not concerning right.But I speak of the right also. The king should keep the prescribed lawof the Lord. He is ordained as the guardian not only of the first tableof the law, but also of the second. He who offends according to eithertable attacks the regal power. While a king can remove useless or harm-ful bishops, a bishop cannot cast down a king who has sinned. John [theBaptist] criticises Herod, but does not reject him as king.70 Ambrose andInnocent excommunicated emperors, but they did not promote othersto their positions. Christ called Herod a cunning fox but he did notcarry away his kingdom.71 He paid tribute to that most worthless princeTiberius and He never told anyone to shake off his yoke.72 The Popesshould consider what right they have to remove emperors and kingsfrom their rightful place according to their whim. This was never doneby any prophet or Apostle, or even by Christ. The Popes boast thatthey have great power. Still, whatever power they may have is entirelyfrom the word of God. Popes may teach, preach or advise if they wishto exert their power. Outside these duties, the civil and temporal powerof which they boast so much is alien to the ministers. In sum, there isno great king or emperor who is exempt from the power of the divineword, which is preached by the ministers. Similarly, there is no bishopwho, having offended, should not be reproved by the civil magistrate.The only difference to be found is in the manner of reproof. The min-isters of the Church do this by the word, while magistrates do it byexternal punishments. Still our false churchmen (ecclesiastici) wish to bemagistrates and to rule. Yet Christ did not want to be king. When hewas sought after to be made a king, he immediately withdrew.73 Instead,he clearly indicated that his kingdom was not of this world.74 He alsosaid to the Apostles, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them,and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you.”75

Peter, whose successors these men claim to be, advised ministers not to

deposed by Justinian. See Henry Chadwick, The Church in ancient society: from Galilee toGregory the Great (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).

70 Matthew 14:4.71 Luke 13:32.72 Matthew 17:27.73 John 6:15.74 John 13:36.75 Matthew 20:25–26.

92 chapter two

lord over the clergy.76 Still these men wished to have prisons, soldiersand swords and wars according to their desires.Perhaps they will cite the example of the Asamoneans from the Old

Testament and object that both kings and priests agreed to share theirpower. This history is given in the books of the Maccabees, but wemust determine if this decision was made rightly, or rather wickedlyand ambitiously.77 I judge that this decision transgresses the prescribedorder, for God more than once promised his kingdom to the tribe ofJudah at the time of the Messiah.78 He had previously commandedthe Levites differently, telling them that they should not possess lands79

nor occupy a kingdom amongst their brothers.80 Anyone who wouldclaim that this decision was made by an ancient and hidden revelationof God’s judgement will not reveal the true reason. Such examplesshould not be admitted. I judge that they sinned in this matter. Theyacted correctly when they freed the homeland from tyranny but, thishaving been done, it was not right to invade another kingdom. Nordid God secretly declare that this act displeased him. As we can gatherfrom Josephus, this house (domus) was never without tragedy.81 Still theyobject, claiming that Peter killed Ananias and Sapphira82 and that Paulafflicted Elymas the magician with blindness.83 This is true, but thesethings were done through the word of God, not by force with the swordor by the work of an executioner. We would be surprised if these menacted according to the divine word. Why do they not heed the words ofPaul, in his Epistle to Timothy: “No soldier on service gets entangled in civilianpursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him.”84 If they wish tofight for God, why do they stumble into mundane business? Do theyhave so much free time remaining after completing their own affairsthat they can care for the affairs of others? Let them answer genuinely.Would they permit any king nowadays try to teach the gospels or

76 1Peter 5:3.77 1 and 2Maccabees. In his Antiquities Josephus notes that the original name of

these Maccabees, and their posterity, was “Asamoneans”, derived from Asamoneus, thegreat-grandfather of Mattathias. Antiquitatum Iudaicarum libri XX (Basel: Froben, 1548),XII.6.

78 Genesis 49:10.79 Psalm 89:39.80 Numbers 18:20.81 Josephus, Antiquitatum Iudaicarum, XII.11.82 Acts 5:5 & 10.83 Acts 13:11.84 2Timothy 2:4.

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 93

administer the sacraments? They would not. Neither would God putup with it, since he afflicted Uzziah with leprosy for burning incense toHim.85 Why therefore would they invade foreign territory? Civil andecclesiastical functions must be distinguished. Each office requires aseparate individual. There is no man who can effectively hold bothoffices. Such a task is too difficult.Nevertheless the two offices do reinforce each other. The prince

speaks his judgement. The churchman does not, but instead teacheshow the judgement should be spoken. Do not show a respect of persons injudgement. Do not afflict the poor and the foreigner, do not receive bribes.86 Thepolitical head does not preach, nor does he administer sacraments.If these functions are incorrectly performed, he should punish theministers, lest the false customs be adopted by others in their meetings.There are two considerations here. First, should the civil magistratebe considered both the power and also he who exercises that power?As a Christian, he is doubtlessly subject to the word of God. As he whoexercises that power, he should also be ruled by that same word of God,seeking from it guidelines for ruling and administrating. As a minister ofthe Church, he should look to the ministry and to him who executes it.As an individual, the minister is subjected to the civil power, for he toois a citizen, pays tribute as others do, and is governed by the restraintof custom. As pertains to the ministry though, he is subjected to themagistrate in another way, for the magistrate must correct him shouldhe either teach or administer the sacraments contrary to the word ofGod. Yet the minister is to seek rules and justification for his functionnot from this magistrate’s regiment but from the word of God. By thisdistinction, we easily understand the differences and similarities of thetwo powers.Now it remains to refute the arguments of that Thrason Boniface.

[903] First of all, according to the Apostle, Christ claimed that twoswords were sufficient.87 From this, he infers that the Church possessestwo powers, and that each power has a sword connected to it. It maybe possible that there are, at times, two swords in the Church. Theyhave not both always been present, nor will they necessarily always bein the future. What external sword did the Church have in the timesof Christ, or of the Apostles or of the martyrs? Nevertheless, they claim

85 2Chronicles 26:16.86 Deut. 1: 16, 17.87 Luke 22: 38.

94 chapter two

that the Church possesses both now. I confess that this is true, becausethe emperors and the kings are now Christians whereas once they werepagans. The Church can also be said to contain agriculture, trade,architecture and other things of this kind, since those who performthese professions are members of the Church. And, as the schoolmensay, this occurred accidentally (per accidens). These fields are not essentialto the Church’s existence. So now, since civil magistrates are membersof the Church, the Church is said to wield the external sword. It doesnot follow that the ministers also possess the temporal sword simplybecause the civil leaders are part of the Church in our age, just as itwould be improper to infer that ministers are farmers, merchants andcarpenters simply because the Church is concerned with agriculture,trade and architecture.Now I come to that place in the Gospels where the Apostles say

that they were sent away with nothing, being without bag or boot,to which Christ responded, “Let him who has a purse take it, and likewisea bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.”88 Whatdid Christ mean by these words? The only reasonable option is thathe was indicating that the condition of times far ahead would differfrom the way things were, as if he had said, “While I was with you,you did not feel troubled, nor did you lack anything, but difficult timesawait, and you will need tunics, boots and swords”. He meant that hewould separate himself from the Apostles, sending them around theentire earth to preach and teach the gospel. While doing this, ministerswould meet so many adversities that they would think themselves inneed of swords. This is metonymy whereby one thing is understoodfor another. The same figure of speech is used in Genesis, when theLord said, “And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth.”89

God was not truly repentant of his act of creating humanity, but aswith men who are accustomed to penitence, he changed the fact. ThenGod destroyed the humanity He had created with the flood. Christdoes not instruct his disciples to fight with steel, but uses a figure ofspeech to describe the condition of a time to come. Just as a toga oftensignifies peace and tranquillity, so in this case does the sword indicatetroubled and turbulent times. Chrysostom interpreted these words byciting a passage in Paul, Salute Prisca & Aquila.90 Chrysostom writes that

88 Luke 22:36.89 Genesis 6:6.90 Romans 16:3.

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 95

the Lord has not broken His previous law, If any one strikes you on the rightcheek, turn to him the other also. Bless those who speak evil to you, pray for thosewho persecute you.91 If this is true, why does Christ command his disciplesto buy themselves a sword? This was never His intention, according toChrysostom. It is a figure of speech, signifying that soon Christ wouldremove himself from among the Apostles and they would suffer manycalamities.92 These words must not be taken at face value. In anotherplace, Christ said, “What you hear whispered, proclaim upon the housetops.”93

Despite this, we never read that the Apostles stood on rooftops whenthey preached to the people. Neither is it right to leave the open placesand the temples to speak divine words from rooftops. Christ meant thatthey should clearly and openly repeat what they had heard privately.The Lord also said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”94

This too was said figuratively. It should not be understood that theApostles overturned the temple of Solomon (as the evangelist himselfinterpreted), but rather that the temple was Christ’s body in which,as Paul wrote, The whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.95 Returning to thematter at hand, Chrysostom expounds Luke’s true meaning in thisfollowing explanation. It was prophesied that the Son of man wouldbe counted among the wicked.96 But the Apostles did not understandChrist. They thought that He had simply spoken about an outward orliteral sword. Boniface interpreted the passage in much the same way.Since Christ added, “It is enough”, he understood that two swords inthe Church would suffice, and that there should be neither more norless. Chrysostom understood this quite differently. When Christ noticedthat the Apostles did not understand, his answer demonstrated that hewanted to drop the matter. Like a teacher speaking to a child who doesnot understand Christ said, “It is enough”. Clearly, two swords wouldnot suffice against the many adversaries of Christ. He should verywell have mentioned breastplates and shields as well. Based on this,Chrysostom concluded that Christ’s words here were figurative and

91 Matthew 5: 39, 44.92 John Chrysostom, In epistolam ad Romanos … homilia, XXXI, in D. Ioannis Chrysos-

tomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani In omnes D. Pauli epistolas commentarii, quotquot apud Grecosextant.: Latinitate donati, & recens à multis mendis purgati (Antwerp: Johannes Steelsius, 1556).

93 Matthew 10:27.94 John 2:19.95 Colossians 2:9.96 Mark 15:28.

96 chapter two

spoken as a parable.97 To accept Boniface’s explanation would implythat the Church had two swords even in the time of the Apostles, whichis most untrue.Let us now come to what Christ said to Peter, namely Put your sword

back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword,98 i.e.,by his own sword, Boniface explains, not another man’s.99 What canbe understood from these words? Although Peter did have a sword,how could he have drawn it even if he had been commanded to?Why should he have a sword, if he is forbidden to use it? Bonifacewould doubtless answer that he has a sword but cannot use it unlessby the hand of another. Or he might say that he does not use his ownsword, but that of the emperor or of another prince, for the emperorshould draw the sword at the approval and allowance of the Church.I would ask whether when Christ ordered Peter to put up his sword,he intended Peter to do this by his own approval and judgement orby the agency of another man. Certainly anyone who acts throughanother appears to act himself. If anyone wishes to kill an enemy formoney or promise of reward, he is no less made a murderer by thefact that he did not act by his own hand. A magistrate does not putthe guilty to death by his own hand but commands the executionerto do it. Our response to Boniface exposes a fallacy of equivocation.We wish to know whether a minister of the Church execute the officeof the civil magistrate and use the civil sword, but the Papists returnus to the sword [904] of Peter, a private man. In his fourth bookDe Consideratione addressed to Eugenius, Bernard appears to interpretthis passage as actually involving two swords.100 I admit that Bernard

97 See Chrysostom’s homily on Matthew 26: 51–54, Passio domini nostri Iesu Christisecundum Matthæum in decem homilias diuisa (Paris: apud Benedictum Preuotium, 1557),Homily 84; see also The homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople: on theGospel of St. Matthew, 3 vols. (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1843–1851), III.84.

98 Matthew 26:52.99 CICan, Extravagantes Decretales Communes, I.8.1, “De Maioritate et Obedientia,” ed.

Emil Friedberg, vol. 2, col. 1245.100 Bernard of Clairvaux, De consideratione ad Eugenium papam tertium, libri quinque (Rome:

Gulielmi Facciotti, 1594), IV.11.10: “Why do you [Bernard says, addressing the Pope]attempt to usurp the sword which you once ordered to be placed back in the scabbard?That you have denied it is yours does not seem to have paid sufficient attention to thewords of the Lord when He says, ‘Return your sword to its sheath.’ Yours, therefore, itis, and, if not perhaps by your wish and if it is not to be unsheathed by your hand, orotherwise does not belong to you, why should the Lord have responded to the Apostleswhen they said, ‘Look, here are two swords,’ by saying, ‘That is sufficient,’ rather than,‘That is too much.’ Both therefore belong to the Church, namely, the spiritual sword

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 97

used certain similar arguments, but they were not exactly identical. Weshould keep in mind the age in which Bernard lived. Anyone readingBernard’s De Consideratione will see that there was universal corruption inthe Church, and that he complained heavily of the situation. Eugenius,who was exiled from the city by the Romans, sought a way to returnon his own. Bernard encouraged him to preach the gospel, to actagainst the Romans by employing the word and preaching rather thanby the sword. Eugenius asked him whether this meant that he shouldfeed serpents, dragons and wild beasts. Bernard replied that Eugeniusshould approach the Romans with the word rather than the sword.101

In another place Bernard said, “If you will have both swords, you willlose both”.102 Clearly, Eugenius never intended to fight by himself, butwas perhaps trying to move others to war. Bernard dissuaded him fromthis idea. This is enough concerning him.Boniface added that these two swords in the Church should be

ordered so that one should be subjected to the other. He approvedof Paul’s words, “There is no authority except from God, and those that existhave been instituted by God.”103 This clearly shows how Boniface distortsScripture. The word “ordained” corresponds to the Greek τεταγμ�ναι,meaning “to institute or designate”. What kind of order does Bonifacepropose? He says that the minister should teach and that the civilpower should hear and believe. This order does not concern the Pope,for he teaches nothing at all. Pseudo-Dionysus says that the lowestthings are led to the highest through intermediaries.104 Based on this,Boniface concluded that the external sword should be referred back to

and the material, and the one is to be wielded for the Church and the other by theChurch; one by the hand of a priest, the other by the hand of a soldier but by theapproval of the priest and at the signal of the Emperor.”

101 Bernard of Clairvaux, De consideratione ad Eugenium, IV.3.6, 7.102 The gloss is found in sixteenth-century editions of the Canon Law, but not in

Friedberg’s. For an edition with the glosses restored, see Liber sextus decretalium D. BonifaciiPapæ VIII: una cum clementinis & extrauagantibus, earumque glossis restitutus (Lyons: Hugo àPorta, 1559). Cf. Robert Kingdon, Political Thought, 57, n. 47.

103 Rom. 13:1.104 CICan, 2:1245. See Dionysius the Pseudo Areopagite, Ecclesiastia hierarchia, cap. 5;

Opera omnia quæ extant. Eiusdem uita. Scholia incerti auctoris in librum De ecclesiastica hierar-chia/quæ omnia nunc primùm à Ioachimo Perionio … conuersa sunt (Lutetiæ Parisiorum: Exofficina typographica Michaëlis Vascosani, 1556). For an English version, see Pseudo-Dionysius: the Complete Works, translated by Colm Luibheid and Paul Rorem with intro-ductions by Jaroslav Pelikan, Jean Leclercq and Karlfried Froehlich, Classics of WesternSpirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1987).

98 chapter two

God by the spiritual sword.105 I will grant that the spiritual sword, thatis to say the word of God, is the intermediary by which the externalsword should be moderated and directed to God. But why does thePope not use the word as his intermediary? Why does he not teach, orpreach? He certainly does not call back princes who have strayed tothe right path. In fact, the case is quite opposite, for the Pope and thebishops and ministers of the Church are justly reproved and punishedby the Prince. When Aaron was High Priest, he gravely erred in havingsubmitted to the foolishness of the people and making the golden calf.106

Moses, in his role as civil magistrate, accused him of this. Towardsthe end of Deuteronomy, Moses is even referred to as king.107 Whenthe priests mishandled the money that had been offered to repair theroof of the temple, it was king Jehoash who solved the problem.108 I donot even mention David and Solomon, who distinguished between theorders of priests and the Levites.109 I could prove this with many moreexamples, but these will suffice. I also grant that the civil power maybe corrected by ministers through the preaching of the divine word.The Pope does not use this kind of correction, but instead employs hisastonishing tyranny. Furthermore, the Popes boast that their dignity isgreater because they deal with spiritual and heavenly matters, while thecivil leaders only deal with earthly and civil matters. So be it. We donot deny that ministers deal with matters greater and more divine thanthe magistrates. Is the Pope sole administrator of these matters? In fact,he himself seldom administers them at all. If the value of a minister is tobe judged by this standard, it would seem that many bishops and priestsare far more valuable than the Pope, who never preaches and only veryrarely administers the sacraments, and this to very few people.

Tythes

Let us now come to tithes. Boniface seeks to justify their paymentby arguing that all princes are subject to him. He appears to usean argument of a different kind here. At first glance, he agrees with

105 CICan, 2:1245–1246.106 Exodus 32:4.107 Deut. 33:5.108 2Kings 12:7.109 1Chronicles 23; 2Chron. 8:14 and 29:5.

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 99

Hebrews 7, where Paul deems the worth of Christ’s priesthood to begreater than that of the Levites’.110 Thus Boniface interprets the tithespaid by Abraham to Melchizedek: for even though Levi had not yetlived, he was nonetheless present in the loins of Abraham. He who paystithes to another confesses himself to be inferior to the other. Christwas a priest after the order of Melchizedek, thus leading the Apostles toconclude that the Levitical priesthood is far inferior to the priesthoodof Christ. I have disclosed the source from which Boniface constructsthis argument. The place is obscure and needs explanation; nor doesBoniface apply it effectively to his purpose. First of all, it is necessaryto understand that tithes once extended to ceremonies, and this appliedas much to Melchizedek as to the Levites. In both priesthoods, thesetithes referred to Christ and both were types or figures of Christ. Oncea year, the Levitical priests went into the Holy of Holies. This wasnever done without the shedding of blood.111 By analogy, Christ himselfentered into the Tabernacle of Heaven through his blood. Melchizedekresembled Christ in that he had neither father nor mother. Christ, asfar as He was God, had no mother, and as far as He was a man,lacked a father. What, then, was the purpose of the tithes in eitherpriesthood? The elders should use them to acknowledge that everythingthey possessed was owing to Christ. By the ceremonial payment oftithes, the people worshipped Christ. Although both priesthoods appearto prefigure Christ, anyone comparing Melchizedek with the Leviticalpriests will notice that Christ is more clearly and expressly similar toMelchizedek, as the Epistle to the Hebrews demonstrates.112 Bonifacesays, “We accept tithes from all of the laity. Once Christ will come,the payment of tithes will not be a greater ceremony than it wasbefore the coming of Christ.”113 Before His coming, men used tithesto worship Christ as the flesh to come, and they confessed that theyowed to Him both themselves and everything they owned. For thissame reason, they paid the first fruits of all of their labours. Still today,the Church accepts tithes from us. By what right? It is not properlya ceremonial right, but rather a moral one, for the ministers shouldbe fed by the people. [905] “The labourer is worthy of his hire”114

110 Hebrews 7:5.111 Heb. 9:7.112 Heb. 7.113 CICan, 2:1245–1246.114 Mathew 10:10.

100 chapter two

and “the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel shouldget their living by the gospel.”115 The method of payment does notsignify, whether it derive from the land, the house, cash or from tithes.Ministers are sustained honestly, and by no means in a sordid way. Insome places, these wages retain the old designation of tithes. In manyother places, they are not called tithes, but stipends or salaries. Theyare rewards, which are owed for a minister’s work, rather than tithessimply.As it pertains to the argument put forward, one should see that

rewards and stipends are in this way “mediatorial” for they are attimes paid to inferiors and at times to superiors. The tribute that wegive to kings and princes serves as their stipends, partly serving tofeed and sustain them, and partly to confess our subjection. From thissalary, kings may possess a commonwealth and watch over us. At times,inferiors accept stipends. Princes, for example, pay them to soldiers,yet we cannot say that soldiers are superior to kings and magistrates.This is not to say that I diminish the worth of ecclesiastical office butrather wish it to be understood that these arguments are insignificant.Neither do I doubt that the Church that pays stipends to its ministersis greater than them. Ministers are not made greater than those whopay them, considering tithes as they are paid today. While kings andemperors are installed and anointed by bishops, and while the formeraccept the crown and the sword from the latter, this does not helpBoniface’s case. For the civil power is itself not bestowed by the bishops,but by God. Emperors and kings are chosen and installed by Godin a way that agrees with Him. The prayers offered by the Churchbeseech God to confirm and strengthen the prince’s heart, to increasehis devotion, and to instil the fear of God’s name in the king’s heart,as well as to favour his counsel and bless his actions, so that they maybe useful to both Church and Commonwealth. While these things arebeing done, the bishop acts as the voice of the Church, and leads inthe offering of prayers. The royal unction is performed according toan ancient ceremony and custom of the Jews.116 The king does not

115 1 Corinth. 9:14.116 See 1Samuel 9:16 for the account of Samuel’s anointing of David and 1Kings

1:38–40 for the anointing of Solomon: “So Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet,and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites, went down,and caused Solomon to ride upon king David’s mule, and brought him to Gihon. AndZadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 101

accept his power from the bishop but directly from God, as is indeedconfessed by their decrees. Gelasius says that the emperor is grantedhis power through divine privilege.117 What does Boniface reply to this?He declares that it is to God alone. Paul wrote, There is no authority exceptfrom God.118 Justinian proclaims that his power is given to him by thedivine majesty.119 A gloss on the chapter Unam Sanctam states that thepower granted to kings is given by God alone, and that therefore kingsdo indeed receive the crown from the bishop and the sword from thealtar.120

We may dismiss Boniface’s final argument. He writes, “I give thepower to the emperor, therefore I am greater than the emperor”.Let the most blessed Thrason121 answer this for me: When he waselected Pope, who consecrated him? It was certainly the bishop Hos-tiensis.122 Let us therefore conclude that the bishop Hostiensis wasgreater than the Pope. If this does not follow, then Boniface’s argumentis wanting (as is shown above) for it is built upon a ruined foundation.It is not the bishops who give power to kings. Besides, there weremany emperors who were never consecrated by a bishop. They werenonetheless called emperors. Neither were the more ancient emperorsof the Greeks anointed by bishops. Hence, this is a new invention.123

In fact, the Pontiff was often consecrated by the civil magistrate.Moses consecrated Aaron when (as it is said) Moses was the civil

they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon. And all thepeople came up after him, and the people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with great joy,so that the earth rent with the sound of them.”

117 CICan, Decreti, 1.96.11 ‘Si imperator’, ed. Friedberg, vol. 1, 341.118 Romans 13:1.119 Ius civile manuscriptorum librorum ope, summa diligentia et integerrima fide infinitis locis

emendatum, et perpetuis notis illustratum (Antwerp: Christopher Plantin, 1567), Codex, ‘DeIure veteri enucleando’, Leg. 1.17.1.

120 Liber sextvs Decretalivm D. Bonifacii Papæ VIII. Suæ integritati vna cum Clementinis &Extrauagantibus, earumque glossis restitutus. Ad exemplar Romanvm diligenter recognitus (Paris:[s.n.], 1612), additio 2 in gloss to CICan, Extravagantes decretales communes, tit. ‘De maiori-tate et obedientia’, cap. 1.8.1.

121 See note 240 above.122 Like Boniface a canonist and decretalist, Henricus de Segusio was known as

‘Hostiensis’ owing to his appointment as cardinal archbishop of Ostia, the old port cityof Rome. Henricus de Segusio, Lectura in quinque Decretalium Gregorianarum libros (Paris,1512).

123 In the Latin west the tradition of royal unction is traced back to Pepin the Short,son of Charles Martel and father of Charlemagne. Pepin was elected King of theFranks in 747 and shortly thereafter anointed by Archbishop Boniface. In return forthis ecclesiastical recognition of his rule Pepin defended Rome from the Lombards.

102 chapter two

magistrate.124 So Boniface tires himself in vain concerning his powerof consecration, because nothing can be concluded from it. He alsoboasted of his power of the keys. “We,” he says, “have the powerto bind and to loosen.”125 This power of the keys is placed in himthat he may preach the word of God. He who believes the Gospel isloosened, and he who does not is bound. Yet Popes do not preach, nordo they teach. Therefore, they can neither loosen nor bind. Besides,this subjection is spiritual. It is grounded in faith and obedience, notin civil power and dominion. Later the example of Jeremiah is raised,to whom God said, I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms.126

Concerning this, I first demand to know what king Jeremiah ever castdown by revoking his empire, and which new king did he institute as areplacement. No example can be shown. So what does Jeremiah meanin the passage? He maintains that he could announce which kingdomswould be overturned by God because of their sins and which newones would be instituted. These things he could do by the spirit ofprophesy and by the word of God. The Popes, however, do not exercisetheir power in this way. They should display divine threats before thekings and princes, and in this way seek to rule above the nations andkingdoms. Can Jeremiah be called the reason for which the kingdomwas cast down? He was not the proper efficient cause, but rather merelya certain occasion. When he warned the king of Judah and the kingdid not heed him, the prophet by his prediction, only brought aboutanother reason for God to damn and reject the king. Thus Paul wrote,For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and amongthose who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other afragrance from life to life.127 The Apostles never physically killed anyone,though they did bring death in their preaching to those who did notwish to believe. Therefore it is God who dissipates, overturns, dispersesand sows. Neither does he disdain to call us his co-workers.Boniface continues with the claim that the lay power should be

judged by churchmen (ecclesiastici).128 What kind of judgement shouldthis be? The Church sets forth the wrath of God against sinners, whoshould be seized and warned by the holy texts. Where are bishops per-

124 Exodus 40:13.125 CICan, 2: 1246.126 Jer. 1:10.127 2Cor. 2:15–16.128 CICan, 2: 1246.

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 103

mitted to expel kings and make them leave their kingdoms? Whence dothey have this right? Which text do they bring forth? The least tolera-ble example of this occurs when the Pope says that he cannot be judgedby anyone. Nevertheless John XXIII was cast down not only by God,but by men in the council of Constance. So these men appoint andreappoint canons, and they approve and forbid as they see fit. [906] Attimes emperors have expelled and cast down Popes, and thus claimedto be superior. Paul wrote to the Galatians, Even if we, or an angel fromheaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you,let him be accursed.129 If any Pope (past, present or future) should deal incorrupt teachings, will anyone pronounce him anathema? Will no onethen judge him? The Church shall give its sentence upon him. Themagistrate, as the most prominent member of the Church, should notonly judge such a Pope but also execute the sentence. The magistrateshould provide to this end that the work of the Church shall not begiven to enemies of piety. The faithful magistrate should not allow thegoods of the Church to be wasted by bishops who are enemies of God.The Canonists often claim that the benefit should be given for the

sake of the office. If they fail to perform their duties, should the mag-istrate allow them to enjoy the benefits? But let us hear the argumentfrom which Boniface claims that he can be judged by no one. The spir-itual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. Clearly, this isa beautifully sound and apt argument. Paul was certainly not writinghere of public judgements, by which men are beheaded or dischargedfrom their places, but of the understanding of divine matters that per-tain to salvation. These, I say, pertain properly to the judgement ofthe spiritual man. Paul never dreamt that this should concern the seatand knowledge of civil matters. From these words his intention is easilyunderstood: We have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which isfrom God.130 Paul may respond that this spirit was given to us so that wemay know what is given to us by God. Since the spirit of this worldcannot pass judgement on divine things, it is added that The unspiritualman does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God.131 This should only includethose very few civil and public causes that pertain to man’s salvation.The spiritual man himself is judged by no one. Peter and Paul wereboth judged by the civil power. Paul himself announced that he may be

129 Gal. 1:8.130 1Cor. 2:12.131 1Cor. 2:14.

104 chapter two

judged by them.132 Were these civil powers spiritual? Certain ones were,but this place must be understood as follows. Spiritual men, by whichsuch men exist, can be judged concerning divine things and matters ofsalvation only by those who are of the same spirit as them. It is oftensaid among the impious and mundane that the spiritual man is sedi-tious, impure and of ill repute; but only God and His spirit can seeinto their hearts. Boniface thus concludes that the Pope must be thesole highest power, lest we appear to establish several beginnings (prin-cipia), like the Manichees. He adds that God created the world in thebeginning, not in the beginnings.133 We abhor the Manichees, thus weestablish one first principle and we pronounce God and his word as thesole fount and origin of all powers, both civil and ecclesiastical. Thefoundation of both powers depends on the word of God. We thus makeone beginning and not two. If Boniface wishes to press the words ofGenesis 1:1 further, there should only be one king in the entire world.For once Paul said, One Lord, one faith, one baptism.134 He did not add,“One Pope”.Our Thrason advances even further so that he may exclude those

who do not acknowledge the Pope as the highest power and the headof the Church from the hope of salvation. There were once two orthree Popes (which lasted in all sixty years).135 From this, it should benecessary that the Papists admit themselves to be Manichees, havingestablished two beginnings. What do they feel moreover concerning theGreeks, the Persians and the eastern people who do not acknowledge

132 Acts 25:10.133 Gen 1:1. See note 239 above. CICan, Extravagantes Decretales Communes, I.8.1, ‘De

Maioritate et Obedientia’, vol. 2, col. 1246.134 Ephesians 4:5.135 See Walter Ullmann, The origins of the Great Schism; a study in fourteenth-century

ecclesiastical history (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1972). The so-called “Great Schism”lasted from 1378 to 1415. At the death of Gregory XI, after almost seventy-five yearsof the Avignon Captivity of the Papacy, the cardinals were driven by a Roman mobto elect an Italian pope, viz. Urban VI. He sought to restore the papacy to Rome.The cardinals met, declared Urban’s election invalid, and elected their own pope,Clement VII, who promptly decamped to Avignon. Thus two papal lines at Rome andAvignon came to be established. In 1409 the council of Pisa declared that Gregory XIIof the Roman line and Benedict XIII of the Avignon line were neither of them pope,and then proceeded to elect Alexander V, who died shortly afterwards. Alexander’ssuccessor, John XXIII, was successful in gaining authority. John convened the Councilof Constance to settle the matter once and for all, and was himself deposed alongwith Benedict XIII while Gregory XII resigned. Martin V was elected and the schismended.

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 105

the Pope? Those who read the Scriptures and believe in Jesus as ourLord are called Christian, yet Boniface still excludes them from thehope of salvation. This is the ambition and strange tyranny of thePopes. When we object to the Papists using these words of Paul, Letevery person be subject to the governing authorities,136 they respond that everysoul should be subject to its own highest power and not that of anotherman. Otherwise it would require that the French be subjected to theSpanish, and the Spanish to the Germans. This is absurd, so we shouldconfess that every person should obey his own magistrate. Now theclerics perceive the bishops as the power to which they should besubjected. The bishops in turn are subjected to the archbishops andthe primates, and they to the Pope. By this agreement, they claim thatthey obey the power and satisfy the words of Paul, and should havenothing to do with kings or civil magistrates. This is nothing else but awicked abuse of the Apostle’s words.Do they see that they divide the commonwealth into two bodies,

when it should be one? When the kingdom of the clergy is dividedfrom the kingdom of the laity, they make two peoples within onekingdom and appoint a magistrate to command each people. By thisaccount, the French clergy may not appear to be French, and theGermans may not seem to be German. This does not create a unionbut rather a division and separation. Paul spoke of that power whichcarried the sword, not that of bishops and archbishops. Paul says thatone should not raise the sword without reason. He speaks of that powerto which tribute is paid, since it is for this reason, he says, that wepay tribute. Bishops neither bear the sword nor demand tribute fromthe people. Paul was not speaking of them, for if the bishops havethe sword through the German authorities, and they collect tribute ortaxes, they do not act as bishops, but they act joined by accident tothe civil power, whose authority they may rightly observe. It stands thatPaul was speaking of the civil power, which every soul is ordered toobey. The interpretation of Origen, by which he explains that Paul saidevery soul, not every spirit, is not probable either. Origen continues thatthe spiritual man is not moved by affections, neither does he possessanything in this world, and is thus very little subject to external coercivepower.137 Therefore Paul commanded every soul, that is, [907] everynatural man, to obey the civil power. Why? Was Christ not spiritual?

136 Romans 13:1.137 Origen, Explanatio Origenis Adamantij Presbyteri in epistola Pauli ad Romanos diuo Hiero-

106 chapter two

Was anyone more spiritual than He? He perceived a higher powerand paid tribute. What of the Apostles? Were they not spiritual? Theynever removed themselves from the civil power. Rather they appearedto obey, and taught others to do the same.We must now consider the answer which men like Boniface make.

They say that they do not have this power ordinarily by right oftheir functions, but by the gifts and privileges conceded to princes.And they ask “why should we not enjoy the liberties and privilegesof princes?” We should here look at what princes have actually done,and not what they should have done. Without any doubt God subjectedevery soul to the higher power, and no prince is allowed to rescind thedivine law. Nor is human reason better than the providence of Godat discerning eventualities in human affairs. This event is sufficient toshow the benefits that such a dismissal of princes brings about. Oncebishops and false men of the Church have drawn themselves away fromthe civil power, immediately they deteriorate further from the divinemodel than they were before, and they make the people they wereconnected to no better. Rather than continuing to say that emperorsand kings gave them this right, let them hear the word of God, whichthey are ordered by princes to obey. They have not only slipped outfrom under the obedience of princes in this matter, but they have alsodeclared their immunity from them.138 Immunity, however, is definedas freedom from the obligations of honour and the sustaining of civilduties. Among these burdens are included tributes and taxes. Tributesare paid on lands and estates. Customs and duty are paid on goods,and on things which are imported and exported. Ulpian called thesethe tendons or sinews of the commonwealth (nervi republicae), for nothingcould be built or managed without them.139 Which right or reason do

nymo iterprete, ed. Theophilus Salodianus (Venice: Bernardin Benalium, 1512), 9.25. PG14: 1226.

138 CICan, Decretales Gregorii IX, 3.49.4 ‘Non minus’ and Sexti Decretalium, 3.23.3 ‘Cleri-cis Laicos’, ed. Friedberg, vol. 2, cols. 654–655, 1062–1063. See Leona C. Gabel, Benefitof clergy in England in the later Middle Ages (New York: Octagon Books, 1969). The so-calledimmunity or “benefit” of the clergy is privileged exemption from the ordinary obliga-tion (munus) imposed upon subjects to the civil authority. According to the “benefit ofclergy” Christian clerics were exempt from prosecution in the King’s courts from thetime of the reforms of Innocent III in the twelfth century. By the sixteenth century thisbenefit was gradually extended to all “clerks” or literate persons. In 1576, ecclesiasticalcourts were deprived of all jurisdiction over criminal actions.

139 CICiv, Digest ‘De vocatione ac excusatione munerum’ 48.18.1.20. See also M. TulliusCicero, Oratio pro lege Manilia (Paris: M. Vascosani, 1537) 7.17.

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 107

they have to withdraw from public service? By what appearance dothey boast the liberty from princes that neither Christ, the Apostlesnor prophets claimed? Although they claim to have this right by thegift of kings and emperors, they may not injure citizens. Yet whilethey are elevated by this claim, others are burdened beyond measure.Nor are they removed from all burdens by regal law or privilege.Indeed, they are immune from personal burdens. This was done forimportant reasons which the princes of the nations perceived. In theDigest of the Roman Law the prætor Ulpian said, “If anyone shouldreceive a priestly office, he is absolved if he cannot be absent fromit without offence”.140 In the Codex the emperor Constantine exemptsecclesiastics from personal and unclean burdens.141 Those burdens arecalled personal which are performed by the diligence of the soul andwork of the body. Unclean burdens include heating limestone, diggingsand, maintaining water conduits, heating the baths and other things ofthese kinds. The clergy are deservedly exempt from such burdens, sincethese exercises make the ministry contemptible. They are freed frompersonal burdens because they must be surrounded with the sacred,and should be removed from mundane things. Therefore, princes haverightly conceded churchmen these rights, lest they be distracted fromtheir religious studies and be held in low esteem by the people.What if anyone should try to pass for a minister simply by his cloth-

ing or possessions, yet do nothing in the Church? Surely he should notbe granted immunity. In the Codex Justinian declares that we shouldrecognise only those who devote themselves to sacred things as menof the Church, and not vagabonds or leisurely (otiosus) people whoonly boast to be ministers in name. He continues that ministers arenot released from ordinary burdens, but only from extraordinary bur-dens.142 Ordinary burdens are those which legal commandments con-tinuously impose. Extraordinary burdens are demanded by some pres-ent necessity, but later cease. If the men of the Church should havelands or estates, they should pay for them as other citizens would.When the Church accepts estates, it accepts their civil burdens as well.They are, however, free from extraordinary tributes. Once the clergywere poor, and owned nothing more than was necessary to live andworship, or if, by chance, they possessed more, they gave it to the poor.

140 CICiv, Digest 50.5.13.141 CICiv, Codex, De episcopis & clericis, 1.3. leg. 1 and 2.142 CICiv, Codex, De episcopis & clericis, 1.3. leg. 51‘Generaliter sanctimus’.

108 chapter two

Yet the opposite is true now, for they abound in riches and they bestowwere little on the poor. Previously, if there was some kind of urgentneed—as if a path needed to be fortified, or a bridge constructed,or ships built to carry an army—churchmen were summoned to payextraordinary amounts, as seen in the imperial laws contained in theCodex.143 This also helps fraternal charity. Nowadays, while others areoppressed, men of the Church are faint, overflowing in leisure andriches. The clergy should not be put at their ease while others are bur-dened.144

Nevertheless the Pope, in his decrees De immunitate Ecclesiae wouldhave the clergy utterly exempt, citing the words of the Lateran Coun-cil.145 Boniface VIII, in the Liber Sexti Decretalium, De immunitate Eccle-siarum, does not permit laymen to be paid anything.146 He proposedexcommunication of the prince who accepted tribute from ministers ofthe Church as well as of the minister who paid him.147 This law wasjudged too cruel and was mitigated by Benedict XI in the Extravagantes

143 CICiv, Codex, 1.2.7. See Kingdon, Politcal Writings, 60, n. 157.144 2Cor. 8:13.145 CICan, Decretales Gregorii IX, 3.49.4 ‘Non minus’ and 3.49.7 ‘Adversus consules’, ed.

Friedberg, vol. 2, cols. 654–656.146 CICan, 2:1062–1063: “Antiquity teaches us that laymen are in a high degree hostile

to the clergy, a fact which is also made clear by the experiences of the present times;in as much as, not content within their own bounds, they strive after what is forbiddenand loose the reins in pursuit of what is unlawful. Nor have they the prudence toconsider that all jurisdiction is denied to them over the clergy—over both the personsand goods of ecclesiastics. On the prelates of the churches and on ecclesiastical persons,monastic and secular, they impose heavy burdens, tax them and declare levies uponthem. They exact and extort from them the half, the tenth or twentieth or someother portion or quota of their revenues or of their goods … The prelates and above-mentioned ecclesiastical persons we strictly command, by virtue of their obedienceand under penalty of deposition, that they by no means acquiesce in such demands,without express permission of the aforesaid [apostolic] chair; and that they pay nothingunder pretext of any obligation, promise and confession made hitherto, or to be madehereafter before such constitution, notice or decree shall come to their notice; nor shallthe aforesaid secular persons in any way receive anything. And if they shall-pay, orif the aforesaid persons shall receive, they shall be, by the act itself, under sentenceof excommunication. From the aforesaid sentences of excommunication and interdict,moreover, no one shall be able to be absolved, except in the throes of death, withoutthe authority and special permission of the apostolic chair; since it is our intention byno means to pass over with dissimulation so horrid an abuse of the secular powers.”From Ernest F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages (London: GeorgeBell, 1910), 432–434.

147 Boniface VIII threatened Philip the Fair of France with excommunication, andEdward I of England was another principal object of the promulgation of the bull‘Clericis laicos’.

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 109

Decretales Communes.148 The prince was not permitted to do anythingwithout first consulting the Roman pontiff. He did not excommuni-cate those princes who accepted tribute from men of the Church, butthose who demanded it. The prince is not permitted to demand any-thing by his right. It is obviously permitted in certain cases of the high-est necessity—as when there is present danger to altar and hearth—that a consensus first be reached among the bishops and clergy, andthat the Pope assent afterward. As long as this decree stands, theyshould comply with it. Yet these men exempt themselves from the ser-vice of obedience and tribute to kings and princes who are, accordingto Ulpian, the very ‘sinews’ of the commonwealth.149 While I ponderthese things, [908] the words of Diocletian come to mind. When aphilosopher sought immunity, Diocletian ruled “This petition contra-dicts your profession. You say that you want to conquer your affections,but you show your avarice to be greater.”150 Churchmen claim to bespiritual men. The greatest requirement for the spiritual man is broth-erly love, which does not recommend that we act freely and securelywhen others are made to suffer by their cares and burdens. Aquinasadded a passage from Genesis that shows priests are not exempt fromtribute by the divine law, but by civil laws, no less agreeing with thelaw of nature. Pharoah, the king of Egypt, did not require the priests toweigh out a fifth of their first fruits as tribute, as was demanded fromevery other Egyptian.151 Based on this, he concluded that priests wereexempt from taxation. This place should be diligently considered. First,we should observe that the Egyptian priests had their living directlyfrom the king’s treasury. They were provided with a small daily subsis-tence. When famine struck, however, all the Egyptians sold their landto the king in order to buy corn to satisfy their hunger. At the endof the famine, the king returned the fields to their former owners, butcontinued to require that they pay him one fifth of their fruits annually.The priests were not required to do this. It is not surprising that theydid not sell their fields to the king since they were fed publicly. Onewould assume that they continued to pay tribute from their fields asthey would have before the famine. The only sound conclusion from

148 CICan, 3.13.1 ‘Quod olim’, ed. Friedberg, vol. 2, cols. 1287–1288.149 CICiv, Digest ‘De vocatione ac excusatione munerum’ 48.18.1.20.150 Diocletian was himself noted for an insatiable avarice. Lactantius, De mortibus

persecutorum, 1.7.151 Thomas Aquinas, comment on Genesis 47:22, Postilla seu expositio aurea … in librum

Geneseos, in lucem prodit, diligentia & opera f. Antonij Senensis (Lyon, 1573).

110 chapter two

this is that priests should be supported by the public purse. Since theydid not pay the fifth as tribute, this must have occurred for anotherreason.They also cite the seventh chapter of Ezra, where Artaxerxes advises

that when the tribute is imposed upon the Jews, it should not bedemanded from the Levites.152 Again, this is not surprising, since theLevites owned no land from which they could pay tribute as it per-tained to oblations, first fruits and tithes. For this reason, their trib-ute was restored to them. Julius Cæsar writes in De bello Gallico, “TheFrench priests, known as druids, paid no tribute”.153 Pliny writes thatthe druids did not own their lands.154 This does not mean that the mag-istrates would be justified in acting with greater remove from the clergy,or being less kind to them, simply because ministers should always besurrounded with sacred things and not be concerned with things thatdo not profit them spiritually. They are consequently unable to increasetheir wealth, and this often causes them considerable loss for they onlyhave their stipends while they are alive. I only disapprove of their claim-ing for themselves immunity, both real and personal, through rejectingordinary civil obligations, since to do so is tyrannical and plainly againstthe authority of the divine word. The Pope will not allow princes todemand tribute by their own decision from bishops and churchmen,and he orders furthermore that ministers should not pay it even if itis demanded. The word of God says otherwise: Let every person be sub-ject to the governing authorities. The word says here for this reason alsoyou should pay tribute to whom it is due.155 No one is left out, nordid Christ himself wish to be exempt from paying tribute. Chrysostomcomments that it may seem grave for Christians, who are the sons ofGod destined for the kingdom of Heaven, to be subject to the princesof this world. He replies, however, that while we are in this life, ourdignity must be concealed. We should not show what we may become.Therefore, while we live here, it is no burden on us to exalt the mag-istrates, to yield to them and to render them honour.156 These things

152 Ezra 7:24.153 Julius Cæsar, Rerum ab se gestarum commentarii: De Bello Gallico libri VIII (Paris:

Michael Vascosanus, 1543), 6.14.154 Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiæ liber XVII. De plantis, arborumq[ue] natura ac ratione

(Paris: Michael Vascosanus, 1549), 16.249.155 Rom. 13:1, 6–7.156 John Chrysostom, In Epistolam Divi Pauli ad Romanos Homiliæ octo priores, Germano

Brixio … Interprete, Nunc primum & uersæ & editæ (Basle: Froben, 1533) 23.3; PG 60, 618.

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 111

are most respectable and well befit the saints. Being regenerate by theword and spirit, it might appear to us that there is no work for themagistrate. The Jews, being the people of God, were most indignantto suffer subjugation by the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, theRomans, and other nations unknown to God. The Anabaptists andAntinomians shout that it is unworthy of a Christian to uphold themagistrate. In like manner, the Papists and clerics today excuse them-selves from this yoke. The Apostles, who foresaw these events, oftenemphasised that the civil power should be obeyed. Thus, this preceptis twice transgressed by men of our day. First, men transgress in sayingthat the people should not obey the magistrate, and should seditiouslytake up arms against him. Secondly, they also transgress who bypassthe magistrate using craft and device, so that he is left unable to per-form his function. There are present in Courts those who cajole theears of princes, praising and decrying anyone they choose, who blamethe good instead of the evil, and commend the evil instead of the good.According to their seditious ramblings, some are granted provinces togovern while others are removed from power. Diocletian said that agood, prudent, and cautious emperor is often betrayed by his aids. Theprince is at home in his palace and his familiars may accuse and defendwhomsoever they wish. Among the Romans, the Senators (patres con-scripti) are said to have been often circumvented (circumscripti).157 Manydeceits hinder the course of justice. It is of no importance whether thisis done by force or intrigue; either way the commonwealth is injured,and the institution of God condemned. This is enough concerning thistopic.We must also consider the claim that a magistrate who gives orders

contrary to the divine word should not be obeyed. When he actsthus, he is not a magistrate, as Paul says, for a magistrate should bea minister of God for good.158 Thus, if he makes orders against theword of God, he is at least in part not a divine minister. You willsay that sometimes serious, troublesome and difficult orders are madethat do not contradict the word of God. What should be done withthese? One should obey. We are told to obey lords though they maybe troublesome as long as they command nothing against the divinemandate. If they do, one should answer them following the advice of

157 The pun is lost in translation. ‘Patres et conscripti,’ i.e. the Roman senate. SeeT. Livy, Ab urbe condita, 2.1.

158 Rom. 13:3.

112 chapter two

Peter, who said, We ought to obey God rather than men.159 Nebuchadnezzarwanted his statue to be worshipped. The faithful Hebrews answered,We will not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have setup.160 Antiochus commanded the Hebrew woman to eat the flesh ofswine. She preferred to die with her seven children than to act in away contrary to the divine law.161 The martyrs, both of old and in ourtime, chose to suffer most extreme punishments and cruel deaths ratherthan sin against the divine law. Eusebius of Cæserea [909] explains thatConstantius, the father of Constantine, ordered that every Christianbe driven away from all honours and magisterial offices because oftheir worship. Those who were truly pious chose to be deposed fromtheir positions and preferred to leave their dignities rather than beseparated from Christ. This served them well, for the emperor waspleased with them. Those who denied Christ to retain their dignitieswere removed by the emperor, who declared that those who broke theirfaith in God would not be loyal to him.162 Later Constantius, the son ofConstantine, being an Arian, tried to induce the orthodox bishops intoheresy. They chose to be exiled rather than to embrace the emperor’swicked purpose.163 Then Julian the Apostate opened the temples ofidols and determined to bring pagan rites and worship to Christians.Those who were truly pious in the Christian religion held it closerto them than their own lives. In Homer, Achilles says, “provided theAtreidæ lead aright, I will obey them; but when they cease therefrom,no more will I obey.”164 Such matters not only pertain to subjects, butalso to the inferior magistrates. What if a superior ruler commandsinferior magistrates to receive the Mass into their cities? Certainly theyshould not obey. A certain man may claim that one should defer to himwho has the higher power. I answer that in human and civil matters,they should obey the civil magistrate as long as he commands, but innothing against God. We must return to that maxim “That wherebyan object is made in a certain way is all the more such in itself.”165

159 Acts. 4:29.160 Daniel 3:18.161 2Maccabees 7.162 Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, 8.13.12–13.163 See Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica as continued by Rufinus, 10.12 seq.164 This line occurs in Euripides, Iphigenia at Aulis, ll. 928–930.165 “Propter quod unumquodque est tale, id ipsum est magis tale” is a commonly

quoted scholastic maxim. It is formulated by Aristotle in Analytica Posteriora, Bekker 72a28. See, e.g., Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, quæstio 60. art. 5. obj. 2; quæstio 87.art. 2. obj. 3.

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 113

Therefore, if we obey the magistrate because of God, we should obeyGod all the more. The magistrate is thus the intermediary and in suchcases ought not to obey the higher power, but rather that which ismandated by God himself.There are many who may say that before refusing to obey a mag-

istrate in religious matters, we should look for the Church’s consent.Let them consider that Christ never commanded this. Each individ-ual is bound to the divine law in himself, without the consent or dis-sent of others. Let us assume that the head of a household owns sev-eral slaves that he commands to work in the country. Some of themdo not perform their duties while the master is away. Should the restabandon their work because some consent to shirk their duty? WhenChrist called Paul to preach, did Paul wait for the consent of his otherbrethren? He did not. In fact, he wrote in his epistle to the Galatians,When he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through hisgrace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him amongthe Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem tothose who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia.166 He did notwait for the consent of others but immediately obeyed his calling. Weshould do the same. After God has revealed his truth to us we shouldnot delay. One must only wait for consent if the matters in questionare doubtful or obscure. Our reason for this is clear. If we wait idlyfor consent, the opportunity may be lost and good occasions may becorrupted. Tiberius wanted to count Christ among the number of thegods, but he thought he should first obtain the approval of the senate.The senate refused, and while Tiberius was waiting for consent, Christcould not be counted among the gods. Yet Tiberius had the powerto make it happen on his own. Let them tell us whose consent theywait for: the consent of the bishops? They will never consent. They aresworn enemies of the truth.Let us now return to the intermediate magistrates whom we men-

tioned earlier. We should remember that God commanded his sons tohonour their mother and father.167 By these words, God commandedhonour and reverence for the higher powers as well, for the magistrateacts as a parent, as it were, to the inferior magistrates. Let us see whatChrist said concerning this: He who loves father or mother more than me is not

166 Gal. 1:15–17.167 Exodus 20:12.

114 chapter two

worthy of me.168 Certainly the same thing should be felt towards the mag-istrate who is the father of the homeland. Care should be taken thatthe magistrate is not loved more than the Lord. If the civil magistrateshould command something against the Lord, it must be refused withdisdain. Nor must anyone who is not willing to separate himself fromthe magistrate in such situations profess himself to be a Christian. Thiswould be to serve two masters, and to limp on both sides.169 If the Lordis God, follow him.170 Not in part, but entirely. They say that we shouldbe fearful of creating danger in the Commonwealth by opposing thesuperior power. I will answer this differently than Demades answeredthe Athenians.171 Cassander of Macedonia, who succeeded Alexanderthe Great, petitioned the Athenians that Alexander be venerated as agod.172 They hesitated at this and Cassander appeared ready to makewar unless they accepted his demand. Demades spoke to the people,saying that it was to be feared in trying to maintain the heavens theyshould lose the earth.173 I respond with words that are altogether dif-ferent. It is to be feared lest that in excessive zeal for their earthlycommonwealth, they should lose heaven. Although the superior powermay rage and make threats, we must act with sound reason. God mustbe reverently and piously worshipped by us, even though every magis-trate should contradict us and the entire earth protest. Therefore, if thatsuperior power should give an order against the divine law, he must notbe heeded. Thus Naboth the Israelite refused to concede the vineyard

168 Matthew 10:37.169 Matthew 6:24.170 1Kings 18:21.171 See Plutarch, Moralia opuscula multis mendarum milibus expurgata (Basil: Froben, 1542),

219e, 804b, 842. Demades was an Athenian orator and demagogue of low birth (380–318BCE). He engaged in a lifelong enmity with Demosthenes stemming from a dis-agreement over the policies of Philip of Macedon. Demades interceded with Alexan-der the Great to save Athens from destruction. He proposed Alexander’s deificationin Athens, and was later fined ten talents. See The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. SimonHornblower and Antony Spawforth, 3rd edn. revised (Oxford: Oxford University Press,2003).

172 G.L. Cawkwell, “The Deification of Alexander the Great: A Note,” in Venturesinto Greek History: Essays in Honour of N.G.L. Hammond, ed. Ian Worthington (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1994), 293–306.

173 Dinarchus, 1.94,103, Hyperides, 5.31–32. Ian Worthington, Craig R. Cooper &Edward M. Harris, translators, Dinarchus, Hyperides, and Lycurgus (Austin: University ofTexas Press, 2001), see the introduction to Dinarchus. See also Polybius Megapolitanus,Historiarum libri priores quinq[ue] … epitome sequentium librorum, usq[ue] ad decimumseptimum,Vuolfgango Musculo interprete (Basel: Ioannem Heruagium, 1549), 12. 12b3.

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 115

which he had inherited to king Achab.174 He sought here to uphold thedivine law, for it warned that the tribes and families of Israel shouldremain separate concerning their possessions. Thus, it was not permit-ted Naboth to give away his entire inheritance. One who was heavilyin debt could sell his field until the year of Jubilee, but after this year,it would return to its prior owner.175 By this agreement, God wishedthat the inheritances of the Israelites not be mixed together with thenations’. On this account Naboth refused to give up his ancestral inher-itance, lest the law of God be rescinded. The magistrate should alsoimitate this and refuse to concede his cities or dominions to the impu-rity of the mass and idolatry of the Papists. [910] When the Jews wereheld in oppression by the Macedonians, they chose to suffer rather thanadmit the statue of Olympian Jove into the temple of God.176 When theRomans ruled them, they fomented a great deal of sedition and tumultrather than suffer the setting up of the silver eagle or the statue ofCaligula in the holy place.177 The Arian emperor Valentinian desiredthe Basilica of Milan be delivered to him, so that he could celebrate hisheretical prayers and rituals there. Ambrose refused to concede, andstayed in the Basilica with his people until nightfall, lest the emperortry to occupy it when it was empty.178 If the Hebrews did not want tostain the holy temple with statues, and Ambrose would not suffer tocontaminate the Church with heresy, why would faithful magistratespermit idolatry and polluted Papist worship in their temples?Magistrates say that these matters do not concern them and that

the temple is outside their power. What then? If a homicide should becommitted in the temple, or a conspiracy hatched against the Com-monwealth, would magistrates leave these murderers and conspiratorsunpunished? How can they say that such wickedness does not concernthem? Would they carefully and knowingly put up with these things?If they are wise and wish to look out for the commonwealth, surelythey would not. Some may object that the temple is not theirs in the

174 1Kings 21:3. Cp. “A sermon concernynge the tyme of Rebellion” below, CCCCMS 102, no. 29, fol. 444.

175 Leviticus 27:24.176 1Maccabees 1:57.177 2Maccabees 6:2.178 Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, 11.15. It was actually the Empress Justina, widow of

Valentinian I, who desired a place of worship for her Arian Gothic soldiers. Ambrosereplied: “The palaces belong to the Emperor, the churches to the Bishop.” See Am-brose of Milan, Omnia opera, per eruditos uiros, ex accurata diuersorum codicum collatione, ed.Erasmus et al. (Basel: Froben, 1529), vol. 3, 20; PL 16. 994–1002.

116 chapter two

first place, and that the magistrate should not be concerned with whathappens there. When these temples are within the city, it concerns themagistrate well enough. Indeed the idolatry, sacrilege and blasphemyoccurring there is much more serious than homicides and conspira-cies. How can a magistrate who wishes to call himself Christian notthink the governance of the temple his proper business? They say thatthe superior power established this order. Yet we have dealt with thisargument previously. They argue that if the same power destroys acity, or attempts to take away or diminish privileges, they would notbear it, but rather call the people to arms. Yet these things [viz. idol-atry, etc.] are much sharper and more grievous, yet they are doneopenly and publicly. Such actions are far more serious, for they aredone in a place where the Gospel of Christ has been received for manyyears.Since the magistrate often excludes himself from ecclesiastical causes,

saying that they are not his business, the argument he uses must beshown to be false. Although I have heavily dealt with this matteralready, I will join the elements of my argument together to make itclearer. First, I said that the magistrate is the guardian of the divine law,which includes not only the second table, but the first also.179 Thereforehe is the guardian of both the one and the other. I also mentioned thewords of Augustine who said that both private men and kings shouldserve the Lord. It is written in the Psalms, When peoples gather together,and kingdoms, to worship the Lord.180 In another place, Now therefore, O kings,be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, with trem-bling.181 Augustine adds that a private man serves the Lord by confess-ing His name and living rightly. This, however, is not sufficient for aking or magistrate. He should serve the Lord with his authority andpower by punishing those who oppose Him.182 Unless he does this, the

179 Exodus 25:10 seq. The first table, consisting of the first four of the ten command-ments, concerns the obligation to serve God. The second table, commandments fivethrough ten, governs the relation of worshippers in their dealings with one another.

180 Ps. 102:22.181 Ps. 2:10–11.182 Aurelius Augustine, Epistula ad Bonifacium, ep. 185, PL 33.803: “How then are kings

to serve the Lord with fear, except by preventing and chastising with religious severityall those acts which are done in opposition to the commandments of the Lord? For aman serves God in one way in that he is man, in another way in that he is also king. Inthat he is man, he serves Him by living faithfully; but in that he is also king, he servesHim by enforcing with suitable rigour such laws as ordain what is righteous, and punishwhat is the reverse.”

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 117

magistrate appears to give his assent to blasphemy and heresy. Whenthe king sees and suffers these men, he joins himself to them and pro-motes their shameful acts. When Nebuchadnezzar first came to knowGod, he proposed a decree promising capital punishment for those whoshould blaspheme against the God of Daniel.183 Darius later made asimilar decree.184 Our magistrate should stamp out all idolatry, blas-phemy and superstition. Heathen princes may think the care of religion(cura religionis) to be outside their power. Why was Socrates condemnedby the Athenians? I am not concerned with the justice or rightnessof this act (for it is thought by everyone that Anitus and Melitus liedagainst him). I say that he was condemned because of his religion, forhe taught new divinities and led the youth away from the old gods toaccept his alternative form of worship.185 He was thus condemned bythe common magistrate. The Athenians thought that the care of reli-gion and piety was the duty of the magistrate. The law of God statesthat blasphemers should be put to death not by a private man or bypriests, but by the magistrate.186 The pagan emperors of earlier timesraged against the Christians because they thought that affairs of reli-gion pertained to their authority. And in this they were not mistaken.Chrysostom says that no one, neither the Apostles nor the prophets,criticised either the Jews or the pagans for elevating the care of reli-gion. However, they were deceived in the knowledge of religion itself,for they defended theirs as true while condemning Christians as impi-ous and blasphemous. Constantine, Theodosius and many other holyprinces were praised for carrying away idols and either closing or over-turning their temples. They would not have done these things unlessthey esteemed the care of religion to be their concern. Otherwise, theywere busibodies putting their sickle into another man’s harvest. TheDonatists interpreted this in a most perverse way and complained bit-terly in the time of Augustine when the Catholic bishops sought helpagainst them from the civil magistrate. Augustine refuted them by thesame argument that I have just made above. He further demanded to

183 Dan. 3:96.184 Dan. 6:25.185 See Plato, Apology of Socrates, 24C–31C: “These new accusers must also have their

affidavit read. What do they say? Something of this sort:—That Socrates is a doer ofevil, and corrupter of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the state, andhas other new divinities of his own.”

186 Levi. 24:16.

118 chapter two

know why they had accused Cæcilianus, bishop of Carthage, in frontof Constantine if it was wrong for an emperor to judge in religiousmatters.187

From those things that Augustine wrote against Petilianus and Par-menianus, it can be gathered that the Donatists accused Cæcilianusbefore several bishops, as well as before the emperor Constantine, whosent the matter back to the Roman bishop Melchiades.188 Having beendefeated by this bishop, the Donatists again appealed to the emperor.He did not reject their call but sent the matter to the bishop of Arlesby whom they were once again condemned. The Donatists did not restthere, but [911] again called to the emperor, who heard their cause,condemned them again, and absolved Cæcilianus by his judgement.189

Where are they now, who so often and so impudently cry that noappeal can be made except to the Pope, and that the civil magistratecannot judge religious causes? Who once had the right to call councils?The councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon wereall called by emperors.190 Leo I asked the emperor to call a council inItaly, because he suspected the Greeks of following the error of Euty-ches and he could not change their mind. The bishops were called toChalcedon where the emperor was present among them, as was Con-stantine at the Council of Nicea. Nor were they present only to sit idlyby and do nothing. Rather, they followed the matters put forth by thebishops and impelled them to set proper boundaries. Theodoret relateshow Constantine admonished the fathers to discern all things by thesacred gospels, the Apostles, the prophets, and the divinely inspired(εωπνε�σ�ις) scriptures.191 Justinian compiled in the Code many laws

187 See Augustine, Epistula ad Bonifacium, ep. 185, PL 33.803; CSEL 53.322.188 Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, 3.25.29; PL 43:245–383; CSEL 52.185. See also

Contra epistulam Parmeniani, 2.13.27; CSEL 51.78.189 Augustine, Epistulam ad Catholicos de secta donistatarum vulgo de unitate ecclesiæ liber unus,

17.46; PL 43; CSEL 52.291.190 The four great Ecumenical Councils of the Early Church. According to artcicle

XXI of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, “General Councils may not be gatheredtogether without the commandment and will of Princes.”

191 Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica tripartita, 2.5.7; CSEL 71.91: “Viewing the commonpublic prosperity enjoyed at this moment, as the result of the great power of divinegrace, I am desirous above all things that the blessed members of the Catholic Churchshould be preserved in one faith, in sincere love, and in one form of religion, towardsAlmighty God. But, since no firmer or more effective measure could be adopted tosecure this end, than that of submitting everything relating to our most holy religionto the examination of all, or most of all, the bishops, I convened as many of them aspossible, and took my seat among them as one of yourselves; for I would not deny

text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 119

concerning bishops, presbyters and other men of this kind. Augustinehimself taught that the magistrate should punish heretics and idolatersin the same way that they punish adulterers. Such transgressors asso-ciate with ‘spiritual harlots’ against God, which is far graver than tocommit adultery in body. Idolaters and heretics should be punished asmurderers, for they harm the soul rather than the body. Such punish-ments are permitted in cases of homicide, for the blood is separatedfrom the slain body. Yet the death of the soul cannot be observed. Themagistrate may use the same care in employing his authority to compelmen to attend his holy meetings and hear the word of God. By oftenhearing the word, they may begin to live satisfactory lives who had pre-viously failed to satisfy. As the histories teach, God often illuminatedpious princes who were in his care with most famous victories.192

It cannot be denied that the magistrate’s duty includes the defenceof the cities and commonwealths that he commands, and to providethat they come to no harm. Since idolatry is the cause of captivity,pestilence, famine and subversions of commonwealths, the magistrateshould repress these things and preserve the true and sound religion.Paul teaches that fathers should instruct their children in sound dis-cipline and the fear of God.193 A good magistrate is the father of hishomeland (patria). He should thus take care that his subjects be taughtas ‘public’ children, after the example of the Apostles. On the onehand, kings and princes claim that religious matters are not their con-cern. On the other hand, they confer, grant, and sell bishoprics, abbeysand holy positions to whomever they see fit. They do not think this tobe foreign to their duties. While they think that they should not takenotice of religious matters, they provide nonetheless that those whomthey promote to such ample dignities should properly execute theiroffices. It remains that God will gain knowledge of their actions, judgethem and avenge their negligence.

that truth which is the source of my greatest joy, namely, that I am your fellow-servant.Every point obtained its due investigation, until the doctrine pleasing to the all-seeingGod, and conducive to unity, was made clear, so that no room should remain fordivision or controversy concerning the faith.”

192 E.g. Constantine’s victory at the Battle of Milvian Bridge on 28 October 312where he is said to have carried the day owing to his conversion to Christianity—inhoc signo vinces—and thus to have gained the seat of Empire.

193 Hebrews 12:7.

chapter three

‘SYNNE AND SEDITION’: PENITENCEAND THE DUTY OF OBEDIENCE

Textual Introduction

On 21 July 1549, the fifth Sunday after Trinity according to the ecclesi-astical calendar and in the midst of a year of almost unprecedented civildisorder, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer entered the quire of St Paul’sCathedral accompanied by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of Londonand there preached a sermon in which he dissected the causes of andproposed certain remedies for the civil disorder which had gripped therealm since the promulgation of the new liturgy of the Book of Com-mon Prayer.1 Martial law had been proclaimed by the Council just threedays previously in the face of open rebellion against the government inNorfolk, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and in parts of the West Coun-try.2 There had been various insurrections and disturbances in the westsince the accession of Edward VI—notably in response to the unpop-

1 This event is described by Sir Charles Wriothesley in A Chronicle of England dur-ing the reigns of the Tudors, from A.D. 1485 to 1559, ed. W.D. Hamilton, from a transcriptmade early in the seventeenth century for the third earl of Southampton (Westminster:Camden Society, 1875–1877), 16–18. For another contemporary account, see Chronicle ofthe Grey friars of London, ed. John Gough Nichols (London: Camden Society, 1852), 60:“the xxj day of the same monyth, the whyche was sonday, the byshoppe of Caunter-bury came sodenly to Powlles, and there shoyd and made a narracyon of thoys thatdyd rysse in dyvers places within the realme, and what rebellyous they were and woldetake aponne them to reforme thynges befor the lawe, and to take the kynges powre inhonde.” The first Edwardine Book of Common Prayer was approved on 21 January 1549with the passage by Parliament of “An Act for Uniformity of Service and Administra-tion of the Sacraments throughout the Realm.” 2 and 3 Edward VI, c. 1; Statutes of theRealm, iv. 37–39.

2 For a succinct description of the 1549 rebellions, see Anthony Fletcher and Diar-maid MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, 5th edn. (Harlow: Longmans, 2004) and esp. 52–64on the Western Rebellion; cited hereafter as TR. See also Francis Rose-Troup, The West-ern Rebellion of 1549: an account of the insurrections in Devonshire and Cornwall against religiousinnovations in the reign of Edward VI (London: Smith, Elder, 1913) and B.L. Beer, Rebellionand riot: popular disorder in England during the reign of Edward VI (Kent, Ohio: Kent StateUniversity Press, 1982).

122 chapter three

ularity of William Body, lay Archdeacon of Cornwall a close formerassociate of Thomas Cromwell and now agent of Protector Somerset’spolicy of religious reform.3 A decisive turning point in the course of theEnglish Reformation had been reached early in 1549 with the passageof the Act of Uniformity.4 The Act required that “after the feast of Pen-tecost next coming”—i.e. 9 June 1549—the offices and sacraments ofthe Church of England be conducted according to the new vernacularrites in replacement of the old Latin liturgies and “in such order andform as is mentioned in the said book, and none other or otherwise.”5

This profound alteration of public worship was not widely popular, andwas especially resented in Cornwall and parts of Devon where manyof the people spoke little or no English. The enforcement of the newliturgy depended upon the first Edwardine Act of Uniformity of 1549:“all and singular ministers in any cathedral or parish church or otherplace within this realm of England, Wales, Calais, and the marches ofthe same, or other the king’s dominions, shall, from and after the feastof Pentecost next coming, be bound to say and use the Matins, Even-song, celebration of the Lord’s Supper, commonly called the Mass, andadministration of each of the sacraments, and all their common andopen prayer, in such order and form as is mentioned in the same book,and none other or otherwise.”6 On Whitmonday 1549, the day follow-ing the authorised change in the liturgy, the parishioners of SampfordCourtenay in Devon convinced the local priest to revert to the old ways:“we wil not receyve the newe servyce because it is but lyke a Christmasgame.”7 Justices arrived at the next service to enforce the change. An

3 See I. Arthurson, “Fear and loathing in West Cornwall: seven new letters on the1548 rising,” Journal of the Royal Institute of Cornwall, new series II, 3.3 & 4 (2000): 70.

4 Eamon Duffy, The stripping of the altars: traditional religion in England, c. 1400 – c. 1580(New Haven: London: Yale University Press, 2005), 463–467.

5 For a full account of the Edwardine religious reforms see Diarmaid MacCulloch’sBirkbeck Lectures for 1997–1998, Tudor Church Militant: Edward VI and the ProtestantReformation (London: Penguin, 2001). The Act specifically required that “all and singularministers in any cathedral or parish church or other place within this realm of England,Wales, Calais, and the marches of the same, or other the king’s dominions, shall,from and after the feast of Pentecost next coming, be bound to say and use theMatins, Evensong, celebration of the Lord’s Supper, commonly called the Mass, andadministration of each of the sacraments, and all their common and open prayer, insuch order and form as is mentioned in the said book, and none other or otherwise.”

6 2 & 3 Edward VI, cap. 1, printed in Documents of the English Reformation, ed. GeraldBray (Cambridge: J. Clarke, 1994).

7 Only three copies of the western rebels’ demands are known to have survived. See“The Articles of us the Commoners of Devonshyre and Cornwall in divers Campes by

penitence and the duty of obedience 123

altercation at the service led to a proponent of the change (a WilliamHellyons) being run through with a pitchfork on the church steps. Gath-ering thousands of supporters, these religious traditionalists marched toCrediton and proceeded thence to lay siege to the City of Exeter tofurther their demands.While economic oppression of the people by the gentry owing to the

enclosure of the commons was of great concern, the formal demands ofthe rebels Devon and Cornwall presented in a supplication to the Kingleave no doubt that the government’s sweeping religious reforms playedthe primary role in fomenting the uprising.8 In direct opposition to thenewly imposed religious settlement the rebels insist upon the restorationof “the masse in Latten, as was before, and celebrated by the Pryestwythoute any man or woman communycatyng wyth hym” (art. 3), thehanging of the reserved sacrament “over the hyeghe aulter, and thereto be worshypped as it was wount to be” (art. 4), communion “in onekynde” (art. 5), and “Images to be set up again in every church, and allother auncient olde Ceremonyes used heretofore”. Not until the finalarticles do the demands turn to more mundane concerns, e.g. “that noGentylman shall have anye mo servantes then one to wayte upon hymexcepte he maye dispende on hundreth marke land” (art. 13) or therestoration of Abbey and chantry lands and endowments to the supportof monastic communities (art. 14). In the face of open insurrection andthe spilling of blood—the city of Exeter had been under siege since 2July, and as many as 4000 are said to have died by the cessation of theinsurrection—Thomas Cranmer composed a detailed written responseto the western rebels’ demands.9 He chose to launch his appeal forthe restoration of order with a high-profile public sermon preached atSt Paul’s in mid-July at the very height of the confrontation betweengovernment and people.10

East and West of Excettor,” in a rare tract titled A Copye of a Letter, in Rose-Troup, TheWestern Rebellion of 1549, 222–223 and appendix K, 492–494.

8 See “Sermon in the tyme of Rebellion,” fols. 427, 453, 459. On the WesternRebellion, see TR, 52–64.

9 Thomas Cranmer’s response to these articles is found in CCCC MS 102, fol. 337;repr. The remains of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. Henry Jenkyns (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1833), 202–244. For a contemporary account of the siege ofExeter see The discription of the cittie of Excester, collected and gathered by Iohn Vowel alias Hooker,gentelman and chamberlain of the same cittie, (London: John Allde, 1575), 51 vº–52 rº. JohnHooker was Member of Parliament for Exeter and was uncle to Richard Hooker thedivine.

10 Charles Wriothesley draws attention to the solemnity of the occasion. See Chronicle

124 chapter three

Most significantly, however, the sermon was not of Cranmer’s owncomposition but, as we shall shortly demonstrate, was the work of hisclose associate and theological mentor Peter Martyr Vermigli, recentlyappointed Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford andCanon of Christ Church.11 Cranmer had personally invited Vermigli totake up this prestigious appointment at the handsome annual salary of40 marks. At the time of the West Country Rebellion, Vermigli wasalready embroiled in a heated disputation on the sacrament of theEucharist as a consequence of his inaugural lectures in the OxfordDivinity School on Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians; and, on thebasis of his thoroughly evangelical formulation of eucharistic doctrine,he was soon to be engaged in advising Cranmer on a revision of theliturgy of 1549 in a more thoroughly reformed direction.12 One of thechief fruits of these lectures would be the revised Book of Common Prayerof 1552.13 Josiah Simler relates that “not long after this disputationthe Commons of Devonshire and Oxfordshire raised a Commotion,wherein death was threatened unto many, but namelie unto Martyr.When he could not nowe teache no nor remaine without daunger in

of England, 16: “The one and twentith daie of Julie, the sixth daie after Trinitie soundaie,the Archbishopp of Canterburie came to Poules, and their in the quire after mattensin a cope with an aulbe under it, and his crosse borne afore him with two priestesof Poules for deakin and sub-deacon with aulbles and tuniceles, the deane of Poulesfollowinge him in his surples, came into the quire, my lord Maior with most part ofthe aldermen sitting there with him. And after certaine assembly of people gatheredinto the quire the said Bishopp made a certaine exhortation to the people to pray toalmightie God for his grace and mercy to be shewed unto us.”

11 Vermigli succeeded Richard Smith as Regius Professor of Divinity in March 1548.Mark Taplin, “Pietro Martire Vermigli,” ODNB. See Philip M.J. McNair, “Peter Martyrin England,” in Joseph C. McLelland, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform (Water-loo, Ont.: Sir Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1980), 85–105 and William M. Jones,“Uses of foreigners in the Church of Edward VI” Numen 6.2 (April, 1959): 142–153.A crucial result of this controversy was the publication of his celebrated treatise oneucharistic theology which was to become the theological foundation for the revision ofthe liturgy in the Second Prayer Book of 1552. See Peter Martyr Vermigli, Tractatio desacramento eucharistiæ (London: ad æneum serpentem, 1549).

12 Jennifer Loach, “Reformation Controversies,” in The History of the University ofOxford, vol. 3, The Collegiate University, ed. James McConica (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1986), 368–375. See the Introduction to Peter Martyr Vermigli, The Oxford Treatiseand Disputation on the Eucharist 1549, transl. and ed. Joseph C. McLelland, PML vol. 7(Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2000).

13 On Vermigli’s collaboration with Cranmer on the revision of the doctrine of theeucharist and the liturgy of the Prayer Book, see J.C. McLelland, “The Second Book ofCommon Prayer,” in The Visible Words of God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology ofPeter Martyr Vermigli (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957), 28–40.

penitence and the duty of obedience 125

the Citie [of Oxford], he by the assistance of his friendes was safelieconducted to London” and there resided with Cranmer at LambethPalace.14 Thus Vermigli was actually dwelling under Cranmer’s roof atthe very time the sermon in question was preached at St. Paul’s.According to Charles Wriothesley’s brief account of the event in his

Chronicle of England, the sermon likened the insurrection of 1549 to a

great plague of God reigning ouer us … for our great sins and neglectinghis worde and commandments, which plage is the commotion of thepeople in most parts of this realme now raigning among us speciallyagainst Godes commandmente and the true obedience to our mostChristen King Edwarde the sixt, naturall, christian, [i.e. by natural anddivine law] and supream head of this realme of Englande and other hisdomynions, which plage of sedition and divicion among ourselues is thegreatest plage, and not like heard of since the passion of Christ.15

Cranmer is described as exhorting his audience that this plague of sedi-tion was instigated “by the Devill for our miserable sinnes and tres-passes in that we have shewed us to be the professors and diligent hear-ers of his worde by his true preachers and our lives not amended” andconcluding with a solemn admonition that the situation could only beremedied and order restored through penitential acts of fasting andprayer.16 Although brief, Wriothesley’s description of Cranmer’s pub-lic preaching on the rebellion at St Paul’s is sufficiently specific withrespect to both theme and argument to allow virtually certain iden-tification with a manuscript in the collection of the Parker Libraryof Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.17 The text of the manuscriptsermon follows the same tri-partite structure: it compares the insur-rection to a “plague”, attributes its cause to “synne” and “unchristianlyvyng”, and proposes finally that “the remedie of al our plags is onely

14 Josiah Simler, An Oration of the life and death of that worthie man and excellent Divine d.Peter Martyr Vermillius, professor of Diuinitie in the schoole of Zuricke, in Vermigli’s Divine Epistles(London: John Day, 1583), Qq ii vº.

15 Wriothesley, Chronicle of England, 17–18.16 For example, compare Wriothesley’s report that “we have shewed ourselves …

dilgent hearers of his word … our lives not amended” (Chronicle, 17) with the text of thesermon itself: “The generall cause of these commotions is synne, and under christianprofession unchristian lyving” (CCCC MS 102, fol. 415).

17 A MS translated from the Latin of Peter Martyr in the collection of the ParkerLibrary, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 102, no. 29, fols. 411–499. Title of MSon fol. 409; text begins on fol. 411. See Montague Rhodes James, A Descriptive Catalogueof the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1912), vol. I, no. 102.

126 chapter three

penaunce”.18 Gilbert Burnet was the first historian of the Reformationto make the connection between Cranmer’s public preaching on theRebellion and the Parker Library manuscript and alleges, moreover, tohave seen the sermon in Cranmer’s own hand in the library of CorpusChristi.19 This, however, proves to have been something of an exagger-ated claim. While several marginal headings of the main divisions ofthe argument, as well as some emendations to the text together with alengthy prayer appended to the MS are in Cranmer’s own distinctivescript, the bulk of the manuscript is in an unknown secretary hand.In another reference to the same sermon John Strype maintains that

a solemn day of fasting was appointed as a result of the outbreak ofcivil insurrection, and that Cranmer had directed officially sanctionedhomilies be written and read in church by curates in order “to preserve[the people] in their obedience, and to set out the evil and mischief ofthe present disturbances.”20 Strype proposes that the manuscript of “Asermon concernynge the tyme of Rebellion” in the Parker Library mayhave been composed for such general public use, although there is noevidence of the work having been employed in this way.21

Following Burnet’s and Strype’s lead, Henry Jenkyns included thesermon in the second volume of his edition of Cranmer’s works pub-lished in 1833.22 Jenkyns, however, expresses doubt about the authen-ticity of Cranmer’s authorship. In particular he draws attention to afact hitherto (and quite astonishingly) ignored, viz. Matthew Parker’sepigraph “hic sermo prius descriptus Latine a Petro Martyre”.23 The epigraphlinks the sermon to another Latin manuscript in the collection which

18 “A Sermon concernynge the tyme of rebellion,” CCCC MS 102, no. 29, fols. 418,424, 485.

19 The History of the Reformation in England, ed. E. Nares (London: Dove, 1830), vol. 2,244.

20 Memorials of the most reverend father in God Thomas Cranmer, sometime lord archbishop ofCanterbury (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1812), 187.

21 It is perhaps remotely possible that Strype may have confused this sermon with ‘Ahomily against strife and contention’, Certayne sermons, or Homelies: appoynted by the KyngesMaiestie, to bee declared and redde, by all persons, vicares, or curates, euery Sondaye in their churches,where they haue cure (London: R. Grafton, 1547), STC 13675, sermon 12.

22 The remains of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, collected and arranged bythe Rev. Henry Jenkyns (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1833), 248–273.

23 The Latin sermon with Parker’s annotation ‘Sermo Petri Martir manu propriascripta in seditionem Devonensium’ (fol. 73) is part of the same collection, MS 340,no. 4, fols. 73–95. See James, Descriptive Catalogue, Vol. II, no. 340. Referring to Englishversion, Jenkyns remarks that “although this sermon has been placed among Cranmer’sworks, his claim to it is not indisputable.” Jenkyns, ed., Cranmer, 248.

penitence and the duty of obedience 127

is identified by Parker as Vermigli’s autograph. Nonetheless Jenkynsasserts that “far from being only a translation of the Latin Sermon”the manuscript of “A sermon concernynge the tyme of Rebellion” isonly loosely based on the manuscript of the Latin sermon in Ver-migli’s hand to which the epigraph refers. Thus according to Jenkyns,Cranmer composed an English sermon roughly “based on materials inLatin” prepared by Vermigli.24 Following Jenkyns, Edmund Cox, editorof the Parker Society edition of Cranmer’s Works, defends Cranmer’sauthorship of the sermon and observes by way of confirmation thatthe piece follows a series of topics and various scriptural and historicalexamples of sedition roughly sketched out by Cranmer in another setof autograph notes.25 Cox repeats Jenkyns’s remarks about the additionof significant new material in the English version of the sermon, andconcludes by taking the question of Cranmer’s substantive authorshipof the sermon as settled.26

On close inspection of the Latin sermon bearing Parker’s epigraph“Sermo Petri Martir manu propria scripta in seditionem Devonensium”—alsoin the collection of the Parker Library—and comparing it with otherexamples of Vermigli’s autograph, there can be no doubt that thismanuscript is indeed Vermigli’s.27 Matthew Parker may have madesome egregious errors in the identification and dating of some of theearly manuscripts in his vast collection, but he is certainly reliable whenit comes to his own contemporaries.28 Moreover, careful collation of theLatin and English versions of the sermon shows that the 19th-centuryeditors of Cranmer’s works, i.e. Jenkyns and Cox, were mistaken intheir insistence (based on Burnet’s original claim) that the English ser-

24 Jenkyns states that “In some parts long passages are omitted, in others muchnew matter is added … It may be observed also, that both the Latin and the EnglishSermons contain the same topics and examples as the rough Notes by the Archbishopwhich are printed above. Perhaps therefore it may be reasonably conjectured, thatCranmer placed these brief notes in the hands of P. Martyr, to be expanded into aregular homily; and that afterwards, from the materials thus prepared in Latin, hedrew up the English Sermon which follows.” Jenkyns, ed., Cranmer, 248.

25 “Heads of a discourse against rebellion,” CCCC MS 102.34, fol. 530–532.26 The Works of Thomas Cranmer, ed. John Edmund Cox, PS 2 vols. (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1844–1846), 2:190.27 For a published facsimile of Vermigli’s hand matching the hand of the Latin text

of the sermon see Johannes Ficker, Handschriftenproben des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts nachStrassburger Originalen (Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner, 1906), plate 28A.

28 Christopher de Hamel, “Archbishop Matthew Parker and His Imaginary Libraryof Archbishop Theodore of Canturbury,” Annual Report of the Executive Committee of theFriends of Lambeth Palace Library (2002).

128 chapter three

mon is substantively Cranmer’s own composition.29 In actuality, theEnglish text is a close line-by-line translation of Vermigli’s original andindeed renders the text of the Latin sermon faithfully and in its entirety.There are approximately four and half folios of the expansive secretaryhand in the translation for each folio of Vermigli’s much more com-pact italic Latin. While the English version of the sermon has a smallamount of interpolated material, this is largely confined to the additionof short phrases and minor aesthetic revisions to the translation, theoccasional reworking of the syntax (doubtless principally for rhetoricaleffect), with the addition of a concluding collect and marginal head-ings both in Cranmer’s own hand. It would thus seem plausible to inferthat these emendations to the text of the sermon and the prayer inCranmer’s autograph had misled Gilbert Burnet to assert Cranmer’sauthorship in the first instance, and that Jenkyns and Cox followed Bur-net’s lead in this reading of the evidence. Taken together, however, theadditions in Cranmer’s hand are quite negligible when compared tothe overall length of the text.30 In short, the public sermon preachedby Cranmer at St. Paul’s on 21 July 1549 proves to be substantively aclose translation of Vermigli’s autograph Latin text, exactly as MatthewParker suggests in his epigraphs to the two manuscripts.Nonetheless, received opinion continues to ascribe authorship of the

sermon to Thomas Cranmer. This view of the matter is reiterated byG.E. Duffield in the 1964 Sutton Courtney edition of selected writingsof the Archbishop.31 Although the full text of the sermon is not includedamong his printed selections, Duffield discusses the manuscript andincludes Cranmer’s autograph “Heads of a discourse against Rebel-lion” as evidence of his authorship.32 In his brief introduction to Cran-mer’s “Heads” which he titles “Notes on Rebellion, 1549,” Duffieldobserves that “Cranmer was much troubled by the revolts in 1549,and often preached against them. We know he used sermons by PeterMartyr and Martin Bucer in his own preparation.”33 In this man-ner Duffield perpetuates the earlier view that Cranmer employed Ver-

29 Jenkyns, ed., Cranmer, 248.30 In the text of the sermon following the additions of text in another hand and

departures from the Latin original are given in square brackets.31 G.E. Duffield, The Works of Thomas Cranmer (Appleford, Berks: Sutton Courtenay

Press, 1964), 221.32 CCCC MS 102, no. 34, fols. 530–532. Matthew Parker’s epigraph reads “Heads of

a discourse against Rebellion.” Duffield reprints the “Heads” in Cranmer, 241–244.33 Duffield, Cranmer, 221.

penitence and the duty of obedience 129

migli’s text as a resource of materials for the composition of his ownhomily rather than preaching a substantive translation of the Floren-tine’s sermon. Since Cranmer’s autograph “Heads of discourse againstRebellion” cover some of the principal topics included in the Englishsermon, at first glance they would appear to lend some support to thecase for Cranmer’s authorship. The same view is reinforced in a recentbiography of Vermigli in the new Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.34

To add further intricacy to the question of attribution, there is yetanother manuscript in the Parker collection containing another seriesof notes in Latin, in Vermigli’s hand and bearing Matthew Parker’sepigraph “Cogitationes Petri Martyris contra seditionem”.35 Like Cran-mer’s jottings Vermigli’s “cogitationes” also cover the main heads andexamples set out in the sermon. The vexed question whether Cran-mer’s notes may have been based on Vermigli’s notes, or vice versa,is difficult to determine. Cranmer’s notes are somewhat more detailedthan Vermigli’s, and this fact may lend support to the view that Cran-mer may well have been working from Vermigli’s notes and expand-ing on them. Regardless of which set of notes may have preceded theother—more likely we have a case here of two distinguished divinesworking cooperatively—it can be asserted with reasonable plausibilitythat the sermon Wriothesley describes Cranmer having preached atSt Paul’s in July 1549 was the result of close collaboration with PeterMartyr, an inference reinforced by Simler’s report that Vermigli wasresiding at Lambeth Palace at the time in question.36 Just as Cran-mer worked in close theological collaboration with Vermigli in the revi-sion of his own eucharistic theology and in the consequent revision ofthe 1549 liturgy which would culminate in the revised Book of CommonPrayer of 1552,37 and yet again in the work of the Royal Commission forthe reformation of the Canon Law (Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum),38 soindeed it would appear only natural that Vermigli should be enlisted

34 See Mark Taplin’s recent biography “Pietro Martire Vermigli, evangelical reform-er” in ODNB.

35 CCCC MS 102, no. 31, fols. 509–511.36 Josiah Simler, Oration, Qq ii vº.37 J.C. McLelland, “The Second Book of Common Prayer,” The Visible Words of God,

28–40.38 Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum ex authoritate primum Regis Henrici. 8. inchoata: deinde per

Regem Edouardum 6. prouecta, adauctaq[ue] in hunc modum, atq[ue] nunc ad pleniorem ipsarumreformationem in lucem ædita (London: John Day, 1571). For a critical edition, see GeraldBray, ed., Tudor Church Reform: The Henrician Canons of 1535 and the Reformatio legumecclesiasticarum (Woodbridge: Boydell Press for the Church of England Record Society,

130 chapter three

to contribute to the official pulpit campaign of response to the upris-ings and thus to assist in the restoration of order within the common-wealth at large. The precise nature of the cooperation between Cran-mer and Vermigli with respect to this “Sermon concernynge the tymeof Rebellion”, however, is in need of some reformulation. Whereasreceived opinion emphasizes the role of the “Cogitationes” and holdsthat Cranmer drew upon these writings as an ancilliary resource fora sermon that was largely of Cranmer’s own composition, the textualevidence clearly shows that, with the exception of some minor alter-ations and the addition of a concluding prayer and some topical head-ings, the English version of the sermon is in actuality a complete andclose line-for-line translation of Vermigli’s Latin composition. To con-clude while the existence of parallel sets of preparatory notes suggestsa close collaboration between the two divines, Vermigli’s sermon canby no means be relegated to the status of a lumber room of mate-rials made use of by Cranmer as has long been asserted. Rather, afull recognition of Vermigli’s primary authorship of this highly signifi-cant political sermon is long overdue. The lack of such recognition isperhaps symptomatic of a long-standing tendency of English Reforma-tion historiography to downplay the central role played by continentalreformers—such as Vermigli, Bucer, and Heinrich Bullinger—in defin-ing the religious settlement under Edward VI. As the author of thesermon Vermigli played a decisive part as a political theologian in thisdramatic public response to the 1549 rebellion in a manner consistentwith his leading role as principal author of the Eucharistic theology ofthe second Edwardine Book of Common Prayer (1552) and as a proactiveroyal commissioner on the reform of the Canon Law.

Argument of the Sermon

Vermigli opens his sermon by comparing “the commen sorrow of thispresent tyme” to the example of Job “when he came to his extrememisery, lyving upon a dong hill.”39 Throughout, the sermon builds uponthe trope of the “body politic” where Job personifies the body of therealm of England upon whom the rebellion as “the plage of God”

2000). For an historical introduction to the work of the Royal Commission authorizedto reform the Canon Law of England, see Bray, xli–cxvi.

39 A Sermon concernynge the tyme of Rebellion, CCCC MS 102.34, fol. 411.

penitence and the duty of obedience 131

is visited.40 The anguish of this body/realm is “now so troubled, sovexed, so tossed, and deformed, and that by sedition among our selfes,of such as be membres of the same, that nothing is lefte unattemptedto the utter ruyne and subversion therof.”41 The grief moreover is suchas can be bewailed “with teares rather than with wourdes” (fol. 411).The preacher thus invites those who would contemplate the “extrememysery” of a kingdom racked by sedition to put themselves in the placeof Job’s three friends, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, andZophar the Naamathite.42 In this fashion the discourse aims to raiseconsideration of England’s civil discord to the more universal level oftheodicy: a divine justice is at work in these immediate political andsocial events, and the main task of the preacher of the divine Word is toexplain the ways of God to men.43 Such an approach opens up a verydistinctive vantage point, viz. that of the political theologian. Vermigliproclaims as his chief goal that “out of holy scripture I may playnelysett out before your eyes the princypal causes of al these tumults andseditions” (fol. 415), and thereby to determine what personal, religious,and political remedies may be necessary. The structure of the sermon’sargument thus follows an uncomplicated homiletical order: the generaland primary cause of the Rebellion is considered first, followed byan analysis of specific secondary causes related chiefly to the distinctinterests of the principal antagonists, and concluding with a concertedproposal for the restoration of order in the commonwealth.The summary heading of the first cause of the sedition currently

“plaguing” the body politic comes, at least initially, as something ofa surprise. Vermigli does not begin by criticizing the rebels as mighthave been expected of the official voice of the Establishment, but ratherdraws attention to the “remisseness of correction in governours”.44

The sermon nonetheless refers habitually to the governors in the first

40 See David George Hale, The Body Politic: A Political Metaphor in Renaissance EnglishLiterature (The Hague: Mouton, 1971) and Ernst H. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies:A Study in Mediæval Political Theology (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957).

41 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 412–413.42 Job 2:11–13.43 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 413: “the eternall punyshment of god threatenith sore to

come upon us for thies seditions and without faile will fall ammonge us, except weecease in tyme from our discorde, and amende the same by godlye concorde and godlyrepentaunce, so that wee be constryned day and night to bewayle the decaye not onlyof a worldely kingdom, and moost noble realme, but also the eternall damnation ofinnumerable soules.”

44 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 416.

132 chapter three

person—and here the name of Protector Somerset looms large, thoughunspoken, while both Vermigli and Cranmer, author and preacher,clearly identify themselves with the establishment—“We have beento[o] remise in ponysshing offenders.”45 Cranmer, it must be recalled,is a leading member of the Privy Council and, after the King and theProtector, the most senior public personage in the Realm. Scripture—and predictably the first text appealed to here is the locus classicus ofReformation political theology, viz. Romans 13—makes plain that Gov-ernors and rulers are “ordyened of god for the intent and purpose thatthey should be goddes officers and to punyshe and converte those thatbe evill.”46 Government has signally failed in this purpose. Thus thesermon is blunt in attributing the “prima causa” of rebellion to exces-sive leniency, a failure of the governors to fulfill their essential, divinelymandated role of punishing and converting the evil:

either thinking this clemency for the tyme expedient for the commonwealthe, or els not duely waying how grevouse those offences [be inthe sight of God] were and how much they offended god. And whilstwee lacked this right iudgement of goddes wrathe againste synne, loo,[418] sodenly cometh upon us this scourge of sedition, the rodde ofgoddes wrathe, to teache us how sore god hateth all wickedness [andis displeased with his ministers that wynke thereat].47

This unexpectedly frank criticism from a pillar of the establishmentstrikes at the very heart of Somerset’s strategy and reveals somethingof the intricate dynamic of interplay among the rulers themselves aswell as between rulers and ruled.48 Just as Job refuses to blame his suf-ferings on either external circumstance or divine injustice, but even-tually comes to acknowledge his own finitude and shortcomings, soVermigli aims not to mince words here, but to attribute civil disorderfirst and foremost (prima causa) to the government’s own failure to fulfil

45 In the MS (fol. 417) Cranmer substitutes “remise” for the translator’s “slacke”.46 See Vermigli’s Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos … Commentarii (Basle: P. Perna,

1558). See his commentary on this passage in the text appended to chapter II above.See also W.J. Torrance Kirby, “The Civil Magistrate: Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Com-mentary on Romans 13,” in The Peter Martyr Reader, ed. J.P. Donnelly, Frank James IIIand Joseph C. McLelland (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 1999): 221–237.

47 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 417.48 On the debate among historians concerning Edward Seymour’s strategy in gov-

ernment, see Ethan Shagan, “Protector Somerset and the 1549 Rebellions: NewSources and New Perspectives,” English Historical Review 114.455 (Feb. 1999): 34–63. Seealso M.L. Bush, The government policy of Protector Somerset (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Uni-versity Press, 1975).

penitence and the duty of obedience 133

its scripturally mandated function. In the current disorder of rebellionthe rulers should first recognize the cause in themselves, and not in the“other”, and that they are consequently recipients of a divine judge-ment upon their own inadequacy.As it turns out, criticism of the policy and conduct of Somerset

was actually not an uncommon analysis of the situation among severalprominent members of the governing establishment, and so Vermigli’sdiagnosis of the ills need not be interpreted as quite as daring as mayinitially appear. When the Protector was finally toppled in October inthe aftermath of the rebellion, just two months after the preaching ofthis sermon, it was not by the rebels. The Privy Council charged thatSomerset had colluded with rebels, he had “failed in speed repress-ing of them,” and “in time of rebellion he said that he liked well theactions of the rebels, and that the avarice of gentlemen gave occasionfor the people to rise, and that it was better for them to die than toperish for want.”49 In conspicuous ways the regime of Protector Som-erset had announced its support for the rebels’ claims. Ethan Shaganhas recently argued that “the Protector’s strategy involved an elaboratecourting of public opinion and a stunning willingness to commit theregime to fundamental changes in policy at the initiation of the com-mons.” Consequently, “we can see in Somerset’s policy a novel modeof popularity-politics in the process of invention.”50 Briefly, the strategyof the Protector was to foster an alliance between government and peo-ple by superseding the interests of the landed gentry. It is precisely thisstrategy which Vermigli calls into question in the opening paragraphsof his sermon and thus casts himself (and Cranmer) in the propheticalrole of speaking truth to power.In a letter to Somerset dated 7 July 1549, exactly two weeks in

advance of Cranmer’s sermon, Sir William Paget had also taken directaim at the Protector’s policy of clemency towards the rebels:

Mary, the King’s subjects owt of all discipline, owt of obedience, caryngneither for Protectour nor Kings, and much lesse for any other meaneofficer. And what is the cause? Your owne levytie, your softnes, youropinion to be good to the pore … Yt is pitie that your so muchegentlenes shuld be an occasion of so great an evell as ys now chauncedin England by these rebelles … Consider, I beseeche youe most humbly,

49 Gilbert Burnet, History of the Reformation of the Church of England (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1865), vol. 5, 284.

50 Ethan Shagan, “Protector Somerset and the 1549 Rebellions,” 47.

134 chapter three

with all my harte, that societie in a realme dothe consiste, and ys mayn-teyned by meane of religion and law.51

It would appear from the argument of the sermon, then, that Vermigliand Cranmer, as author and preacher respectively, were party to a clos-ing of ranks by the ruling élite, a manoeuvre which would lead to theexclusion of the King’s uncle from power and result ultimately in hisexecution. In “lacking this right iudgement of goddes wrathe againstesynne” Somerset, representative of the first of the “estates”, had failedsingularly in the foremost task of God’s vice-gerent, namely “truely andindifferently [to] minister justice, to the punishement of wickednes andvice, and to the mayntenaunce of God’s true religion and vertue,” asCranmer had neatly summarized the role of Christian kings, princes,and governors in the prayer of Intercession in the recently promulgatedliturgy of the Book of Common Prayer.52 On this point Cranmer, Vermigli,Paget, and ultimately the majority of the Privy Council could all agree.Nonetheless, Vermigli was to write a sympathetic and public letter ofconsolation to the Duke subsequent to his fall from power.53 Vermigli,however, goes more deeply into the matter and interprets the Protec-tor’s fatal policy of leniency in the light of theodicy in the tradition ofAurelius Augustine.54 Since the governance of subjects is “mediated” bythe “powres ordeyned of god,” the coercive power of governors andrulers also serves as the “remedium peccati” for ordinary sinners, while thecoercive hand of the divine power alone acting in history serves as thedivine remedy for the failure of princes.55 God alone can take offenceat the slackness of rulers and correct those who, according to Scrip-ture, are “immediately” under his divine appointment. And it is there-fore foremost on account of the sin of the appointed rulers, Vermigli

51 SP 10/8/4 (Calendar of State Papers Domestic, Edward VI, revised edition, no. 301);TR, 160. B.L. Beer, ed., “A critique of the protectorate: an unpublished letter of SirWilliam Paget to the Duke of Somerset,” Huntington Library Quarterly 34 (1971): 277–283.

52 The First and Second Prayer Books of King Edward VI (London: Dent, 1913; repr. 1999),382.

53 An epistle vnto the right honorable and christian prince, the Duke of Somerset written vnto himin Latin, awhile after hys deliueraunce out of trouble, by the famous clearke Doctour Peter Martyr, andtranslated into Englyshe by Thomas Norton (Londo[n]: [N. Hill] for Gualter Lynne, 1550). OnVermigli’s warm personal rapport with Somerset, see M.L. Bush, The government policy ofProtector Somerset, 109–112. See Appendix 2 below p. 245.

54 De civitate Dei, XI.9; XII.6; XIX.6.55 See Common Places, transl. Anthony Marten (London: Henry Denham, 1583) 4.17,

fol. 282; cited hereafter as CP. For Augustine, war is frequently the “remedy for sin” inhuman history. De civitate Dei XIX.12, 27.

penitence and the duty of obedience 135

argues, that “we suffer worthily this plage of god.”56 In this passagethe “we” is somewhat ambivalent. On the one hand, it can be takento represent the entire “body politic”, for whatever the head inflictsthrough its shortcomings the whole body suffers. On the other hand,the “we” might also be taken to refer more exclusively to those fewdirectly involved in government. Far from being able to cast the blamesolely upon the rebels themselves, and thus self-righteously to see thegovernment as the mere object of the plague of sedition, the rulersthemselves, following the example of Job, must endeavour to shoulderblame in the case. “There is none righteous, no, not one.”57

Vermigli proceeds to confirm this theodicy of the Rebellion by ap-pealing to some biblical examples from the history of Israel, specificallyto the sufferings of Eli and David for their failure to chastise theirchildren, and the destruction of the tribe of Benjamin:

Consider I praye you by this example, how certayne and [L 78]58 presentdestruction cometh to comon weales, because offendours against god areunponysshed. And whensoever the magistrates be slacke in doing theiroffice herein, let them loke for none other but that the plage of god shallfall in their necks for the same, whiche thinge not only the foresaideexamples, but also experiences with our selfes dothe playnely teache us,for whensoever any member of our body is deseased or sore, yf wee sufferit long to contynue and fester, doo wee not [422] see that at length itdothe infecte the whole body, and in processe of tyme utterly corrupteththe same.59

The magistrates’ defiance of the divine mandate to uphold justice bypunishing violators of the law is the cause of plagues suffered both indi-vidually by the “head” and collectively by the whole “body” of therealm. The magistrates, however, cannot be the sole scapegoats in thisaccount of the sufferings of the body politic. In the current insurrection,the subordinate members as well as the head “have offended god, bothhieghe and lowe.”60 The sermon makes clear that there are not just twoprincipal antagonists involved in this drama, i.e. government and peo-ple, but rather three: the Crown, the landed nobility and gentry, andthe rebellious commons. A large body of innocent bystanders is also to

56 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 420.57 Romans 3:10.58 The “L” represents the foliation of the Latin MS, while plain numbers in square

brackets refer to the English MS.59 Tyme of Rebellion, fols. 421–422.60 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 423.

136 chapter three

be taken into account, not to mention menacing foreign powers.61 Cit-ing the example of Daniel in the time of Israel’s exile and captivity inBabylon, Vermigli invites every man to search his own conscience, “leteveryman confesse, and bewayle aswell his owne synnes, as the synnesof the heddes and rulers”62 and makes his transition to a considerationof the principal secondary cause (secunda causa) of the rebellion whichhe takes to be the sin of covetousness (avaritia) on the part of both com-mons and gentry, “both hieghe and lowe”. Sin is thus classified intodistinct political and social-economic categories. The primary cause ofthe plague of rebellion is “sinne” both by the ruling powers themselvesand by those openly resisting their authority—thus sin is interpreted inthe political sense of disobedience towards the order ordained by God,the secondary cause concerns primarily social and economic considera-tions motivated by sin interpreted as “greedy desire, and as it werewourshipping of riches” on the part of the two main social classes.In the case of both the primary and the secondary causes, a divinelyappointed order is disrupted—“bothe the highe and lowe parte beingso much blynded have bronge our Realme to this poynte.” The pur-suit of private interests by both classes as well as failure of both in theproper exercise their respective public duties (whether these be rulingor obeying) are the main causes of the disorder. Both the primary (i.e.political) and the secondary (i.e. economic) causes constitute disregardand disobedience towards a divinely constituted order and thus bothare ultimately attributable to the condition of original sin, the universalcause.63

Vermigli makes the traditional Tudor political theologian’s appealto the concepts of hierarchy, order, and degree: “every manne shuldebe content with that state place and degree, that god the author ofall good thinges, hath called hym unto.”64 The argument for submis-sion to authority has its prime exemplar in Christ’s deference to thejurisdiction of Cæsar.65 Vermigli’s critique is applied even-handedly toboth commons and gentry, on the one hand to those who “musterthem selfes in unlawfull assemblies, and tumultes to the disorder and

61 See Tyme of Rebellion, fols. 434, 456.62 Daniel 9:1–19.63 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 424.64 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 426. Stephen Alford, Kingship and politics in the reign of Edward VI

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 40–41.65 See Vermigli, Common Places, 4.21, 328–331, “Of the enduring of Tyrannie by

godlie men”.

penitence and the duty of obedience 137

disquietness of the whole realme” and, on the other hand, to those“whiche throughe covetuousness of ioyning land to lande, and enclo-sures to enclosures have wronged and oppressed a great multitude ofthe kinges faithfull subiectes.”66 Both classes narrowly pursue their owninterests to the detriment of the health of the whole body of the realm,and yet both are in some fashion justified in their actions and in theirrejection of the behaviour of the other. Vermigli here attempts a sub-tle, dialectical analysis from the assumed standpoint of a divine justicewhich transcends the finite, determinate interests of all the antagonists.On the basis of a scripturally-oriented theodicy, Vermigli attributes faultall round and addresses the entire suffering body politic like the voice ofGod from the whirlwind to Job: “where were you when I laid the foun-dations of the earth?”67 Since human nature is universally corrupted asa consequence of the Fall, justice cannot be found in the behaviour ofany of the estates. None can lay claim to righteous conduct. All displayignorance of godly religion; and consequently, the actions of both gen-try and commons are addressed in tandem because, as Vermigli putsit, “bothe of them be deseased with a like seekness.”68 From the per-spective of a reformed soteriology, all political and social order mustfirst assume original sin on the part of all the agents: indeed the onlysafe assumption of the political theologian regarding the motivation ofall classes is the radical and universal depravity of the fallen humancondition.According to Vermigli there is a demonic power at work in the stir-

ring up of sedition and this is particularly evident in the “confusion” ofinterests and motivations on the part of the principal antagonists. Theavaricious impulse of both commons and gentry stems from the com-mon failure to recognize the essential finitude of human existence inthe world, and hence of the inherent limitations of both duties towardsand claims upon the body politic. Like the utopian Anabaptists of Lei-den and Munster, there is evidence all round of a perverse desire “toconfounde all thinges upsy downe with sediciouse uprores and unqui-

66 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 427. On the common people’s objection to the enclosures,see for example the first article of “Kett’s demands being in Rebellion” of 1549: “Wepray your grace that where it is enacted for inclosyng that it be not hurtfull to suche ashave enclosed saffren groundes for they gretely chargeablye to them, and that fromehensforth noman shall enclose eny more.” BL Harleain MS 304, fol. 75; AnthonyFletcher and Diarmaid MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions (Harlow: Longman, 2004),156.

67 Job 38:4.68 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 427.

138 chapter three

eteness …”69 In a thoroughly Augustinian vein of approach, Vermigliinsists upon the theological necessity of a clear distinction between theclaims of the earthly and heavenly cities, of “thinges that be so transi-torie” and “everlasting life”. The demonic influence is apparent in theignoring of this distinction between what is properly to be “used” (usus)with what is to be “enjoyed” (frui), in the conflation of the temporalwith the eternal, in the seeking of happiness and rest in things whichof themselves are mere instruments: “Wee see by daily experience, thatmenne be so madde when they ones geve them selfes to covetuousness,that they lesse esteme the losse of their honnestye, common welth, lib-erty, religion, yea of god hym self [432] and everlasting life, than thelosse of their riches.” The covetousness of both commons and gentryis an expression of the libido dominandi, the lust of domination. Thisanalysis of the dangers of avarice is echoed by Hugh Latimer in a well-known sermon on “Covetousness” preached before Edward VI in Lentthe following year.70

Having torn a strip off the gentry for their contribution to provok-ing the “commotions” through their avaricious enclosures of commonlands, Vermigli redirects his critical attention to the rebels. The humancondition being what it is, there can be no monopoly on depravityamong the well-born and well-heeled. While the injustice of the richtowards the poor is real enough, this can offer no justification for rebel-lious resistance.71 In a classic appeal to the doctrines of passive obedi-ence and the integrity of the “corpus politicum”, Vermigli observes thatscripture requires obedience, even to tyrants: “And in what case soeverthe gentylmen be in, yet who gave subiects auctority to levye armyesin a kings [433] Realme without his leave and consent?” A note inthe margin in Cranmer’s hand summarizes the first dictum of Tudorpolitical theology: “subditis non licet accipere gladium.”72 It is not permit-ted to subjects to take up the sword; God has delivered the sword intothe hands of princes and magistrates.73 Vermigli continues his analy-

69 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 429.70 27 sermons preached by the ryght Reuerende father in God and constant ma[r]tir of Iesus Christe,

Maister Hugh Latimer (London: John Day, 1562), fol. 110 v° [misprinted 109].71 Cp. “Of Troubles and Sedition: further of the suffering of Tyrannie,” CP 4.21,

fols. 319–324.72 Sir John Cheke, The Hurt of Sedicion howe greueous it is to a commune welth (London:

John Day and William Seres, 1549), sig. Aiiii v°. Alford, Kingship and politics, 189–190.73 Cp. “Whether it be lavvful for subiectes to rise against their Prince,” CP 4.21,

fols. 324–325.

penitence and the duty of obedience 139

sis with this observation concerning the body politic: “Who did eversee the feete and legges devide themselfes from the hedd, and othersuperior partes? Dothe it than become the lower sorte of the peopleto flocke to gither, against their heades and rulers?”74 He points outthat the unity of the body politic is especially vulnerable at the time ofthe king’s minority, and thus the members have an even stronger dutyto maintain the integrity of the whole body, especially in view of bothinternal and external enemies of the Realm “outward with Scottes andfrenchemenne, and amonge our selfes with subtill papistes, who havepersuaded the symple and ignoraunt Devonshire menne under [434]pretense and cullour of religion to withstand all godly reformatione.”75

The demands of the Devonshire rebels focus chiefly on the perceivedshortcomings of the vernacular liturgy of the new Book of Common Prayerand are weighted strongly with appeals for the restoration of the oldreligion.76 The Articles of the western rebels demand specifically therestoration of the doctrine and ceremonies established under the 1539Statute of Six Articles of Henry VIII until Edward should reach theage of majority.77 The question of the king’s minority is addressed in aresponse sent by the Council to the rebels on 8 July by means of anappeal to the distinction between the king’s “body natural” and “bodypolitic”:

If ye would suspende and hang our doynges in doubt untill our full age,ye muste firste knowe as a kyng, wee haue no difference of yeres, nortyme, but as a naturall man, and creature of God, wee haue youthe andby his sufferaunce, shall have age: we are your rightfull kyng, your liegelorde, your kyng anoynted, your kyng Crouned, the souereigne kyng ofEngland, not by our age, but by Gods ordinaunce, not onely when we

74 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 433. Compare, for example, Richard Morison, A remedy forsedition: wherin are conteyned many thynges, concernyng the true and loyall obeysance, that comme[n]sowe vnto their prince and soueraygne lorde the Kynge (London: Thomæ Berthelet, 1536), sigsB3v: “A comune welthe is lyke a body, and soo lyke, that it can be resembled to nothyngso convenient, as unto that. Nowe, were it not by your faythe, a madde herynge, if thefote shuld say, I wyl weare a cappe, with an ouche, as the heade dothe? If the kneesshulde say, we woll carie the eyes, an other whyle: if the shulders shulde clayme echeof them an eare: if the heles wold nowe go before, and the toes behind … what amonsterous body shuld this be? God sende them suche a one, that shall at any tyme goabout to make as evil a comune welth, as this is a gody. It is not mete, every man to do,that he thynketh best.” TR, 150.

75 Tyme of Rebellion, fols. 433–434.76 A Copy of a Letter, in TR, 151–153.77 31 Henry VIII, c. 14. After the accession of Edward in 1547 Parliament repealed

the conservative Henrician Act of Six Articles. See TR, 55.

140 chapter three

shalbe xxi. Of yeres, but when we wer of x. yeres: wee possesse ourCroune, not by yeres, but by ye bloud and descent, from our father kyngHenry theight. You are our subiectes because wee bee your kyng, andrule wee will, because God hath willed: it is as greate a faulte in us not torule, as in a subiect not to obeye.78

Divine ordinance and anointing constitute the king as head of the “cor-pus politicum”, and since this body “never dies” it cannot be subjectto the limitations imposed by time on the “corpus naturale”.79 A cleardistinction in political theory between the king’s numinous and phe-nomenal identities dovetails neatly with the newly embraced reformedtheology, i.e. with respect to the evangelical distinction between graceand nature, faith and works, the gospel and the law. That the rebelswould insist upon the limitation of the king’s authority until he reachthe age of majority reflects an assumption concerning these soteriolog-ical distinctions rooted more in the old religion than in the new. Toconfuse the king’s political and constitutional identity with his naturaland human identity is tantamount to conflating the orders of grace andnature. It is in such an interpretation of kingly power, its derivation andthe extent of its sway, that the intersection between the political and thetheological levels of discourse can be discerned.If the gentry have indeed injured the commons through their acquis-

itiveness, is it not within the commons’ right to seek redress of thesewrongs committed against them, Vermigli asks rhetorically? Is resis-tance not justifiable? “Is it the office of subiectes to take [436] uponthem reformation of the common wealth without the comaundementof commen auctority?” His negative response to this question is hardlysurprising.80 Vermigli argues the standard Tudor case for passive obedi-ence, even in the face of tyranny. It is necessary to “tarry for the magis-trate” as the Israelites tarried until Joshua divided the spoils of the con-quest of Canaan.81 Poverty is “no sufficient cause of their disobedience.(440)” Indeed far from providing a remedy for poverty, sedition servesonly to increase the material suffering. According to one contemporaryobserver the Devonshire rebels

78 A message sent by the kynges Majestie, to certain of his people, assembled in Devonshire(London: Richard Grafton, printer to the Kynges Maiestie, 1549), STC 7506, Bv rºand vº.

79 Kantorowicz, King’s Two Bodies, 314–336.80 See Vermigli’s scholium “Of the induring of Tyrannie by godlie men,” CP 4.21,

fols. 328–331.81 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 438.

penitence and the duty of obedience 141

do in the meantime neglect your husbandry, whereby ye must live: yoursubstance and catall is not only spoiled and spent upon unthriftes, whobut for this your outrage know no mean nor way to be fedde: your housesfalle in ruin, your wives are ravished, your daughters defloured beforeyour own faces, your goods that ye have many long years laboured forlost in an hour and spent upon vagabonds and idle loiterers. Your meatis unpleasant, your drink unsavoury, your sleep never sound, never quiet,never in any safety …82

The leaders of the insurrection, are dismissed by Vermigli as “ruffians,and sturdy idill fellows” who “pretende that they meane nothing els,but a reformation of thinges that be amisse” and “excuse their owneoutragiouse presumptione by charging the gentlemenne.”83 Such anattempt by the rebels at self-justification is to be interpreted as a clearcase of seeking to pull out the mote in one’s brother’s eye while failingto behold the beam in one’s own—depravity is universal, and neithercommons nor gentry can lay any claim to justice on their part. Inthis approach Vermigli can be seen to link his analysis of the politicalfrictions of 1549 to the doctrinal critique of Demi-Pelagianism whichbecomes a central soteriological theme in the Forty-Two Articles of Religionwhose formulation was then in progress under the direction of ThomasCranmer.84

Despite the radical equality of all humanity in the “fault and cor-ruption” of original sin, good governance requires extensive experienceon the part of the governors, just as an apprentice must serve for sevenyears before he can become qualified as a tradesman. While all maybe considered equal in “the following of Adam”, all are by no meansequal in the acquisition of the capacity to rule. In short, a distinctionmust be made between “corrupt nature” and “nature,” that is betweenthe condition of the will and the “inner man” and acquisition of virtuethrough habit in the capacities of the “outer man”. Such a distinction

82 See Philip Nichols’s “Answer to the Commoners of Devonshire and Cornwall” of1549, BL Royal MS 18, B xi, fol. 1; TR, 154–155.

83 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 442.84 Based on the second article of the Augsburg Confession (1530) and Cranmer’s Thirteen

Articles (1538), Article VIII reads “Originall sinne standeth not in the following of Adam(as the Pelagians do vaynely talke) [which also the Anabaptists do nowadays renew] butit is the fault and corruption of the nature of euery man, that naturally is engenderedof the ofspring of Adam, whereby man is very farre gone from [his former] originallryghteousness, [which he had at his creation] and is of his owne nature [given] enclinedto euyill, so that the fleshe [desireth] lusteth alwayes contrary to the spirite; and thereforein euery person borne into this worlde, it deserueth Gods wrath and damnation.” SeeMacCulloch, Tudor Church Militant, 99, 101.

142 chapter three

is crucial to Luther’s theological critique of the motivation underpin-ning the Peasant Rebellion in Germany in 1525 and to other magiste-rial reformers’ attacks on the utopian political excesses of the Anabap-tists.85 Following in this tradition of political theology Vermigli assertsthat the accumulated experience of governance translates into a naturaldistinction between ruler and ruled: “it is a commen, and a true saying,that auctoritie shewith what every manne is, and a gentilmanne willeever shew hymself a gentilmanne, and a vilayne a vilayne.”86 “For takeaway gentilmenne and rulers, and straite way alle order fallithe clerelyaway, and followeth barbaricalle confusione.”87 The critique levelledby Vermigli at both classes is complicated by the necessary theologi-cal assumption originating in Reformed soteriology of their simultaneousequality and inequality. They are equal in their common inheritance oforiginal sin in the “inner man” but unequal in their respective functionsin the body politic through the “outer man”. The failure of both classesto recognize and observe the proper bounds of this distinction betweenthe inner and the outer man underlies the confusion of the uprisingitself. In short, for Vermigli the political and social turmoil of 1549 isultimately traceable to a deeper, underlying theological confusion.Thus the antagonists in the insurrection find themselves caught in

manifest self-contradiction. The rebels opposed to the enclosure ofcommon lands invoke the Old Testament example of Ahab’s tyrannicalseizure of Naboth’s vineyard, yet refuse to imitate the patient exampleof the latter “who woulde rather lose his vyne yarde, than he wouldmake any commotion or tumult among the people.” “They charge theriche men that they inhaunce the prices, but in this unsemely commo-tion, they take from the riche men what they liste without any price.”88

A faulty hermeneutics of scripture and lack of theological discernmentcan lead to dire political consequences. Vermigli offers the traditionalmagisterial reformer’s solution, namely for the “vilayne” to acknowl-edge and submit to the authority of the “gentilmanne”. Gospel liberty

85 Martin Luther, Wider die Mordischen vn[d] Reubischen Rotten der Bawren (Wittemberg:[Augsburg: Heinrich Stayner], 1525).

86 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 447.87 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 456. Cp. Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, I.3.101–111:

Take but degree away, untune that string,And hark what discord follows! each thing meetsIn mere oppugnancy.

88 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 445.

penitence and the duty of obedience 143

cannot be an excuse for “disobedience, sedition and carnall liberality,and the destruction of those policies, kyngdomes and common wealeswheare it is receyved.”89 Obedience to the ruling authorities is explic-itly commanded by scripture—as in Romans 13 and 1Peter 2—and isalso mandated by the example of Christ and the apostles. The employ-ment of force, violence and sedition in the attempt to resist the rulingauthority is animated by a spirit Vermigli describes as “of the devill”,an intrinsically pagan spirit such as “among the romaynes, Catelyne,Cathegus and Manlius were inspired withall.”90 By comparing Englishrebel leaders Jack Straw, Jack Cade, and Robert Aske to these ancientpagan exemplars of sedition, Vermigli reveals again the deep influenceof Augustine’s political theology. For Augustine, the diabolical characterof the pagan Roman state was manifest preeminently in its assertion ofthe divinity and immortality of the civitas terrena, as if peace itself couldsomehow be realised under the aspect of temporality and history. TheRoman attempt to eternalize the temporal and to temporalize the eter-nal was, for Augustine, founded on a deep confusion of fundamentalcategories, of immanent and transcendent goods and ends, which werein turn metaphysically epitomised (i.e. hypostatised) by the demons whowere “miserable like mortals yet eternal like the gods”.91 As Catilinepromised the plebs abolition of debts and the proscription of wealthycitizens if they would support him in his attempt to seize power, so theEnglish rebels sought to dispossess the nobility of their enclosures byforce. Such sedition, whether ancient or modern, issues from a diabol-ical confusion of immanent and transcendent goods and ends. And so,for Vermigli, it is no excess of zeal on the part of the prophet Isaiah tothreaten such with “everlasting woo, and the cursse of god except theirepent and ammende their lifes in tyme … what other rewarde canne Ipromise to them, than the angre, and vengeaunce of god, whiche theyshall feele bothe in this life, and in the life to come bothe so[o]ner andsorer than they loke for [453] except they acknouledge their faultes andamend by tyme.”This threat of damnation is evenly levelled against both gentry and

commons, the “covetuouse men” and “thies mutyners”. Both in their

89 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 449.90 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 451. A likely source for this reference by Vermigli is Sallust’s

account of an oration in the Roman Senate by Marcus Porcius Cato Uticencis (Cato theYounger), ‘On the punishment of the Catiline conspirators,’ in Catiline, ed. A.T. Davis(London: Oxford University Press, 1967), cap. 51.

91 Augustine, De civitate Dei, Bk IX.13 and Confessions, Bk. II.

144 chapter three

injustice towards the other presume to “take the kinges power uponthem.” This confusion of the estates is crucial to Vermigli’s analysisof the situation. Both the enclosure of the common land by the gentryand the attempt by the rebels to be “hearers, iudges, and reformers, oftheir owne causes” are unjust precisely because both encroach uponthe rightful jurisdiction of the Crown; both by their actions seek tomake their own proper, private good into an absolute, unlimited, anduniversal good. Such a confusion of social and constitutional endsis the undoing of both human and divine order. “Which,” Vermigliasks, “is the more intollerable robbery? Which is the more perniciousconfusione? … Thefte is not amended with spoyle and ravine. Neitheris the common wealth stayed or made stronge by the breache of lawesordres and states.”92 The only solution is for both “gentillemenne” and“vilaynes” to don sackcloth and repent of their idolatrous covetousness,the very “roote of all evilles”. The turmoil plaguing political and sociallife is founded upon a confusion concerning the right relation betweenthe public and the private goods. Such confusion is first and foremostconfusion within the soul, a discernment clouded by sin, and thusthe remedy is also to be sought within. If sin is the root source ofsedition and disorder, then repentance is the key to the recovery ofconstitutional and social harmony.The confusion of sin extends to turning upside down the proper

function of the three estates. Whereas the King’s public aspect is,according to Solomon, to be “like the roring of a lyon” and the com-mons properly “to be as gentill and meke as lambs” in their obedience,the Rebellion has brought about an inversion of this natural order. TheProtector’s misplaced lamb-like “gentilness in suffering and pardonyng”is appropriately answered by the rebels’ “outcryings like most cruelllyons”.93 Vermigli traces this confusion to a “practical” rejection of theevangelical teaching, to the holding of the truth in unrighteousness:“we have receyved the wourde of god and yet our conversation is con-

92 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 454. See also fol. 459: “by thies seditions the maiestie of amooste hiegh and godly king is hurte, and wronged, forsomuche as thei take upon themhis office, and as it were pullithe the sworde out of his handes, for he is ordeyned of godto have the hearing and decision of suche [460] causes, and to have the administrationand distribution of thies worldely goodes. But thei in their rage doo in a maner pullhym out of his throne and chayre of estate, and cast hym downe to the grounde, whois here in erthe goddes vicar and chief minister, and of whome only next unto goddependith all the welthe of and felicite of this Realme.”

93 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 461.

penitence and the duty of obedience 145

trary and ungodly.”94 As Vermigli sees it, setting straight this confusionrequires a reintegration of the will and the understanding. Sin (hamartia)is a turning away from God, and results in a fracturing of the divineimago; repentance (metanoia) is a returning again to God, and recon-stitutes human identity through a reordering of the faculties.95 Actionmust reflect knowledge, and the knowledge of ultimate significance inthe question is the knowledge of faith revealed in the scriptures. If ourwords approve and our conscience receives the gospel “as a thing mosternest and godly” then, Vermigli claims, it cannot be rejected in action.And here his use of the first-person is altogether inclusive; “our” wordsare the words of the whole realm, the complete “body politic”. Andindeed such a use of language is consistent with the logic of “CommonPrayer” where the whole realm prays, offers praise, makes intercession,confesses, and is blessed in a single common, collective identity.96

Further evidence of the necessity of repentance to what Augustinecalled “the tranquillity of order”97 can be discerned in the sacred his-tory of Israel at the time of the Babylonian Captivity (473). It can alsobe witnessed in the consequences of the Peasant Rebellion in Ger-many.98 For Vermigli, both scripture and recent historical experienceunite in testifying to the key claim of his political theodicy: “all thiesseditions and troubles which wee now suffer, to be the veray plageof god, for the reiecting and ungodly abusing of his moost hollyewourde.”99 Repentance is to receive the gospel and to follow it. With-out repentance the plague of god will follow inexorably. The plague ofsedition, in short, is the outward political manifestation of fragmentedhuman identity, both individually and collectively. Only repentance canheal the fragmentation of souls, and thus only repentance can restorethe original political harmony. Vermigli concludes this proposition witha list of biblical and historical examples of sedition, all of which arefollowed by divine punishment: the children of Israel in the wildernesspersishing before reaching Canaan; the deaths of Corah, Dathan, andAbiron; Miriam’s leprosy; the deaths of David’s sons Absalon and Ado-

94 A reference to Romans 1:18. Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 468.95 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 486.96 Ramie Targoff, Common prayer: the language of public devotion in early modern England

(Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 2001).97 Augustine, De civitate Dei, XIX.13.98 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 475. Peter Blickle and Wilhelm Abel, Bauer, Reich und Reforma-

tion: Festschrift für Günther Franz (Stuttgart: Ulmer, 1982).99 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 475.

146 chapter three

nias; and several others.100 Then there follows a brief concluding prayerwhich invokes the divine gift of “hartes that we may understande”, andthen asks that the superior powers be granted “hartes to revenge goddescause, and to convert all offendours against goddes holly wourd.” ForVermigli the role of the godly magistrate is to act “in erthe as goddeschief vicar and minister” (460) in a twofold manner: first by outwardand coercive means, by the power of the sword, to suppress seditionand maintain the peace; and secondly, by inward and religious means,through the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacra-ments, to foster and nourish the spiritual integrity of his subjects. Thehealth of the living “body politic” depends upon the right exercise ofboth powers. By the co-ordinated operation of these coercive and spir-itual means, Vermigli prays that avarice may be moderated and orderrestored. As sedition proceeds from sin, so ought good order to proceedfrom penitence.The sermon concludes with an extended exhortation to repentance

without delay. There is also a warning to his hearers not to fall intoblasphemy of Job’s wife or of his three “comforters” by accusing God ofsending the plague of suffering upon the realm out of cruelty or a lackof mercy. Suffering brought on by the insurrection and disorder is to beinterpreted in this theodicy as the very means whereby God chooses todemonstrate mercy. In this final claim, Vermigli returns to his point ofdeparture, namely the theodicy of the Book of Job.

Conclusion

Peter Martyr Vermigli’s autograph sermon composed at the time ofwidespread rebellion in 1549 and publicly preached at St. Paul’s byThomas Cranmer at the very height of the unrest, speaks volumes con-cerning Vermigli’s privileged place in the Edwardine establishment.Not only had Cranmer invited him in the previous year to fill theRegius Chair in Divinity at Oxford; in the relatively short period since,he had clearly become a close advisor and confidant of the Arch-bishop. Such was the level of trust confided by Cranmer in the Floren-tine reformer that Vermigli became a pivotal player in the extraordi-nary political and social upheavals of the early part of Edward’s reign.

100 Tyme of Rebellion, fols. 477–480.

penitence and the duty of obedience 147

Within a few months of his arrival in Oxford Vermigli found himselfat the epicenter of a seismic shift in sacramental hermeneutics owingto his lectures on the first epistle to the Corinthians, and consequentlya key advisor to Cranmer in the momentous revision of the liturgyresulting in the Second Edwardine Prayer Book in 1552. Given that therebellion was instigated, at least in part, by popular reaction against theintroduction of the more conservative vernacular liturgy of the Book ofCommon Prayer of 1549, Vermigli’s role as author of this highly profiled,official public response is indicative of the eminent role he so swiftlyassumed in the task of reforming the Church of England.Perhaps even more noteworthy is the subtlety (both theological and

political) of Vermigli’s carefully formulated response to the crisis. Byframing his sermon in the universal categories of theodicy, Vermigli wasable to rise above the petty (and not so petty!) irritants of mid-Tudorsocial stratification. All three of the principal parties—government,gentry, and commons—come in for some fairly sharp criticism in thesermon. Vermigli’s highly respected international stature as a theolo-gian and biblical scholar combined with his close association withCranmer enable him to speak truth to power in a prophetical spirit.So well ensconced is Vermigli in the Edwardine establishment that hecan give utterance (plainly in concert with Cranmer) to sharp criticismof Protector Somerset’s policy of leniency towards the rebels. At thesame time, he levels an equally strong critique against both the greedand rapacity of the gentry as well as the sedition and violence of thecommons. By Vermigli’s account, none of the members of the bodypolitic has behaved well. Theologically this analysis highlights the doc-trine of a universal sinfulness, the hallmark of the Reformed anthro-pology.101 Since “all the ofspringe of Adam … deserueth Gods wrathand damnation,” there is no good theological reason to let anyone offthe hook. On a political level, the argument of the sermon concerninguniversal depravity serves to emphasize the unity of the body politic.It is evident that Vermigli sees these theological and political angles asinterlocking. His assertion of the necessary subjection of all membersof the body politic—Protector, Privy Councillors, nobles, commons—

101 According to Art. VIII of the Forty-Two Articles of Religion of 1553 it is “the faultand corruption of the nature of euery man, that naturally is engendered of the ofspringof Adam, whereby man is very farre gone from his former ryghteousness, which hehad at his creation and is of his owne nature given to euyill, so that the fleshe desirethalwayes contrary to the spirite; and therefore in euery person borne into this worlde, itdeserueth Gods wrath and damnation.”

148 chapter three

to the unique political identity of the simple and undivided will of theSovereign resonates with the radical subordination of “all the ofspringeof Adam” before the power of the heavenly king. The political unifi-cation of the realm owes something—possibly everything in Vermigli’sview—to the assumptions of the reformers’ theological anthropology.The intensified unification of the powers of the soul implied by thereformers’ account of the radical sinfulness of humanity has a polit-ical corollary in the hypostatic unification of the estates such that allare culpable in the disorder afflicting the body politic. Vermigli findsall the parties to the conflict to be at fault—affirming, thereby, a sortof universal political depravity—and the proposed solution to publicdisorder, as with the sinful individual, is penitence all round, “the reme-die of all our plagues.” Just as no faculty of the soul can be exemptfrom fault owing to the radical disorder of human sinfulness, so alsono estate of the realm can be exempt from blame when the turmoilof sedition afflicts the body politic. There is nothing particularly origi-nal in this political theology at the core. It represents an appeal to theprinciples of political Augustinianism characteristic of so many of theleading sixteenth-century Protestant reformers. Nonetheless, Vermigliapplies these principles in his “Sermon concernynge the tyme of Rebel-lion” with a concerted attempt at a healing, irenical touch.

text

PETER MARTYR VERMIGLI

A sermon concernynge the tyme of rebellion1

The commen sorrow of this present tyme deere beloved brethern inChriste, if I shulde be more ledde thereby than by raison and zealeto my contrey, it would move me rather to holde my peace thanto speake. For the great evils whiche wee now suffer at this presenttyme are to be bewailed with teares [another hand: and silence] ratherthan with wourdes.2 And hereunto I might alledge for us the exampleof Job, who whan he came to his extreme mysery, he lyving upona dong hill, and three of his freendes sitting upon the grounde byhym, for the space of vij [seven] days for grete sorowe not one ofthem opened his mowthe to speake a worde to another.3 If than themiserable state of Job, like a mooste harde and sharpe bytt, stopped hismowthe from [412] speaking, and the lamentable case of their freendestayed those three menne,4 being of speche moost eloquent, that theycould not utter their wourdes, surely it seameth that I have muchemore cause to be still and holde my peace. For there was the pituouselamentation of [no mo but of] one man, or one householde, andthat only concerning temporall and worldely substaunce, but wee have

1 A MS translated from the Latin of Peter Martyr in the collection of the ParkerLibrary, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 102, no. 29, fols. 411–499. Title ofMS on fol. 409; text begins on fol. 411. See Montague Rhodes James, A DescriptiveCatalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1912), Vol. I, no. 102. A memorandum in the hand ofArchbishop Matthew Parker on the first page (fol. 410) of the MS reads “Hic Sermoprius descriptus Latine a Petro Martyre.” The Latin original with Parker’s annotation‘Sermo Petri Martir manu propria scripta in seditionem Devonensium’ (fol. 73) is inthe same collection, MS 340, no. 4, fols. 73–95. See James, Descriptive Catalogue, Vol. II,no. 340. The foliation of both MSS is given in square brackets. The foliation of theLatin text is preceded by “L”. Interpolations are also given in square brackets.

2 John Calvin employs the identical turn of phrase with reference to prayer in theInstitute 3.20.3 “For in most cases prayer consists more in groaning than in speaking, intears rather than words.”

3 See Job 2:12–13.4 Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite.

150 chapter three

cause to bewayle, a hole realm, and a moost noble, whiche lately beingin that state that all other Realmes envyed our welthe, and feared ourforce, is now so troubled, so vexed, so tossed, and deformed, and thatby sedition among our selfes, of suche as be membres of the same, thatnothing is lefte unattempted [413] to the utter ruyne and subversiontherof.5 And beside this the eternall punyshment of god threatenithsore to come upon us for [another hand: as well the authors andprocurors of] thies seditions [another hand: and all others that ioynethem selfes unto them] and without faile will fall ammonge us, exceptwee cease in tyme from our discorde, and amende the same by godlyeconcorde and godly repentaunce, so that wee be constryned day andnight to bewayle the decaye not only of a worldely kingdom, and moostnoble realme, but also the eternall damnation of innumerable soules.6

[L 74]Furthermore if I shulde speake at this tyme, if my wourdes shulde

not flye abrode in the ayer, and be spent in vayne, it werr necessaryethat I shulde have good and favorable audience, whiche in this tumulteand [414] horrible confusion, may happ is harde to be obtayned. As thechildren of Israell when they were in their rage furor and tumulte theywoulde neither heare Moyses nor Aaron, whiche studied for nothingels, but for their welthe and deliveraunce.7 Thes reasons perchauncemight move some men to be quyitt and holde their peace, but me theydoo not somuche move, whiche knowe right well that our commen

5 In 1549 Cranmer’s new vernacular Book of Common Prayer was introduced inreplacement of the old Latin liturgies. This fundamental alteration of public worshipwas not widely popular, and was especially resented in Cornwall and parts of Devonwhere many of the people spoke little or no English. See Anthony Fletcher and Diar-maid MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions (Harlow: Longmans, 2004), 53–63; Ann TrevenenJenkin, Notes on the Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549 (Hayle: Noonvares Press, 1999). See alsoJohn Sturt, Revolt in the west: the Western Rebellion of 1549 (Exeter: Devon Books, 1987); andPhillip Caraman, The Western rising, 1549: the Prayer Book rebellion (Tiverton: West CountryBooks, 1994).

6 In the Second Book of Homilies, in “An Homily against Disobedience and WilfulRebellion,” eternal damnation is said to be the consequence of Adam and Eve’s“rebellion” against God’s “maiestie.” It is in this vein that Vermigli argues later in thesermon (fol. 415) that “the generall cause of these commotions is synne.” See homily 21in The seconde tome of homelyes of such matters as were promised and intituled in the former part ofhomelyes, set out by the aucthoritie of the Quenes Maiestie: and to be read in euery paryshe churcheagreablye (London: Richard Jugge, 1563), first part.

7 For the rebellion of Korah against Aaron and Levitical privilege, and of Dathanand Abiram with the tribe of Reuben against the civil authority of Moses, see Num-bers 16:1–17:5. The south-western rebellion of 1549 is for Vermigli an analogous rebel-lion against the power and jurisdiction of both the magistrate and the clergy.

text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 151

sorrowe and lamentable state, can not be remedied with silence, nor bygood counsell can be geven withholding my peace.Nowe therefore in this commen sorrowe, I knowe nothyng that is

more able to swage our greefes, and so comforte our heavyness, than isthe woorde of god. For as [415] the sonne many tymes with his beamesdispersith [dryveth away grete] thick and darke clowdes, and [stayethgrete stormes of wyndes,] dryvith them cleane away, so dothe the lightof goddes wourde, staye godly [mennys] myndes, bryngyth them fromtrouble to quyetness, from darkeness to brightnes, from heaviness anddesperation, to gladness, ioy, and comforte. And that I may doo the like,[L 75] I mooste humbley beseche allmyghtie god, to graunte me by hisspirite, that out of holy scripture I may playnely sett out before youreyes the princypal causes of al these tumults and seditions. For if thecauses be once knowne, it shalbe the more easye to provide remedyetherefore.The generall cause of these commotions is synne, and under chris-

tian profession unchristian lyving.8 But there be also [416] speciallcauses of the whiche some pertayne both to the higher and lower sorte,aswell to the governours as to the common people, some appertainingonly to the people, and some agayne, only to the governors and rulersand of the whiche [and of them] I will first begynne to speake.

Prima causa: Remisseness of correction in the governours9

The Governours and rulers be ordeyned of god, (as Sainte Paule de-clarith in his epistell to the Romanes) for the intent and purpose, thatthey should be goddes officers and ministers here in erthe, to encour-age and avaunce them that be good and to punyshe and converte thosethat be evill.10 And for this cause god gyves them the sworde that they

8 This attribution of civil disorder to sin as primary or “general” cause expressesVermigli’s adherence to one of the key assumptions of Augustinian political theology,namely that civil disorder is ultimately grounded upon personal disorder of the soul, onsin.

9 This heading is in Thomas Cranmer’s hand.10 Romans 13:1ff. Vermigli later published his full-length commentary on the epistle

to the Romans based on lectures begun at Oxford and continued at Strasbourg after hisdeparture from England in 1553 at the accession of Queen Mary. In Epistolam S. PauliApostoli ad Romanos … Commentarii (Basle: P. Perna, 1558). See his commentary on thispassage in the text appended to chapter II above. For a modern translation of thiscommentary on Romans 13 with notes, see W.J. Torrance Kirby, “The Civil Magistrate:

152 chapter three

shulde avenge goddes quarell, by ponysshing the [417] transgressorsof his lawes and commaundementis. But (O good Lorde) be mercifullunto us, for wee have been to slacke [remise] in punysshing offend-ers, and many thinges wee have wynked at. We have suffred periury,blasphemy, and adultery, slandering and lying, gluttony and drunken-ness, vagabonds, and ydle performers and other haynouse offendours,[L 76] lightly punysshed, or els clerely pardonned [not punished at al],either thinking this clemency for the tyme expedient for the commonwealthe, or els not duely waying how grevouse those offences [be inthe sight of God] were and how much they offended god.11 And whilstwee lacked this right iudgement of goddes wrathe againste synne, loo,[418] sodenly cometh upon us this scourge of sedition, the rodde ofgoddes wrathe, to teache us how sore god hateth all wickedness [andis displeased with his ministers that wynke thereat]. For except wee beduller than stockes and stones, wee muste needes feele that this plageis the grevouse scourge of god for our offences [that we have sufferedto moch theym that have offended against his most holy name] andmust needs lament the ruyne of our selfes, and of our realme, whan

Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Commentary on Romans 13,” in The Peter Martyr Reader, ed.J.P. Donnelly, Frank James III and Joseph C. McLelland (Kirksville, MO: TrumanState University Press, 1999): 221–237. Compare the Intercessory prayer in the Book ofCommon Prayer of 1549: “Speciallye we beseche thee to save and defende thy servauntEdwarde our Kyng, that under hym we maye be Godly and quietly governed. Andgraunt unto his whole counsaile, and to all that he put in auctoritie under hym, thatthey maye truely and indifferently minister justice, to the punishemente of wickednesseand vice, and to the maintenaunce of Goddes true religion and vertue.”

11 In a letter to the Duke of Somerset dated 7 July 1549 at the height of the uprising,Sir William Paget warned of the dangers of the Protector’s notorious leniency towardsthe rebels: “I told your Grace the trouthe, and was not beleved: well, now your Graceseithe yt. What seythe your Grace? Mary, the King’s subjects owt of all discipline, owtof obedience, caryng neither for Protectour nor Kings, and much lesse for any othermenae officer. And what is the cause? Your owne leytie, your softnes, your opinion tobe good to the pore … . Yt is pitie that your so muche gentlenes shuld be an occcasionof so great an evell as ys now chaunced in England by these rebelles … Consider, Ibeseeche youe most humbly, with all my harte, that societie in a realme dothe consiste,and ys maynteyned by meane of religion and law …” SP 10/8/4 (Calendar of State PapersDomestic, Edward VI, revised edn., no. 301); TR, 160. For a thoughtful reconsiderationof the relation of Somerset to the rebels of 1549 see Ethan Shagan, “Protector Somersetand the 1549 Rebellions: New Sources and New Perspectives,” English Historical Review114.455 (Feb. 1999), 34. Shagan discusses nine letters in order to highlight Somerset’sdeliberate policy of appeasement and concludes that “the Protector’s strategy involvedan elaborate courting of public opinion and a stunning willingness to commit theregime to fundamental changes in policy at the initiation of the commons.” Shagan,47.

text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 153

we have subiectes so disobedient, whan wee perceave that the peoplebe so wanton, that they fourme against their owne realme the armorwhich they ought to use againste the enemy. Yf wee feel our selfessomuche offended with this outragiouse behaviour of mysordred per-sonnes [agaynst their own realme], that wee would wisshe it [419] to bepacified by the sworde, if it cannot otherwaies be brought to passe, weemay lerne than by our selfis how grevously god is displeased with thesame, and how muche it pleasith hym that his ministers shulde strikewith the sworde (whiche he hath geven unto them) all suche as be tran-gressors against hym.12 But we have dissimuled the mater, we have beencolde in goddes cause, and have rather wynked at then ponnyshed thecontempt bothe of god and his lawes, therefore now wourthily wee suf-fer all that wee suffre.13

Wee woulde that [L 77] god shulde revenge our quarrells and ini-uries, and why then do we not take iuste vengeaunce on them, thatdaily blaspheme, and do iniury to god? [420] And surely for this causewe suffer worthily this plage of god. Heli suffered his children to[o]muche, and was to[o] softe in chastising of them, when they synnedagainst god, but that his softenes was the destruction of hym, his chil-dren, and [of a grete nombre also of the] people of Israell.14 Davidbecause in tyme he did not converte his three sonnes Amnon, Absolon,and Adonias, he lost them all three, and was in greate daunger to bedestroyed by them hymself.15 And if the parrells of this mooste chosenking of god, doo litell move you [us, let us] call to your remembraunce

12 This expresses the received Augustinian trope that the coercive authority of thecivil magistrate is given by God as “both a penalty and a remedy for sin” (pœna etremedium peccati). See Augustine, De civitate Dei, Bk. XIX.

13 In a letter to Somerset John Calvin advises him to “hold the bridle shorte,” for“insomuche as menne pardoneth suche enormities, it must followe that GOD musttake vengeaunce.” An epistle both of Godly consolacion and also of aduertisement written by IohnCaluine the pastour & preacher of Geneua, to the right noble prince Edvvarde Duke of Somerset, beforethe tyme or knoweledge had of his trouble, but delyuered to the sayde Duke, in the time of his trouble,and so translated out of frenshe by the same Duke (London: Edward Whitchurche, 1550), D7r°.Quoted by John Holstun, “The Spider, the Fly, and the Commonwealth: Merrie JohnHeywood and the Agrarian Class Struggle,” English Literary History 71.1 (2004), 88.

14 1Samuel 1:12–4:18.15 Amnon, one of David’s sons, committed incest/ rape against his half-sister, Tamar

(2Samuel 13:7–14), and, as a consequence, was murdered later by the order of Absalom,Tamar’s full brother (2Samuel 13). Absalom’s fratricide (2Samuel 13:39), rebellion, anddeath (2Samuel 14–18) caused David shame and sorrow. The last days of his thirty-three years’ reign in Jerusalem were disturbed by the ambition of Adonias to preventthe succession of Solomon, his son by Bethsabee (1Kings 1:1–53).

154 chapter three

I pray you the plage of god against the hole tribe of Beniamyn, becausethey lett passe unponyshed the abominable abusing of the Levites wife,that [421] dwelt at Effrata [Ephraim], wherof followed that manye ofthe other tribes perished. And the hole tribe of Beniamyn was almoosteutterly destroyed [for there was slayne of them above xxx thousande,and there was left a lyne of the hole tribe no mo but vj (six) hundreth].16

Consider I praye you by this example, how certayne and [L 78] presentdestruction cometh to comon weales, because offendours against godare unponysshed. And whensoever the magistrates be slacke in doingtheir office herein, let them loke for none other but that the plage ofgod shall fall in their necks for the same, whiche thinge not only theforesaide examples, but also experiences with our selfes dothe playnelyteache us, for whensoever any member of our body is deseased orsore, yf wee suffer it long to contynue and fester, doo wee not [422]see that at length it dothe infecte the whole body, and in processe oftyme utterly corrupteth the same.17 But for what purpose brethren dooI speake somuche of this matier. Verily for none other intent, but thatwhen wee knowe one of the causes of these evilles, wee may duly repentand amende the same.But peradventure some will say, if the governours offende, because

they doo not iustly ponysshe offendours, what dothe that pertayne tous the vulgar people, which have not offended? Let them repent thathave offended, Let them be sorye for their remissness [slackness] inponyshement, and more sharpley converte from hensfurthe suche as bytheir horrible [423] offences provoke goddes indignation against us all.Nay not so my freendes, [L 79] Let not man charge the governours andexcuse them selfes. Wee have offended god, both hieghe and lowe. Wee

16 Judges 19–22, esp. 20:29–48. See also Flavius Josephus, Antiquitatum Iudaicarum libriXX (Basel: Froben, 1548), 5.2. The obstinacy of the tribe of Benjamin in harbouringcriminals who had brutally violated and slain the concubine of a Levite was thefoundation of their war with Israel. The Israelites sustained a vast loss in carrying onthe war, and although they were ultimately victorious, the war resulted in the almostutter extirpation of the tribe of Benjamin. That this happened shortly after the arrivalof Joshua in the promised land serves to highlight Vermigli’s melancholy implication ofthe historical analogue with the recent accession of Edward VI as the backdrop of thehorrors of the west-country rebellion.

17 The analogy between the health of the natural body and that of the “body politic”was a commonplace of sixteenth-century political thought. See David George Hale,The Body Politic: A Political Metaphor in Renaissance English Literature (The Hague: Mouton,1971), and E.M.W. Tillyard, The Elizabethan World Picture (Harmondsworth: Penguin,1972), on the epistemological relationship between human and political bodies in early-modern England.

text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 155

have deserved this plage at goddes handes and muche more. Thereforelet every man serche his owne conscience, and (like as Danyell did)let every man confesse, and bewayle aswell his owne synnes, as thesynnes of the heddes and rulers.18 And let every man for his ownepart converte and amende hym self, forasmuche as he knowith thatour offences be the causes not only of private, but also of publick andcommon calamities. [424]

Secunda causa: Avaritia

Now the tyme requirithe to declare another cause of our seditione,which is the gredy desire, and as it were wourshipping of riches [andso make thies a god], wherewith bothe the highe and lowe parte beingso much blynded have bronge our Realme to this poynte. And surelyno thing more hathe caused greate and puisaunt armyes, Realms, andEmperors to be overthrowen, than hathe doon the insatiable covetu-ousnes of worldely goodes. For hereby as by a moost stronge poisone,hole realms many tymes have comme to ruyne, which semed els to haveendured forever, sundry common welthis which before were conservedin unitie, have by incurable discorde been divided and seperated intomany partes. [425]This manner of vice if it be unseemly unto any other people, to

them surely that professe Christe it is utterly shamefulle and detestable,which above all nations, shulde be the true estemers [L 80] and loversof pure godly thinges, which be eternall and immortalle, and oughtento seeke for righte iudgement [and estimation of thyngs] only at theirowne profession. For as many of us as be truly called Christians ofChriste, doo confesse that wee be redeemed by hym, not through thevayne and uncertayne riches of this world, but throughe the strongeand parfitt obedience, whereby he submitted hym self unto his father,to be obedient even unto the deathe of the crosse; Worldely wise menesteem worldely riches and welthe [426] above all other thynges, butthe wisdome of god estemets obedience above alle thynges, that is tosay that a man should submitte his wille to goddes wille, that he shuldnot desire to use any thing in this world, no not his owne life; but as itshalle please god [and be to his glory], And that every manne shulde

18 Daniel 9:1–19.

156 chapter three

be content with that state place and degree, that god the author of allgood thinges, hath called hym unto.19 With this sacrifice of obedienceChrist did reconcyle us unto his father, humbling himself to his father’swille, even to the deathe of the crosse, and he hathe commaunded allethem, that professe to be his disciples to followe this his example.But alas [427] how farre be alle they from this rule and example,

whiche comme with force of armes in the king’s ma[jes]ties Realmewithout his license and auctority, mustering them selfes in unlawfullassemblies, and tumultes to the disorder and disquietness of the wholerealme [and of a gredy and covetouse mynde to spoyle and robbeand take from others]. Or they also whiche throughe covetuousnessof ioyning lande to lande, and enclosures to enclosures have wrongedand oppressed a great multitude of the kinges faithefull subiectes?20 Ispeke of bothe thies sortes of people togither, because bothe of them bedeseased with a like seekness.But are they so ignoraunt in godly religion, that thei knowe not that

god is the distributor and gever of the goodes [428] of the worlde?And if they knowe this, why then doo thei goo aboute to gett goodesof this worlde by unlawfull meanse, contrary to goddes wille and com-maundement? Wherin what other thing els doo they then forsake theirmaister Christe, and yielde them selves unto Sathanne, wourshippinghym for their god, because he promisith to geve them the landes andgoodes of this worlde. But allmightie god I beseeche thee opyn theeyes of these blynde personnes that they may once see, and perceave,

19 Cp. Ulysses’ famous speech in Wm. Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, I.3.101–111:

O, when degree is shaken,(Which is the ladder to all high designs)The enterprise is sick! How could communities,Degrees in schools, and brotherhoods in cities,Peaceful commerce from dividable shores,The primogenitive and due of birth,Prerogative of age, crowns, sceptres, laurels,(But by degree) stand in authentic place?Take but degree away, untune that string,And hark what discord follows! each thing meetsIn mere oppugnancy.

20 On the common people’s objection to the enclosures, see the first article of“Kett’s demands being in Rebellion”: “We pray your grace that where it is enactedfor inclosyng that it be not hurtfull to suche as have enclosed saffren groundes for theygretely chargeablye to them, and that frome hensforth noman shall enclose eny more.”BL Harleain MS 304, fol. 75; TR, 156.

text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 157

that the true riches of Christian men be not golde silver or great pos-sessions, but those thinges which neyther the eye hathe seen nor theear hathe hearde, nor [429] mans harte can comprehende. Is it nota great wounder that the devill shulde so robbe these men of theirwittes that either oppresse the power [poor] or styrre these commo-tions, [L 81] that they doo forgett death? How if they did call to theirremembraunce, that deathe every day and hower hangeth over theirheades, they woulde not be so gredy of worldely goodes, that for thesame they woulde either doo iniurye to their neighbour or confoundeall thinges upsy downe with sediciouse uprores and unquietness: seeingthat of alle the goodes in the worlde, they shall carry with them out ofthis worlde [whan they die], not the value of one farthing. No, he thatdieth in the [430] displeasure of God, were he never so riche, shall notin the worlde to comme be able to buye one drop of water to quenchethe flames of everlasting fyer wherewith he shalbe tormented in hell.Wee camme naked into this worlde, and naked we shall departe henceagayne.21

What madness is it therefore so to labor and toyle bothe day andnyght, yea to adventure bothe bodye and soule for thies thinges that beso transitorye, whiche wee be sure wee shall not possesse after this life,and be unsure whether wee shall kepe them so longe or no? For wee seeby commen experience that many whiche have had greate possessionsand riches, are sodenly [431] by diverse chaunces brought to greatelacke and extreme poverty.22 For the whiche cause sainte Paule dothteache us that wee put not our confidence in riches, which are uncer-tayn, and unstable, for riches be like an untrusty servant that ronnethfrom his maister, when he hathe mooste need of hym.23 The wretchedmanne saith the prophete David, dothe horde up greate treasures, buthe cannot tell for whome,24 Wee see by daily experience, that mennebe so madde when they ones geve them selfes to covetuousness, thatthey lesse esteme the losse of their honnestye, common welth, liberty,religion, yea of god hym self [432] and everlasting life, than the losse oftheir riches.25

21 Job 1:21.22 Again, the the biblical exemplar is Job.23 1Tim. 6:17.24 Psalm 49.25 On “covetousness” as a chief cause of rebellion see Hugh Latimer’s last sermon

preached before King Edward VI, Lent 1550: “Take heed and beware of covetousness.”

158 chapter three

Against them that pretend that they roseto relieve the poor and the commonwealth

But heere me thinketh I heare some of thies unlawfull assemblies tomutter and say that it is truthe that you have said, Covetuousness is itthat undoeth all this realme, and this was the cause of our assemblies tohave the covetuousness of the riche menne and gentelmen refourmed;and that the poore myghte be provided for. But to these I aunswer onthis wise: That gentelmenne were never poorer than they be at thispresent for the more party.26 And in what case soever the gentylmenbe in, yet who gave subiects auctority to levye armyes in a kings[433] Realme without his leave and consent?27 Or whan had ever anysuche commotion good successe, or came to good ende? Who didever see the feete and legges devide themselfes from the hedd, andother superior partes?28 Dothe it than become the lower sorte of thepeople to flocke to gither, against their heades and rulers? And speciallynow at this tyme29 in the kinges maiesties minority [tendre age] whanwee be rounde aboute environed with other ennemyes? Outward withScottes and frenchemenne, and amonge our selfes with subtill papistes,who have persuaded the symple and ignoraunt Devonshire menneunder [434] pretense and cullour of religion to withstand all godlyreformatione.30 Shall we now distroye our Realme and make it a pray toour adversaries? Remember the fable of Esop, that whenne the frogge

27 sermons preached by the ryght Reuerende father in God and constant matir [sic] of Iesus Christe,Maister Hugh Latimer (London: John Day, 1562), fol. 110 v° [misprinted 109].

26 I.e., for the most part.27 In the margin: “Subditis non licet accipere gladium.”28 Compare Richard Morison, A remedy for sedition: wherin are conteyned many thynges,

concernyng the true and loyall obeysance, that comme[n]s owe vnto their prince and soueraygne lorde theKynge (London: Thomæ Berthelet 1536), sigs B3v.

29 Margin: “A tempore.”30 Leading a large army into Scotland in September 1547, Somerset won a notable

victory over an even larger Scottish force at the Battle of Pinkie. His efforts to garrisonScotland provoked intervention by France, Scotland’s “auld ally” against England. InJune 1548 a French army landed at Leith, attacked English positions, and seized controlof positions sought by the English. In the summer of 1549 the French launched freshattacks on the English garrison at Boulogne. Beer, “Edward Seymour,” ODNB. SeeWilliam Patten, The expedicion into Scotla[n]de of the most woorthely fortunate prince Edward,Duke of Soomerset, vncle vnto our most noble souereign lord ye ki[n]ges Maiestie Edvvard the VI.goouernour of hys hyghnes persone, and protectour of hys graces realmes, dominions [and] subiectes(London: Richard Grafton, 1548).

text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 159

and the mowse did fight togither, the puttock31 camme and snatchedthem up bothe.32

What greater pleasure canne wee do to the Scottes and french-menne, than to be at variance with our selfes [and so make our realmea pray for them]?33 What ioy is this to the bisshopp of Rome to hearethat the blud of englisshe menne, (for the whiche he hath so longethursted) is now like to be shedde by their owne brithren and con-treymenne! But let us be ioyned togither like membres of one body, andthen we [435] shall have lesse need to feare our forreyn enemy. It isan easy thing to breake a hole fagott, when every stick is losed fromanother, but it is hard to break the fagott, whan it is fast bound tog-ither. An horse tayle, if a manne pulle away one heare after another, iseasily losed, but it is no small labor to pull away the whole horse taylealtogither from the horsses body.34

Non est plebis abusus reformare

[L 82] But peradventure som wille say, the gentilmenne have doon thecomyns greater wronge, and thinges muste needs be redressed.35 Butis this the way I pray you to refourme that is amysse, to redresse oneiniurye with another? Is it the office of subiectes to take [436] uponthem reformation of the common wealth without the comaundement

31 Another hand has inserted “stork” here. The puttock is a marsh harrier or hawk.32 Aesopi Phrygis et vita ex maximo Planude desumpta & fabellæ iucundissimæ (London:

Wynkyn de Worde, 1535), STC (2nd ed.), 171.33 For an expression of a similar sentiment on the part of the government, see a

letter from the Privy Council to Sir Thomas Denys, Peter Courteney and AntonyHarvy, Justices of the Peace of Devon, dated 26 Jun 1549: “Whatt dyshonor andonsuertie to the hole realme may grow by these attemptates. What courage the hear-ing therof shall administer to the Frenchmen, Scots our enemyes, to putt hem inremembraunce thatt the partes of good and obedient subjectes hadd byn ffyrst tohave sued for remedie att the handes of ther soveraign lord, and nott to take upponthem selfs the swerd and authoritie to redresse as they list, especially those materswhich being allredye establisshed by a law and consent of the hole realme can nott(if anything was to be reformed) bee otherwise altered then by a law agayn.” StatePapers 10/7/42 (Calendar of State Papers Domestic, Edward VI, revised edn., no. 289); TR,155.

34 “Caudæ pilos equinæ paulatim vellere.” Quoted from Desiderius Erasmus, Adagio-rum opus (Basle: Froben, 1528), adagia 795, I.8.95.

35 See “Kett’s demands being in Rebellion,” BL Harleain MS 304, fol. 75; TR, doc.17, 156–159.

160 chapter three

of commen auctority? [in another hand: “To whom hath god gyventhe orderynge and reformation of realmes? To kynges or to subiects?”]Herkyn and feare the saying of Christe, he that taketh the sworde shallperrishe with the sworde.36 To take the sworde is to drawe the swordewithout auctoritie of the prince. For god in his scriptures expresselyforbiddeth all private revenging, and hathe made this order in commonweales, that their shulde be kinges and governours, to whome he hathwilled all men to be subiect and obedient.37 Those he hathe ordeynedto be common revengers correctours and refourmers of all common[another hand: “and private”] thinges that be amysse. And he hatheforbidden alle [437] private personnes to presume to take any suchethinge upon them. And this he hathe doon so ernestlye, because hewould not that this godly ordre (wherof he hymself is the author)[sholde] be broken or troubled of any man.Christe refused to devide the inheritaunce betwene twoo brithren,

because he would not entermedill with that office unto the whichhe was not sent of his father.38 How presumptuous than be they thatenterprise to be iudges in the limites and bandes of landes, not beingcalled therunto neither having any commission to doo it? Amonge theIsraelites, when thei had entred into the land of Canaan, [438] nonedurst be so bold as to usurpe unto hym selfe either house citie orlande, but they tarryed till Josue their governor had devided the same,and evry man was contented with his appointement.39 And whi thendoo not our people paciently tarry till our Josue, that is the kyngesma[jes]tie, and his Counsaill doo make iust reformations as thei intendeto doo, but will take upon them selfes to be refourmers and iudges oftheir owne causes, and so by uprores and tumultes hynder the moostgodly purposes and proceadinge of hym and his Counsaill?

36 Matt. 26:52.37 The most frequently cited biblical texts are Rom. 13 and 1Pet. 2. Letters addressed

by Council to the rebels in July 1549 appeal to the traditional political theology ofhierarchy and subordination and condemn the risings as both treason against theKing and sin against God. The rebels are warned by Somerset that those who profess“Christ’s doctrine in words do now in deed show the contrary fruits thereof, and forgetthe chief and principal lesson of the scriptures touching you and your vocation, whichis obedience to us your sovereign lord.” See BL, Add. MS 48018, formerly HelvertonMS XIX, fol. 389v, qu. Shagan, 38.

38 Luke 12:13.39 Joshua 13–21.

text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 161

But poverty they say constrayned them to doo, as they have doon.40

Soo might the thefe say, that poverty constrayneth hym [439] to robbeif that would excuse hym. But this is no sufficient cause of their disobe-dience, for our Savior Christe was so poore, that he saith of hymselffoxes have beries,41 and birdes of the ayer have nestis, But the sonne ofmanne hath no place wheare he may lay his hed.42 And Peter also for-soke all that he had and followed Christis poverty. And yet thei bothepaid quietly tribute to Cesar.43 And we reade not that they made anybesynnes [i.e. business], or gathered nombres of people to gither tostyrre a commotion, trying as heaven and earthe shulde go togither,that is was not iustly ordered, that they whiche were moost godly hadno possessions [440] and yet were compelled to pay tribute to Cesar.They said no suche wourdes, but paid their tribute without murmuringor grudging.Thei to whome god hath sent poverty in goodes, let them also be

poore and humble in spirite, and then be they blessed in heaven,howsoever thei be here in erthe. Christ hym self saith: Blessed arethe poore in spirite, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.44 For nopoverty canne move them [such men] to doo any thing against goddescommaundement, or to disquiet the common wealth. [441]But also they pretend that poverty constrayneth them thus to doo,

bee they so blynde that they cannot see that this sedition dothe notremedy but encrease [their] poverty.45 Be their eyes so hard shutte intheir hedde that they cannot see what evill they have doon to theirowne common welth? What victuailles they have consumed? [L 83]How thei have hindred the harvest upon the grounde, which god sentthem to be their lyving the next yere. So they destroye their ownlivinges them selfes, They nothing consider how many men they haveundoon, how many they have spoyled and robbed, how many childrenthey have caused to be fatherless, and wifes to be widowed, and whatbe they the better therefore, what have they gotten thereby, but only[442] loded them selfs with the burden of the spoyle and robbery of

40 Margin: “Paupertatis prætextu non debet tumultuari populus.” See “Kett’s de-mands being in Rebellion,” BL Harleain MS 304, fol. 75; TR, 156–159.

41 i.e. burrows or lairs.42 Luke 9:58.43 Matt. 22:15–22.44 Matt. 5:3.45 Margin: “This sedition doth not relieve but increase poverty.”

162 chapter three

other menne?46 Whome thei be never able to satisfye. And yet they maybe assured that god wilbe satisfied of them for their evill doinge evenunto the uttermost farthing. And although their offences be as greate asmay be thought, thus to consume and annoye their owne contray, theirown freendes and neighbors, yet the mercy of god is never consumedto them that wille repent and amende. Wherefore, let us pray god forthem, that he wille geve them eyes to see, and eares to heare, and hartesto understande their owne misdemeanour and foly.47

Quales sunt hujus seditionis præcipui auctores

But the great parte of them that be the chief styrrers in thies insurrec-tions, be ruffians, and sturdy idill fellows [443] whiche be the causesof their owne poverty commonly resorting to typling, and to alehouses,muche drinking and litill working, muche spending and litil getting,and yet will they be clad gorgiously, fare deyntiously, and lye softlywhiche neither caring for god, nor man, seeke now nothing els, butto get somthing by spoyle, and robbing of other menne. These fellowesmake all this hurly burly in every place, and whan the rage of the peo-ple is whetted in one place, than they rome to another, never quiettthem selfes, nor ceasing to disquyet others, untill at length they hoopeto com to their prey; happy is that place where none suche be, and ingreat daunger be they where many suche be.48 This realme had neverso many, and that evidently appereth at this present tyme. All the holiescripture exhortith to pity and compassion upon the poore and to helpthem.49 But such poore as be [444] oppressed with children or othernecessary charges or by fyre, water or other chaunce come to povertie,or for age, seeknes or other causes be not hable to labor, but to sucheas be poore by their owne foly that be able to labour and wille not,The scripture comaundeth in nowise to ayde them, or help them, but

46 On the desolation the rebels have brought upon themselves, see Philip Nichols’s“Answer to the Commoners of Devonshire and Cornwall” of 1549, BL Royal MS 18,B xi, fol. 1; TR, 154–155.

47 Mark 4:23.48 See the account of Nicholas Sotherton of the 1549 rebellion in Norfolk, BL

Harleian MS 1576, fols. 252–253; B.L. Beer, “‘The Commoyson in Norfolk, 1549’: anarrative of popular rebellion in sixteenth-century England,” Journal of Medieval andRenaissance Studies 6 (1976), 83–85.

49 Margin: “Otiosis nebulonibus nihil est dandum.”

text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 163

chargith utterly all menne to abhorre them. But these men repugnyngagainst [Christe] god, gape at nothing els, but uniustly and by force totake from other men that whiche god hathe geven unto them by theiriust labor. And yet thei pretende that they meane nothing els, but areformation of thinges that be amisse, and they complayne muche ofriche men and gentilmen saying that thei take the comens from thepoore, that they rayse the [445] prices of all maner of thinges, that theirule to the[ir] poverty, and oppresse them at their pleasure. Thus theiexcuse their owne outragiouse presumptione by charging the gentle-menne. But whilest they loke so ernestly at other mens faultes, they doonot see their owne.They speake muche against Achab, that toke from Naboth his vyne

yarde, But thei followe not thexample of Naboth, who woulde ratherlose his vyne yarde, than he would make any commotion or tumultamong the people.50 They make exclamations against Ahab, and yetfollowe hym, rather than the pacience of Naboth. Wee never reade, thatany iust man which [446] is praised in the scripture did take swoordein his hande as againste his prince or nobility although he suffrednever somuche wronge or oppression. And yet now thei accuse thegentilmenne of taking of commons,51 whiche take from the gentilmenneboth the common and propre.52

They charge the riche men that they inhaunce the prices, but inthis unsemely commotion, they take from the riche men what they listewithout any price. They say that the gentilmenne rule the poore andoppresse them at their pleasure. But they so say that be out of all ruleand ordre, and rule the gentilmen as pleasith them except they wille[447] have their goodes spoyled, their houses brent, and further be indaunger of their lifes.They saye gentilmenne have ruled aforetyme, and they will rule now

another while. A goodly Realme shall that be, that shalbe ruled bythem, that never had experience to governe, nor cannot rule theirselfes.53 A prentyse must lerne vij yeres before he canne be a good

50 1Kings 21.51 See “Kett’s Demands being in Rebellion,” articles 3 and 11: “we pray your grace

that no lord of no monnor shall comon uppon the Comons”; and “We pray that allfreholders and copie holders may take the profightes of all comons, and ther to comon,and the lordes not to comon nor take profightes of the same.” BL Harleain MS 304,fol. 75; TR, 157.

52 Margin: “Quod sit falsa horum nebulonum querela.”53 Margin: “Quod miserum esset rebnum si ab iis nebulonibus gubernaretur.”

164 chapter three

merchaunt. No lesse tyme were requyred to be a good governor. Butif god were so offended with our Realme, and by our ingratitudeand wickedness were somuche provoked to indignation against us, thathe would make them governours and rulers over us, O Lorde, whata Realme shulde this be! What frute [448] shulde wee se of theirgovernaunce? What ende, or measure would be of their covetuousness?What iustice shulde be loked for at their handes if they were rulers,whiche now being but private personnes without lande or iustice tokefrom every man at their pleasure? How would they temper them selfesbeing in auctoritye, that now without auctority be ruled by their owneaffections without the feare of god, or respecte to raison or country?It is a commen, and a true saying, that auctoritie shewithe what everymanne is, and a gentilmanne wille ever shewe hymself a gentilmanne,and a vilayne a vilayne. We see daily by experience that a gentilmannein auctority [449] hathe a respecte to his reputatione and wourshippe,but a villayne called to office and auctority, comonly regardeth neithergod, wourshippe, nor honesty, but to catche what he canne, by righteor by wronge. For unto hym all is fisshe that cometh to the nette.54

[L 84] And yet it is reported that there be many among these unlaw-full assemblies that pretende knouleadge of the gospell,55 and will needsbe called gospellers, as though the gospell were the cause of disobedi-ence, sedition and carnall liberality, and the destruction of those poli-cies, kyngdomes and common weales wheare it is receyved. But ifthey will be true gospellers, let them then be obediente, meeke [450]pacient in adversitie, and long suffering and in nowise rebell againstethe lawes and magistrates.56 These lessons are taughte in the gospellebothe by evident scriptures, and also by the examples of Christe, andhis appostilles. Christ hym self was power (i.e. poor), and pronouncethhym self to be blissed, that patiently [did] suffer poverty. The appos-tilles’ forsoke alle that thei hadd and folowed Christe. The prophetesoften tymes refused great riches offered unto them, And canne they saythat they have the spirite of the prophetes and the appostilles, whichehaving no possessions of their owne, goo about by force violence and

54 Sir John Cheke, The Hurt of Sedicion howe greueous it is to a commune welth (London:John Day and William Seres, 1549), sig. Avi v°. “The other rable of Norfolke rebelles, yepretende a commonwelth, how amende ye it? by killynge of Gentilmen? by spoylyngeof Gentilmen? by enprisonynge of Gentilmen? a mervelous tanned commonwelth, whyshould ye thus hate them? for their riches or for their rule?”

55 Margin: “Quod sunt impii qui in his sceleribus prætexunt evangelium.”56 Cp. Cheke, Hurt of Sedicion, sig. Aiiii v°.

text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 165

[451] sedition to gett other mens. Noo this spirite is not of Christe, butof the devill. And suche a spirite as among the romaynes, Catelyne,Cathegus and Manlius were inspired withall.57 And here in EnglandJacke Strawe, Jacke Cade the black smyth, Capitaine Aske and diverseother rebelles,58 who have suffred iust ponyshment after their deserv-ing, and althoo here I seame only to speake against thies unlawfullassemblies, yet I cannot allowe those, but I must needes threaten ever-lasting damnation unto them, whiche whether they be gentilmenne, orwhatsoever they be whiche never cease [L 85] to purchace and ioynehouse [452] to house, and lande to lande, as though they alone oughtto possesse and inhabite the earthe. For to suche Esai the prophitethreateneth everlasting woo, and the cursse of god except thei repentand ammende their lifes in tyme. But yet their fault excusith not thosewhiche without the commaundement of the kinge and his lawes, havetaken harnesse upon their backs and refused to lay it downe when theywer by the kinges auctority comaunded so to doo. What other rewardecanne I promise to them, than the angre, and vengeaunce of god,whiche they shall feele bothe in this life, and in the life to come botheso[o]ner and sorer than they loke for [453] except they acknouledgetheir faultes and amend by tyme.But let us now compare these twoo distructiones of the commen

weale together.59 The covetuouse men (which as they say doo encloseand possesse uniustly the comones) and thies mutyners whiche rasshelyand without all reason wilbe both the hearers, iudges, and reformers,of their owne causes, and that is moost uniustice of all and against allmans lawe, and goddes lawe, this they will doo, the other parties neitherh[e]ard nor called. And therunto thei take the kinges power upon them,the auctority of the magistrate and the sworde which they never had byno lawe. [454] Which of thies twoo is the greater iniurye? Whiche is themore intollerable robbery? Which is the more pernicious confusione? Isthis a remedy to their greefes? Is this to bringe in iustice? I suppose [am

57 See Sallust’s account of the oration in the Roman Senate by Marcus Porcius CatoUticencis (Cato the Younger), ‘On the punishment of the Catiline conspirators,’ inCatiline, ed. A.T. Davis (London: Oxford University Press, 1967), cap. 51.

58 Jack Strawe was one of the leaders of the Great Rising of 1381, also called WatTyler’s Rebellion. In 1450 Jack Cade led a rebellion in Kent. When rebellion broke outin York against Henry VIII, Robert Aske, a barrister and member of Gray’s Inn, tookup the leadership of the Pilgrimage of Grace. He was hanged in 1537. R.W. Hoyle, Thepilgrimage of grace and the politics of the 1530s (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). TR,chap. 4.

59 Margin: “Multo deteriores sunt rebelles et seditiosi quam avari.”

166 chapter three

sure] them selfes being nowe quyett from their furor and rage, cannotso thinck folyshenes is not healed by madnes. Thefte is not amendedwith spoyle and ravine. Neither is the common wealth stayed or madestronge by the breache of lawes ordres and states. Wherefore let bothparties lay away this so furiouse and excessive desire of vayne andworldely thinges, whiche as wee have now lerned [455] by experience,as the appostill saithe is the roote of all evilles.60

But now I wille goo further to speake somwhat of the greate hatred,which diverse of thies seditious personnes doo beare against the gentil-menne,61 which hatred in many is so outragiouse, that thei desire noth-ing more, than the spoyle, ruyne and destruction of them that be richeand welthy.62 For this thynge many of them doo crye, and opinly pro-fesse a goodly prupose and benefite to [L 86] the realme. This declarethwhat spirite thei be ledd withall. If thies divillisshe spirites might havetheir willes what destruction [456] shulde hang over this realme, whatmiserable state shulde the common weale comme unto? This nobleRealme whiche yet is feared of all nations, shulde than be a pray to allnations, to the Frenchmenne to the Scottes, and to every realme, thatwoulde spoile them, and among our selfes shulde be suche confusion,that every manne shuld spoile other if he were able [stronger].63 [L 87]For take away gentilmenne and rulers, and straite way alle order fallitheclerely away, and followeth barbaricalle confusione.64 Oh how farre bethies menne from all feare of god. [another hand: For god commaun-deth al inferiors most redely to obey their superiors but they, more likebests than men, bende theyr selfs thereby agaynst god not only to dis-obey, but also to destroy their superiors which god hath apoynted over

60 1Tim. 6:7.61 Margin: “Odium nebulonum in nobiles et divites.”62 Cheke, The hurt of Sedicion, sig. Avi v°.63 Fletcher and MacCulloch, Document 15, Tudor Rebellions, 155.64 In his response to the Pilgrimage of Grace of 1536, Richard Morison wrote as

follows: “Whan every man wyll rule, who shall obeye? Howe can there be any commonwelthe, where he that is welthyest, is mooste lyke to come to woo? … An order mustebe hadde, and a waye founde, that they rule that beste can, they be ruled, that moosteit becommeth so to be. This agreement is not onely expedient, but also most necessaryin a common welthe, those that are of the worser sort, to be content, that the wyserreule and governe theym, those that nature hath endewed with synguler vertues, andfortuen without breache of lawe, set in hyghe dignitie, to suppose this done by the greatprovydence of god, as a meane to engender love and amitie, betwene the highe and thelowe, the small and the great, the one eynge so necessary for thothers safegarde weltheand quietnes.” A remedy for sedition, second edn. (London: Thomas Berthelet, 1537), sig.A2rv; TR, 149–150.

text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 167

them.] The scripture saith he that hatith his brother is a murthererbefore god.65 [457] But thies menne not only mortally hate, but alsothreaten the distruction, not of one manne, but of one hoole state,66

and that [next the kyngs maiestie] the chiefe state of the whole realme.And not only this, but that whiche is more wonderfull, and to be

lamented, parte of them doo dispise and opinely refuse the kingesmaiesties pardon.67 He is lothe to shedde his subiects bludde [anotherhand: although they be unworthy the name of his subiects] but theyseeke [to shed] the bludde of them, whiche have hitherto defendedtheir blud from shedding. He like a moost mercifull Prince, is lotheto cutte of the membres of his body, althoo many of them arr so rottenand corrupt that they, if the[y] might, they would imfecte the [458]whole body. And what madness is it that deseased membres refuse to beannoynted with the moost softe and gentill oyntement of his maiestiesmercy? He is as carefull for their helthe and life as it were possible ifthey were his childrenne. There is nothing that he desireth more thanto save their lifes. They have their soveraine lorde and kinge set beforetheir eyes as an example of pacyence lenitye and gentilnes, who hathegraunted to them life, that deserved deathe. Whi then doo they refuseto followe his mercifulness, whi will not they forgeve their [459] wrongdoing, as he dothe forgeve them?Althoo by thies seditions and uproris [L 88] he hathe been more

grevously offended, than the gentilmenne haue offended them, withwhome thei be angry.68 For the gentilmen (in case thos thinges be truewherewith they be charged) yet they have only doon wronge to thepoore commons in their encloasures and such like matiers, But by thiesseditions the maiestie of a mooste hiegh and godly king is hurte, andwronged, forsomuche as thei take upon them his office, and as it werepullithe the sworde out of his handes, for he is ordeyned of god tohave the hearing and decision of suche [460] causes, and to have theadministration and distribution of thies worldely goodes. But thei in

65 1 John 3:15.66 I.e., the “estate” of the gentry.67 Margin: “Against them that refuse the King’s pardon.” Many pardons and a wide

range of concessions were offered by the government. Shagan, 39–45. Robert Kettrefused the offer of a pardon conveyed by a royal messenger to the Norfolk rebels atMousehold Heath on 20 July 1549 on the ground that just and innocent men had noneed of one. See TR, chap. 6.

68 Margin: “Gravius peccarunt isti seditiosi in regem et regnum, quam quæ con-queruntur illi de nobilibus.”

168 chapter three

their rage doo in a maner pull hym out of his throne and chayre ofestate, and cast hym downe to the grounde, who is here in erthe goddesvicar and chief minister, and of whome only next unto god dependithall the welthe of and felicite of this Realme, as it would soone appereif he were myssing, whiche god forbid, and all the Realme shuldebewayle.69

Verily when I consider with my self their uniust desire in reveng-ing, and the kinges maiesties gentilness in suffering and pardonyng,methinke I see the accustomed ordre of things to be cleane formedand chaunged [upside down]. For Salamon saith, A kings angre is likethe roring of a lyon.70 But their soveraine lorde dothe not rore againstthem (which notwithstanding have grevously offended and provoked hisangre). But rather dothe fawne upon them, and use them very gentilly.Contrary wise they whiche ought to be as gentill and meke as lambes,(whose parte it were rather to holde their peace, and not to open theirmowthes, or els to speake very myldely and loly) doo nowe rore andmake outcryings [462] like most cruell lyons. The whiche thinge howiustely they doo it goddes vengeaunce (except thei take heede) willspedely declare.[L 89] One thinge there is which (after all) I thinke necessarye to be

added hereunto and that in myn opinion is the heade and begynnyngof all thies tribulations.71 For the gospell of god now set furthe to thehole Realme, is of many so hated, that it is reiected, refused, reviled,and blasphemed, and by those whiche have receyved the same, andwoulde be counted to be great favorers therof, yet it sustayneth mucheiniury and reproche, and by their occasion is ill spoken of.72 [463] Forthe greate nombre of them pretending a zeale thereto in their lippes,

69 In distinguishing the sedition of the commons as the more grievous offence,Vermigli draws a distinction between “high and low” politics. According to Fletcherand MacCulloch, “high politics was about who should run the country, low politics wasabout how the country should be run.” Tudor Rebellions, 128. See also Stephen Alford,Kingship and politics in the reign of Edward VI (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2002), 40–41, 189, 190.

70 Prov. 19:12.71 Margin: “Præcipua causa omnium malorum est contemptus aut abusus evan-

gelii.”72 According to Sir William Paget, close advisor to Protector Somerset, “The use of

the olde religion is forbydden by a lawe, and the use of the newe ys not yet pryntedon the stomackes of the eleven of twelve partes in the realme, what countenance soevermen make outwardly to please themn in whom they see the power restethe.” SP 10/8/4(Calendar of State Papers Domestic, Edward VI, revised edn., no. 301); TR, 160.

text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 169

and not in their hartes, counterfaiting godlyness, in name, but not indede, lyve after their owne pleasure, like epicures, and so ungodly asthough there were no god. And what is it that sainte Paule callith,the having of godly truthe in unrightuousnes,73 if this be not it? Thishaving more knowleadge of God than thei had before, and retreavinga taste of the heavenly giftes, notwithstanding retayne their olde vicesin their corrupte maners and dissolute conversacion, being nothingamended, but rather payred. Whiche thing being in this case, whatother thing shulde wee loke for, [464] then the severe and terribleiudgement of god, to make us an example, to all them that abusehis worde (sithe by repentaunce we woll not be amended, nor by thepure wourde of god be healed) that theirby all menne may lerne howabhominable it is before god, his name to be so dishonored, and thedoctrine of the gospell so lightly estemed. The heathen poet couldenot wincke at suche menne, but with his penne rubbed them on thegalle, whiche pretending hollynes, so dissolutely did lyve:74 and shallgodley iudgement leave them unponnysshed, which alwaies having intheir mouthe the gospell, the gospell, reasonyng of it, bragging of it,and yet their [465] conversation, lyve after the worlde, the flesshe, andthe devill? Whiche as saint Paule wrote unto Titus confessing god withtheir mowthe, denye hym in their deedes.75 But suche as reioyce andbragge in such thinges, utterly deceave themselfis.Whoso liftith to reade the histories of the heathen people and great-

est idolaters, [L 90] he shall not funde among them all, any region,people, or nation that was to scourged by god. So ofte brought intoservitude, so ofte carryed into captivitie, with so diverse straunge andmany calamities oppressed, as were the childre of Israell. And yet theybragged [466] and gloryed, that none other nation but they only hadthe lawe of god, their rites, and ceremonyes of god, goddes promisesand his testamentes. And so was it in dede, nevertheles Saint Paulewriting to the Romanes dothe mooste sore rebuke and reprove them

73 Rom. 1:18.74 The translation of the sermon omits the line from Juvenal’s Satires quoted by

Vermigli in the Latin text: “Qui Curios simulant, et Bacchanalia vivunt.” Ivnii IvvenalisSatyræ XVI. A. Persii Satyræ VI (Lutetia [Paris]: Robert Stephanus, 1544), Satyra 2, v. 3.“I long to escape when I hear/high-flown moral discourse from that clique in Romewho affect/ancestral peasant virtues as a front for their lechery.” Juvenal, The SixteenSatires, transl. Peter Green (Harmondsworth: Penguin, Books, 1985), 75. See ‘SermoPetri Martir manu propria scripta in seditionem Devonensium,’ CCCC MS 340, no. 4,fol. 89.

75 Titus 1:16.

170 chapter three

saying:76 Thou art called a Jewe, and doe trust in the lawe, and makistthi bost of god, and knowest his wille, and allowest the thinge that bebest and art enformed by the lawe, and thinkest that thou arte a guydeto the blynde, a light to them that are in darkenes, a teacher of themthat be ignoraunt, a doctor to them that be [467] unlerned whichehast the true fourme and knowledge of the truthe by the lawe. Butyet thou whiche teachist another teachest not thi selfe. Thou preach-est that a manne shulde not steale, yet thou stealest, thou saiest thata man shulde not commyt adultery but thou breakest wedlock. Thouabhorrest ymages, and yet thou dost commyt ydolatrie by honoringof them. Thou that makest thi boost of the lawe, through the break-ing of the lawe dishonorest god, for the name of god is ill spokenof among the heathen by your meanes. Thus the appostill saint Paulcharging the Jewes, chargith us also, whiche with our mouthes say[468] that we have receyved the wourde of god and yet our conver-sation is contrary and ungodly. Whi than doo we marvaill if wee sufferthies ponyshementis for our dissimulation and hipocrisy? For god usithfirst to begynne and converte his owne famyly. Then if he shulde suf-fer this amongest us unponisshed, shulde not he be thought to approvesynne, to be a favorer of the wicked, and the god of unthriftes and lewdpeople? The churche of god, [L 91] moost derely beloved brithren,ought not to be reputed and taken as a common place, wherunto menresorte only to gaase and to heare others for their solace or for theirpastyme.But whatsoever is there declared of the wourde of god [469] that

shulde wee so devoutely receave, and so ernestly printe in our myndes,that wee shulde both beleve it as moost certayne truthe, and moostdiligently endevor our selfes to expresse the same in our minds andlyving. If wee receave and repute the gospell as a thing moost ernestand godly, whi doo wee not lyve according to the same? Yf we counteit as fables and trifles, whi doo wee take upon us to geve suche credibtand auctority unto it? To what purpose tendeth suche dissimulationand hipochrasy? Yf wee take it for a Caunterbury tale, whi doo wee notrefuse it, whi doo wee not laugh it out of place, and [470] whistill at it?Why doo wee with wourdes approved, with our conscience receave andallowe it, geve credibt unto it, repute and take it as a thinge moost trueholsome and godly, and in our lyving clerely reiecte it?

76 The following passage is a paraphrase of Romans 8: 17–24.

text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 171

Brethren, god will not be mocked, for this cause did god so severelyand grevouslye ponysshe the Jewes above all other nations. And sithour cause is the like and the same, the self same ire and displeasureof god is now provoked and kyndeled against us. The empier of Romenever appered to be in worse case, or in a more troublouse and unquyetstate, than whan Christes [471] religion was preached, and receavedamong them. Whereuppon arrose neither fewe nor small complaintesof the heathen, ascribing all their adversities unto the receaving of thegospell and the religion of Christe. To whome the godly and learnedfathers and martyrs made aunswere, that it was not long of Christisdoctrine and religion, whiche teache thinges mooste vertuouse andgodly, that suche calamities did ensue, but it was long of the corruptexecution and negligent observation of the same relligion.77 For ourlord did say: the servant whiche knowith his maisters commaundement,and doth [472] it not, shalbe [L 92] sorer ponysshed, than he whicheknowith not his maisters will and offendith by ignoraunce.78 Whereby itis evident, as the wourde of god (if it be godly receaved, and with all theharte embraced) is moost comfortable, of mooste efficacy strength andvertue. So otherwise if it be troden underfoote, reiected and dispised orcraftily under the cloake of dissimulation and hipochrisy receaved, it isa compendiouse and a shorte way unto distruction, it is an instrumentwheareby the ponyshement and displeasure of god is bothe augmented,and also accelerate and sooner brought upon us, as wee have moostiustly [473] deserved.Yf wee will consider the histories of the bookes of the kinges, wee

shall no tyme fynde mo prophetis among the people of Israel, northe light of the wourde of god more spredde abrode every wheare,than it was a litill before the captivity and distruction of the sameby the Babilonians.79 A manne would thincke that even at that sametyme god had set upp a scole of holly scriptures and doctrine, thenwere the heavenly prophetis in all places and to all men deceaved. Butbecause so great knowledge of god and of his doctrine, no good frutesdid followe, but dailye their lyving and conversation went backwarde,

77 See, e.g., Aurelius Augustine, De civitate Dei, Bk. I.78 Luke 12: 47.79 Vermigli lectured extensively at Strasbourg on the books of Samuel and Kings.

See In duos libros Samuelis Prophetæ qui vulgo Priores libri Regum appellantur D. Petri MartyrisVermilii Florentini, professoris diuinarum literarum in schola Tigurina, Commentarii doctissimi, cumrerum & locorum plurimorum tractatione perutili (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1564) and Melachim,id est, Regum libri duo posteriores cum Commentariis (Zurich: Christopher Froschauer, 1566).

172 chapter three

and [474] wourse, the saide miserable destruction and captivity didensue. And yet a wourse captivity and misery fell upon the samepeople, whan moost parfite knouleadge of god was offred unto themby the coming of Christe, what tyme the lorde Jesus Christe himselfdid preache there, his appostiles did preache there, yea many otherdisciples, Evangelistes, and doctours did preache there, [L 93] whosepreachinges and doctrines when they would not receave, nor frutefullyand condignely accomplishe and execute then sprange upp so manydissentions tumultes and commotions, that at the last they were broughtunto utter subversion and destruction [475] in the tyme of Vaspasionand Titus.80

Of the chaunces [i.e. fortunes] of the Germaines which in a manerhave suffred the same (because it is so lately doon) I neede not mucheto speake.81 It is yet before our eyes, and in present memory, so that itnedith no declaration in wordes. Thies thinges before rehersed have Ifor this intent and purpose spoken, that wee shulde acknowledge andrepute all thies seditions and troubles which wee now suffer, to be theveray plage of god, for the reiecting or ungodly abusing of his moosthollye wourde, and so provoke and enlist every man [476] to true andfrutefull repentaunce and to receave the gospell (whiche now by godlymercy and the good zeale of the kinges maiesty and his counsaill isevery wheare set abrode) not faynedly and fayntly as many have doon,nor stubbournly and contemptuously to reiecte it, and forsake it, asmany others doo now adayes, not knowing what it is, but thankfullyeto take and embrace it at godly hands and with all humbleness andreverence to followe and use the same to goddes glory and our benefite,Ye have herd nowe as I suppose the chief and principall causes of thesetumultuations whiche being declared unto you I might right well and[477] conveniently have made an ende. Save that I thought it neither

80 Flavius Josephus was commissioned by the Emperor Vespasian to write a historyof the great Roman-Jewish war (66–70CE) which resulted in the destruction of theSecond Temple and the great diaspora of the Jewish nation. See The Jewish War; withan English translation by H. St. J. Thackeray (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress, 1997), bk. 6.

81 Perhaps Vermigli refers to the German Peasants’ Rebellion of 1525, or to theAnabaptist insurrection of 1535 led by Jan Matthys and John of Leyden in Munster,Westphalia. On the former see Martin Luther, Wider die Mordischen vn[d] ReubischenRotten der Bawren (Wittemberg: [Augsburg: Heinrich Stayner], 1525). J.M. Porter, ed.,Luther: Selected Political Writings (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974). See also Sigrun Haude, Inthe shadow of “savage wolves”: Anabaptist Münster and the German Reformation during the 1530s(Boston: Humanities Press, 2000).

text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 173

disagreing, nor unprofitable to this purpose if I somwhat by certaineexamples admonisshed suche as be ready to stirre up such seditions[shall showe you by examples of tymes passed] what plages of god,remayneth for them [that stirr up seditions] onless they repent in tyme,and cease from their shamefull and ungodly enterprises.The children of Israill in the deserte did often tymes seditiously use

themselfes against Moses.82 But alwaies did followe great plagues ofdeath. So that this was the ende of it, that of vj and xx [thousands]which came out of [L 94] Egipt all dyed and were slayne, and no moocamme to the [478] Land of Canaan but twoo personnes only.83 Howmiserably Core Dathan and Abiron perrisshed making of sedition, theholly bible, manyfestly and at large declareth.84 Mary [i.e. Miriam]sediciously used herself against her brother Moyses, and was she notsuddenly stricken with a leprosy of the which she had perrished, ifMoyses for her had not made intercession to god.85 Absolon againste hisfather king David was seditiouse, but was not he miserably hanged bythe heare in a woodd by the ponyshement of god? Seba and Adonias,for their sedition lost they not bothe their lyves?86 [479] In the rebellionmade against Nabugodonosor in the tyme of the prophete Hieremy,which instantly diswaded them from their furye, they litill regardinghis admonition went downe unto Egipt, wheare at the last they wer alldestroyed.87 Did not the tribe of Effrata88 make a commotion againstJepthe their iudge, but were they not all miserably slayne therfore?89 If Iwoulde recite and adde hereunto the histories of the heathen whichdeclare the miserable end of seditiouse personnes and rebellions, Ishulde be more prolixe and tediouse, than this resent tyme [480] dothesuffre, Wherefore I shall thinke it sufficyent for this tyme to bringe untoyour remembraunce the greate destruction of the rude and homelypeople whiche not many yeres agoo chaunced to ryse in Germany, by

82 Margin: “Quomodo Deus semper affligere solebat seditiosos.”83 Joshua and Caleb were alone among their generation to enter the Promised Land.

All the rest had persished in the wilderness. Numbers 13:1–14:38.84 Numbers 16. CCCC MS 102, no. 34, “Heads of a discourse against Rebellion,”

fol. 532.85 Numbers 12: 1–16.86 1Kings 1: 5–53 and 2:13–25. Adonijah (spelling in KJV) attempted to seize the

throne from his brother Solomon. The latter passage relates his treason and death.87 Jeremiah 28 and 40–44.88 I.e. “Ephraim”.89 Judges 12:5, 6. The rebellious Ephraimites were identified in battle by their

accents; they pronounce the Hebrew word “shibboleth” as “sibboleth”.

174 chapter three

and by after that the wourde of god began there to shyne and florishe,of the whiche were slayne within the tyme of three monnethis about anhundred thousand personnes, And what followed further therof greatederthe of victualls greate hungre and penury.90 [L 95] Then onlesserepentaunce be the meane, what lett canne there be, what thing elsmay our seditiouse and rebelliouse personnes loke for than the samemyserable ende that thei hadd? Is not the same Lorde and judge nowthat was than? Is not our offence the same (if it be not worse) thentheires was? Is not goddes iustice allwaies the same that it was before?Doo wee not allwaies heare that there is no acceptation of personnesbefore god?God of his abundant mercy geve us eares that wee may heare,

and hartes that we may understande. God by his holly spirite andmercyfull favor graunte to the superior powres hartes to revenge goddescause, and [482] to converte all offendours against goddes holly wourd.God graunte that insatiable covetuousnes may be with moderationordered and abated, and that hatred and mallice may be appeasedand repressed, and that the holly gospell of god may take place andbe receaved, and that wee every manne for his power so reverentlyand godly may use and exercise our selfes in the same, that all menneevidently seying our good conversation, thereby may be allured andencouraged to folowe, and to geve laudes and thankes to god whichelyveth and reignith worlde without end. Amen. [483]91

And now with this humble prayer let us make an end.92

90 James M. Stayer, The German Peasants’ War and Anabaptist community of goods (Mon-treal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1991).

91 This is the conclusion of the translation of the Latin sermon of Vermigli.92 The following prayer appears twice in CCCC MS 102, no. 29, fol. 483. Thomas

Cranmer’s autograph version appears at this point in the text, i.e. immediately fol-lowing the concluding prayer of Vermigli’s Latin sermon. A second draft, corrected inCranmer’s follows the English version of the sermon on a leaf by itself, fol. 501. Accord-ing to Strype, “An office of fasting was composed for this rebellion, which being allayedin the West, grew more formidable in Norfolk and Yorkshire. For I find a prayer com-posed by the Archbishop, with these words preceding; ‘The exhortation to penance orthe supplication may end with this or some other like prayer.’ And then the prayerfolloweth … After this follow some rude draughts, written by Archbishop Cranmer’sown hand, for the composing, as I suppose, of an homily or homilies to be used forthe office aforesaid.” Strype, Memorials of the most reverend father in God Thomas Cranmer(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1812), 188. For the “rude draughts” or sermon notes, seealso Henry Jenkyns, ed., The Remains of Thomas Cranmer, D.D. (Oxford: University Press,1833), 245. While Jenkyns ascribes these to Cranmer, they are nonetheless based on aLatin MS in Vermigli’s hand annotated by Matthew Parker as “Cogitationes Petri Mar-

text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 175

O Lorde whose goodnes farre excedith our noughtynes, and whosemercy passith all measure, wee confesse thi Judgementes to be moostjust, and that wee wourthily have deserved this rodde wherewith thouhas now beaten us; Wee have offended the Lord god, wee have lyvedwickedly, wee have goon out of the way, wee have not hard thi proph-etis, which thou hast sent us, to teache us thi wourde, now have doonas thou hast commaunded us; Wherefore wee be most wourthy tosuffre all this plage;93 Thou has doon iustly and we be worthie to beconfounded, but wee prevoke unto thi goodnes, wee appell unto thymercy, we humble our selfes, we knowleadge our faultes, wee tourned tothee o Lorde, with out hole hartes, in praying, in fasting, in lamentingand sorrowing for our offences, have mercy upon us, cast us not awayaccording to our desertes, but heare us, deliver us with spede; and callus to the[e] agayne according to thi mercy that wee with one consentand one mynde may evermore glorify thee worlde without end. Amen.

[484 blank]

[485] Hitherto have wee touched how undecent a thing it is for chris-tian men to excitate and stirre up sedicions under the pretense of thecommon weale, as it chaunced now almost every wheare, to the greattrouble, detriment and impoverisshing of same common weale.94

The remedie of al our plags is onely penaunce95

But methincke that I have doone my office and duetye, untille I haveshewed also the remedies to appease [goddes wroth and to avoide hisplags] theis tumultes and tribulations. And to shewe you the same infewe wourdes, the only help and remedy is repentaunce, for othermedicine and preservative can I geve you none by goddes wourde but

tyris contra seditionem.” CCCC MS 102.31, fol. 509. See Montague Rhodes James, ADescriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912), vol. I, no. 102.

93 The prayer evokes the central conceit of the sermon, namely the providentialmanifestation of divine justice in history. “Thou has doon iustly and we be worthie tobe confounded”—the “plague” of sedition is a just punishment for injustice on the partof both rebels and gentry.

94 The sermon continues with penance as the proposed “remedie” of the plague.95 The remainder of the sermon, i.e. fols. 485 through 499, constitutes a translation

of a second Latin sermon by Vermigli, with Mathew Parker’s epigraph, “Alter eiusdemsermo in seditionem,” CCCC MS 340.6, fols. 115–131.

176 chapter three

that whiche Christ duth duly preache and declare unto the world, andwhich also his faithfull messenger John the Baptist (comyng before toprepare his wais)96 [486] did teache saying: Repent you and amend,that the kingdome of heaven shall comme unto you.97 And on thiswise did our lord Jesus Christ instructe his disciples, to whome he gavecommaundement specially to preache repentaunce and remission ofsynnes, when he sent them furthe into all the world to preache in hisname. The effecte of synne is to put us away from god, the very wellespringe of all goodnes.98 But by penaunce wee retourne agayn to hymfrom whome we wer goon and departed by synne that as we went fromgod and ranne after worldely thinges, being inflamed with insaciabledesires thereof, so by penaunce wee retourne from worldely creatures,unto god the creator [487] of all thinges.99 And what mutation andchaunge can be more comfortable or more to be desired than this. Byrepentaunce wee be sory for those thinges which greatly pleased usbefore, wee forsake those thinges which wee muche made of before notwithout great contempt of god and violation of his moost holly lawes,Wherefore sith repentaunce dothe bring so many benefites that therebywee be refourmed unto god, that we are altred unto a better mynd,that wee bewayle those thinges which wee before unwisely loved whodothe not manifestly perceave that it is the only refuge and anker ofour helth and salvation. And for this cause is penaunce [488] so muchecommended unto us bothe of Christe hymself and of saint John, and ofChristes appostilles.And whi do you thinck that this great iustice of god dothe forbeare

and so long differre to make ponyshement uppon synnes?100 Surelybecause he would have us to repent and amend. And whie dothe hemany tymes stryke so sore at length if god did not tarry for us lokingfor our repentaunce and amendement [L 118] we shuld have perrishedby goddes rygtuouse judgement long before this tyme. Yf god by andby shule have ponyshed offences, wee shuld not have had Peter amongthe appostilles. Yf the churche shuld [489] have lacked that elect vessellPaule, yea wee all long agoo had been destroyed. And if god shulde

96 See Vermigli’s extensive allusion to the canticle Benedictus in his Epistle to the PrincessElizabeth (1558) in the following chapter, pp. 187–189 below.

97 Matt. 3:2.98 Margin: “Effectus peccati”.99 Margin: “Effectus pœnitentiæ”. See CP, 3.8., fol. 204b.100 I.e. “so long defer …” Margin: “Cur Deus differt statim punire delinquentes.”

text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 177

have suffred us any lenger being so evill as wee wer, peradventure weeshuld have forgotten god and dyed without repentaunce.Wherefore that thing that god somuche desireth of us, and hath

provoked unto first by long-suffering, and now by sore ponysshing,that is true and godly repentaunce.101 Let us receave it quyckly withoutlonger delay. Let us consider well in our myndes how many waies goddoth calle and allure synners to penaunce. Our first parentes Adamand Eve, after they had [490] transgressed goddes comaundement,he called them unto hym, he rebuked them, he sharpely ponnyshedthem. And after whan all thinges in the erthe were corrupted by thesynnes of manne God commaunded Nohe to buyld an ark, to save hymand all that were rightuouse, that only the wicked might be drownedthroughout all the world. And for what purpose was the Arche so longin making, but for a long preching and warnyng of the world to repentand amend. How ofte is it redd in the book of Judges that the childrenof Israell were geven over unto the handes of heathen princes that theyshuld be ponysshed by them, and by ponyshement repent and amend.[491]It is an extreme impiety and madnes to thincke that god is cruelle

and delightith in the ponyshment of his people, but for their amend-ment. For so did the marcionistes and the maniches blaspheme god,which for this purpose did accuse hym of cruelty and unmercyfulnes,that thereby they myght tak away all cruelty [credit] from the olde tes-tament.102 But wee doo acknowledge that god did therin shew his greatmercy that the Israilites admonyshed by assertions, whome no speakingnor writinge could move, might by repentaunce [L 119] retourne agaynto god. Also the great slaughter, that the other tribes of Israell suffred ofthe tribe of Beniamyn [492] camme of none other cause, but that theybeing convicted by penaunce might at the last obtayne the victory.103

Furthermore the prophetis sent of god, did moost ernestly persuadeall men to repentaunce. The godly king David was no other waies

101 Margin: “Cur tandem gravius animadvertit.”102 Once among the most popular of sects but from the outset condemned as heretics,

the followers of Marcion (excommunicated 144CE by the Church of Rome) held to asharp antithesis of the Old and New Testaments. By exalting the Pauline teachingon grace, the Marcionites—considered to be Gnostics together with the Manichees—held that the law was opposed to the truth of the gospel. Vermigli, along with othermagisterial reformers, linked sixteenth-century anti-nomianism to early-church heresy.

103 Judges 20. See Flavius Josephus, Antiquitatum Iudaicarum libri XX (Basel: Froben,1548), V.2.

178 chapter three

healed than by repentaunce, And to call hym to repentaunce was theprophete Hely sent to Achab, king of Israell.104 And by the same Man-asses king of Juda did obtayne remission.105 By the self same repen-taunce did his father Ozechias obtayne prolongation of his life. Theking of Nynyve with all his people by the meanes of repentauncehad god mercifull unto them.106 The great king Nabugodonozar [493]after that he had repented receaved not only his former state, beingchaunged from a best to a manne, but also was restored to his empireand kyngdome which before he had lost.107 By the same means didPeter obtayne remission of his abiuration and deniall of Christe, bythe same Paule of a persecutor becamme an appostille. Mary Mag-dalene at the feete of the lorde taking repentaunce was absolved andremitted, and the thefe on the crosse by his same remedy obtaynedsalvacion. This did the appostilles persuade unto them that receavedtheir preaching as it apperith in the actes of the appostilles. This didPeter propound unto Symon magus. This did Paule commend unto theCorinthians.108 [494] and almost to all other to whome soever he wrote[L 120], and did bothe often and diligently beate it into mens heddes.This wee must receave as the first part of the gospell. This god

requirith of all offendurs, if they wilbe reconcyled unto hym. Whereforenow let us repent while wee have tyme. For the axe is layd nearly atthe roote of the tree to fell it downe, Yff we will harden our hartes, andwill not now be repentaunt of our mysdoinge, god will surely strike uscleane out of his book.

Pœnitentia quid sit

Hitherto ye have herd of the profite and commodyty of repentaunce,now shall ye heare what it is, and of what partes it consisteth.109 Andto declare it plainely and grossely unto you, It is a sorrow conceaved[495] for synnes committed, with hope and trust tobtayne remissionby Christe, with a firme and effectuall purpose of amendment, andto alter all things that hathe been don amisse. I have described unto

104 1Kings 21.105 Chron. 33:11–18. See also the Prayer of Manasses in the Septuagint.106 Jonah 3:1–9.107 Daniel 4:1–3.108 2 Corinth. 7:10.109 Cp. Vermigli’s very similar definition of repentance in CP 8.3, fol. 204b.

text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 179

you this heavenly medycine which if wee will use, god hathe promisedby his prophete that if our synnes were as redde as scarlet they shalbemade as white as snowe. But goddes wourd hathe thus muche prevayledamong us that in the start of sorrow for our synne is crept in a greatloseness of lyving without repentaunce. In the stead of hoope and trustof remissionne of our synnes, is comme in a great boldness to synnewithout the feare of god. In search [496] of amendement of our lyvesI see daily every thing wayith wourse and worse so that it is muche tobe afrayde that god will take away from us his vyneard, and bestoweit to other husband menne, which will till it better than it shall bringfurth frute in due season. Wee be comen to the point almost thatHieremy spake of whan he said, the people spake not that was right,no manne would repent hym somuche of his synne, that he wold onlysay, What hav I doon, Every manne ranne after his owne way as ahoste ronnith hedlong in batelle. They have committed abhominablemistchief, and yet are they nothing ashamed nor know the way to be[497] abasshed.110 Thies wourdes of Hieremy may well be spoken of usthis present tyme, but let us repent us in synne without further delay forwee have enough and overmuche alredy provoked goddes wrath andindignation against us.Wherefore let us pray and fall down and lament before the lord

our maker, for he is the Lord our god, and wee are the people ofhis pasture, and the sheepe of his fold. Today if wee feare his voyce,Let us not harden our harte as the people did in the desert.111 Beof contynuaunce in evill lyving, there is none other end to be lokedfor than eternall [498] damnation. But of repentaunce and perfectcoundision unto god the end is perpetuall salvation. And if wee doo notrepent in tyme, at the last wee shalbe compelled to heare this horriblevoyce of damnation. Goo ye wicked into everlastyng fyer whiche isprepared by the devill and those that be his.112 Then there shalbeno remedy, than no intercession shal serve, than it shalbe to late tocome to repentaunce, Let us rather repent and tourne in synne, andmake intercession unto the lord by his sonne Jesus Christ. Let us [499]lament for our synnes, and call for goddes mercy. That whan Christ

110 Jeremiah 6:10.111 A paraphrase of Psalm 95. According to the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer

(1549) this psalm of repentance was to be recited daily at the beginning of the Office ofMorning Prayer.

112 Matt. 25:41.

180 chapter three

shall comme at the last day wee may heare thies wourdes of hym:Comme to me you that be blessed of my father and take possessionof the kyngdome which my father hathe prepared for you.113

113 Matt. 25:34.

chapter four

‘A HOLY DEBORAH FOR OUR TIMES’:VERMIGLI’S PANEGYRIC TO ELIZABETH

In his Epistle to the Princess Elizabeth1 written at Zurich shortly after heraccession to the throne of England on 17 November 1558, Peter MartyrVermigli addresses a panegyric to the young Queen containing bothfulsome praise and some fairly pointed advice. In an invocation of theSong of Zechariah from the Gospel of Luke, Vermigli evokes a strikingcomparison of Elizabeth’s accession to the scriptural trope of redemp-tive kingship. By means of an appeal to a host of Old-Testament andearly-Church examples of kingship he goes on to advise Elizabeth onher duty of religious reform in England. Vermigli extends the metaphorof anointed kingship to the point of identifying England as an “electnation.” It is Elizabeth’s divinely appointed task to “redeem” Englandthrough the restoration and establishment of her “godly rule.” As in thecase of King David, successor of Saul and chief Old-Testament exem-plar of the anointed godly ruler, Vermigli counsels Elizabeth that therestoration of true religion in the realm of England will rest upon herroyal shoulders. In the formulation of his advice, Vermigli maintainsthat Elizabeth’s life will involve a “double service” to God as both ser-vant and ruler: arguing, in effect, that the Queen has “two bodies.”2

1 Peter Martyr Vermigli, “To the Most Renowned Princes[s] Elizabeth, by thegrace of God Queene of England, France and Ireland,” published in Martyr’s DivineEpistles, an appendix to the English edition of Common Places, transl. Anthony Marten(London: Henry Denham, 1583), part V, 58–61. For the original Latin version of theletter, see Martyris Epistolæ Theologicæ, appended to Loci communes, ed. Robert Masson(London: Thomas Vautrollerius, 1583), 1121–1124; first edition (London: John Kingston,1576). For an excellent modern English translation, see Peter Martyr Vermigli, Life,Letters, and Sermons, vol. 5 of the Peter Martyr Library, translated and edited by JohnPatrick Donnelly (Kirksville, MO: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1999), 170–177[cited hereafter as LLS]. Donnelly’s translation is employed in the notes below.

2 LLS 174: “It is necessary for a king to serve God twice, once as a human beingby believing and living with faith, once as a king by ruling over the people, sanctioningwith appropriate enforcement laws which command just and godly acts and whichlikewise prohibit the contrary.” On this notion of the “double existence” of the princesee Ernst H. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediæval Political Theology(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957).

vermigli’s panegyric to elizabeth 183

In his peroration he begs the Queen “never to agree with those whopretend that having a care for reforming religion does not pertain toprinces.”3 One possible constitutional paradigm for Vermigli’s recom-mendations concerning the authority of the civil magistrate to exercisethe so-called “cura religionis” is Heinrich Bullinger’s Zurich whence Ver-migli’s letter to Elizabeth is sent.4 The letter provides evidence of theimportance of the “Zurich connection” in shaping the institutions ofthe Elizabethan religion settlement.

Theodicy of the Marian Exile

Vermigli opens his letter with an Augustinian theodicy of the Mar-ian persecution of English evangelicals during the period 1553 to 1558:“The whole world is something of a school and training ground forour good God where he teaches and trains his people through theirperforming various labours, occasionally through afflictions, and some-times through experiencing different sorts of perils.”5 While the sunshines and the rain pours on both the elect and non-elect, God doesnot permit those whom he loves to “struggle with perpetual afflictions,”but rather his providence contrives their deliverance from these dan-gers “so that he may declare that it is he who leads them up to andbrings them back from the gates of death.”6 Moreover, Vermigli con-tinues, God ensures that the image of Christ shines in his “adoptedchildren.” According to Vermigli’s interpretation of the doctrine of pre-destination, election is understood to be “in Christum,” and thereforehis elect, consistent with the divine prototype, “are destined to be con-

3 LLS 175.4 See the first chapter above, “The Civil Magistrate and the ‘cura religionis’.”5 Compare, e.g., Aurelius Augustine, The City of God against the Pagans, ed. and transl.

by R.W. Dyson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), I.8, p. 12: “If everysin were visited now with evident punishment, nothing would be reserved for thelast judgment. On the other hand, if no sin were punished now by a clearly divineintervention, it would be believed that there is no divine providence. So too in the caseof prosperity: if God did not grant it to some who pray as the clearest possible proof ofHis bounty, we should say that such things are not His to give. On the other hand, ifHe were to grant it to all who pray, we should judge such things to be no more thanthe due reward of our service, and such service would make us not godly, but, rather,greedy and covetous.” See also XX.2, 967–968.

6 LLS 170.

184 chapter four

formed to his example, to die before rising.”7 The typological pattern ofChrist’s suffering followed by rising again is exemplified by some emi-nent examples from the biblical narrative of salvation history: the exo-dus of the Israelites from Egypt, their deliverance from the wildernessinto the land of Canaan, and their eventual return to Jerusalem outof the Babylonian captivity.8 In the person of Elizabeth herself, “mostmighty Queen,” God’s “ancient custom” is reconfirmed and made evenmore manifest. According to this conceit Elizabeth is to be likened toMoses, Aaron, Joshua, and even to Christ himself for, as we shall see,the whole realm is understood by Vermigli as in some mystical senseembodied by or rather hypostasized in the person of the godly Prince.Thus the nation’s election is to be interpreted as both a mystical “insitioin Christum” and an analogous political “insitio in regem,” for the Prince,like the ancient kings of Israel, is also an “anointed one.” Thus in thesalvation history of Vermigli’s panegyric, the typology of Christ worksin both historical directions, that is to say, both as prefigured in OldTestament kings and as recapitulated in Elizabeth herself. Throughher experience of the vicissitudes of the reign of her sister Mary, theprincess Elizabeth was “preserved by divine power and not by humanhelp … for the salvation of Christ’s Church and for the restoration ofthe English Commonwealth.”9

According to a hermeneutic such as this, Vermigli is able to pullout all the stops in the development of his encomium. He quotesPsalm 118, a verse reputedly uttered by Elizabeth herself when shereceived the news of Mary’s death and her own accession to the throne:“This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvellous in our eyes; the stone whichthe builders rejected has become the head of the corner.”10 Vermiglifollows the usual interpretation of this Messianic psalm by applying theverses to Christ and then adds “but since godly persons are countedamong his members I think these statements can be applied to themas well, for … other members of his body are honoured and enjoy the

7 LLS 170; citing Rom. 8:29.8 LLS 170.9 LLS 171.10 LLS 171; qu. Ps. 118:23, 22. See Matt 21:42 where Jesus cites this Messianic psalm

in the presence of the chief priest and Pharisees in the Temple. See also Paul’s appealto the Psalm in Ephesians 2:20. On the significance of Elizabeth’s accession as a “newday” in the life of the English church, see Gary Jenkins, “Peter Martyr and the Churchof England after 1558,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations: SemperReformanda, ed. Frank James III (Leiden and Boston: E.J. Brill, 2004), 47, 48.

vermigli’s panegyric to elizabeth 185

distinctions and dignity of their Head. This clearly should be taken asapplying especially to those members in the Lord’s body whom he hasat last wished to appear conspicuously among his people such as YourMajesty.”11 The mystical analogy of sacred kingship between Christ andthe anointed Queen is echoed by Shakespeare in the words of KingRichard II:

Not all the water in the rough rude seaCan wash the balm from an anointed king;The breath of worldly men cannot deposeThe deputy elected by the Lord.12

Mystical Headship

For Vermigli, just as the gift of the divine grace is communicatedthrough the mediation of Christ for the benefit of his invisible, mysticalbody, so also the gift of God in the elevation of Elizabeth to her thronefor the salvation of the visible, external Church “is so great that itcannot be shut up in you [i.e. Elizabeth] alone but flows out throughyou to a great number of the faithful.”13 By analogy with the operationof the mystical headship of Christ in the life of his mystical body theChurch, Elizabeth herself is interpreted by Vermigli as a mediator ofpolitical benefits to her own body politic, both civil and ecclesiastical:

And kings maie be called the heads of the Commonweale … For evenas from the head is derived all the sense and motion into the bodie, sothe senses by good lawes, and motions, by edictes and commandementsare derived from the prince unto the people. And this strength exceedethnot the naturall power … For vertue springeth of frequented Actions. Sowhen as princes by lawes and edictes drive their subiects unto actions,they also drive them unto vertues. But the spirit of God and regenerationare not attained by manie actions, but onelie by the blessings of God.14

11 LLS 171.12 William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of King Richard II, Act 3, scene 2, 54–57. See

Kantorowicz, King’s Two Bodies, 24–41. Kantorowicz points out that the depositionscene in Richard II “though performed scores of times after the first performance in1595, was not printed, or not allowed to be printed, until after the death of QueenElizabeth” owing to the fact that “the conflict between Elizbeth and Essex appearedto Shakespeare’s contemporaries in the light of the conflict between Richard andBolingbroke.” See esp. 40.

13 LLS 171.14 CP 4.3.1, 2, fols. 35, 36.

186 chapter four

Elizabeth is “God’s substitute … anointed in his sight.”15 The ben-efits of Elizabeth’s accession flow from her to her subjects. And con-sequently “for all those in that kingdom [i.e. England] who are eitherborn as citizens or wish it well [e.g. Vermigli himself and the Church ofZurich] and those who are seeking nothing except the glory of Christseem to themselves to be raised from the dead along with you.”16 Byher accession/resurrection Elizabeth has become by this interpretation“the first fruits of them that slept,” that is of those who had enduredpersecution, punishment, and exile under the rule of Elizabeth’s sisterMary.17

Just where one might have thought that the panegyric had reachedits zenith Vermigli extends the metaphor of the Prince as Christus andoutdoes himself with an invocation of the prophetical Song of Zechariahfrom the Gospel of Luke. Zechariah is described by Luke as being“filled with the Holy Spirit” when he uttered a song of thanksgivingon the occasion of the birth of his son John, later called “the Bap-tist,” whose own prophetical task was to “go before the face of theLord to prepare his ways,” viz. to announce the imminent coming ofChrist. This canticle, known to the church as the Benedictus, so-calledfrom the first word of the Vulgate translation, the song is traditionallyconstrued as being in ‘form’ an Old Testament prophecy and in ‘con-tent’ a Christian thanksgiving for the realization of the Messianic hopesof the Jewish nation, a celebration of the advent of the Redeemer, andthus the fulfilment of God’s covenant with Abraham.18 In this sense the

15 Richard II, Act I, scene 2, 37.16 LLS 171.17 ICor 15:20.18 Luke 1:68–79. For a contemporary account of the canticle, see Anthony Anderson,

An exposition of the hymne commonly called Benedictus: with an ample & comfortable application ofthe same, to our age and people (London: Henry Middleton, for Raufe Newbery, 1574).Since the time of St. Benedict the Benedictus had been sung in the Office of the westernChurch at Lauds and it was incorporated by Thomas Cranmer into the Order forMorning Prayer in the Book of Common Prayer (1549 and 1552); see Oxford Dictionaryof the Christian Church, third edn., ed. E.A. Livingston (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1997) 187. Verse numbers are inserted in Vermigli’s text for the purpose ofcomparison:

68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his people;69 And hath raised up a mighty salvation for us in the house of his servant David,70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world

began:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;72 To perform the mercy promised to our forefathers, and to remember his holy

covenant;

vermigli’s panegyric to elizabeth 187

prophecy constitutes a bridge of sorts between the Old and New Tes-taments. Within the analogy of the panegyric Vermigli casts himself inthe prophetical role at the critical juncture between the old dispensa-tion of Queen Mary and the new order under Elizabeth.

Therefore the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ should be praisedfor having visited his people who were almost dead and for havingopened to the preaching of the Gospel of god’s Son a path which hadtoo long been blocked [v.68]. See, the horn of salvation is again raised inthe kingdom of England [v.69] so that the elect of God by the invinciblepower of our Saviour Jesus Christ might be delivered from the hand oftheir enemies [v.70] and so that they might worship the holy God ina holy way according to what is prescribed in the divine letters [v.73].Now may there be glory in the highest, peace in the Church, and God’sgood will toward the English people so that by the guidance and goodgovernment of this godly queen her subjects, adorned with justice andholiness, may always live innocently before him [v.74]. May he give themso much divine light that those who almost again fell into the darknessand shadow of death during the preceding night may walk his pathswithout any offense now that the day of peace has arisen [v.79].19

The accession of Elizabeth “whose people were almost dead” under therule of her sister Mary is thus likened to the advent of the Redeemer.England under the “shadow” of the papacy is in need of a restora-tion of the “evangelical Religion.” And consequently, with Elizabeth’saccession the “horn of salvation is again raised in the kingdom ofEngland.”20 In this passage Vermigli draws a correspondence betweenthe realm of England and the house of David. Christ is the scion ofDavid’s line while Elizabeth inherits the throne of her Tudor forbears.

73 To perform the oath which he sware to our forefather Abraham, that he wouldgive us,

74 That we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him withoutfear,

75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest,for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people for the remission of their sins,78 Through the tender mercy of our God, whereby the dayspring from on high hath

visited us;79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,and to guide our feet into the way of peace.19 LLS 171, 172.20 The horn (‘qaran’ in Hebrew) is a sign of strength and dominion; see ISam

2.1 and Psalm 18.2. Horn is translated as “mighty” in this passage in the AuthorisedVersion.

188 chapter four

As through the mediation of Christ the hope of humanity is restoredinwardly and mystically, so also through mediation of Elizabeth thehope of England is restored politically and historically. That this horn israised “again” recalls the reign of Elizabeth’s “dear brother,” and Ver-migli’s erstwhile patron, King Edward VI.21 The consequence of this“mighty salvation” of Elizabeth’s accession is the prospect of the wor-ship of God according to the authority of sacred scripture. The flowof Vermigli’s adaptation of the Benedictus is then briefly punctuated byan invocation of the hymn of the angels, Gloria in excelsis, nearly verg-ing upon the ecstatic: “Now may there be glory in the highest, peacein the Church, and God’s good will toward the English people.” Byher “guidance and good government” her subjects, “adorned with jus-tice and righteousness,” are to be brought to live “innocently” beforeGod. In a final eschatological flourish, Vermigli then prays for divineillumination “now that the day of peace has arisen.” It lies in Eliza-beth’s hand, “after God,” to ensure that this gift of illumination will bebrought to fulfillment.

Some Pointed Practical Advice

Following this extraordinary rhetorical flight, the tone of the Epistlenow takes a more didactic, practical turn. In a manner comparable toEusebius in his Oration to the Emperor Constantine, Vermigli takes pains toremind Elizabeth that she holds her station solely by divine gift.22 Just asto Eusebius the emperor is in some respect a power comparable to thedivine Logos, yet not the divine Logos itself, so to Vermigli Elizabethis a servant of Christ though in her anointed office she functions asthe head of her body politic. “It is necessary for a king to serve Godtwice,” Vermigli states, “once as a human being by believing and livingwith faith, once as a king by ruling over people.” In the former role

21 LLS 175.22 See Eusebius, Oration in Praise of the Emperor Constantine, V.1, in Nicene and Post-

Nicene Fathers, Series 2, vol. 1, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, repr. (Peabody, Mass.:Hendrickson, 1999), 585: “In this hope our divinely-favored emperor partakes even inthis present life, gifted as he is by God with native virtues, and having received intohis soul the out-flowings of his favor. His reason he derives from the great Source ofall reason: he is wise, and good, and just, as having fellowship with perfect Wisdom,Goodness, and Righteousness: virtuous, as following the pattern of perfect virtue:valiant, as partaking of heavenly strength.”

vermigli’s panegyric to elizabeth 189

she is herself a subject and servant; in the latter she is God’s own vice-gerent, one anointed to rule in God’s place. By way of instruction andillustration of her role, Vermigli counsels Elizabeth to model her ruleon the “unique and noble example of David … illustrious for his royalpower and famous for outstanding holiness.”23 David’s first and mostimportant task on becoming king was to return the Ark of the Covenantto its former honours, and thus to restore true religion to Israel.24 Thepriests failed to perform the task properly until driven to do so byDavid. Continuing the analogy, Vermigli observes that “this same work,most illustrious Queen Elizabeth, God has handed over to your trustalong with the kingdom. For it is your duty to restore to its own placethe holy Gospel of Christ, which has lain neglected … by the injury ofthe times and importunity of our adversaries during the past years.”25

Vermigli signals his strong approval of the institution of the RoyalSupremacy.26 The priests are to take their direction from the godlyprince. By pointing out that the priests in David’s time failed to fulfiltheir duty, Vermigli plainly indicates his view that the existing Marianbench of bishops, not yet reconstituted by Elizabeth, “may go astray inthe work of restoring the Church.” Just as the priests once neglected tocarry the ark upon their shoulders “as the divine law prescribed” andpermitted it to be borne upon a cart, Vermigli advises the Queen to“be on guard lest such things happen so that, while church leaders fallinto error or seek to avoid work and a just discipline, they try to carrythe ark of the Gospel not by the word of God or the example of a purelife but by the carts of useless ceremonies …”27 He exhorts her to followDavid’s example who “corrected the error of the priests, distributed theLevites into certain ranks … these are the things that all godly men areexpecting of you, most holy Queen.” By her exercise of the sovereignpower of ecclesiastical jurisdiction as Supreme Governor of the Churchof England, Elizabeth was to realize Vermigli’s hopes for the Settle-ment in the distribution of ecclesiastical offices.28 In a scholium titled

23 LLS 172.24 LLS 173; 2Sam 6:3.25 LLS 173.26 W.J. Torrance Kirby, “‘The Charge of Religion belongeth unto Princes:’ Peter

Martyr Vermigli on the Unity of Civil and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction,” Archiv für Refor-mationsgeschichte 94 (2003): 131–145. See chap. 2 above.

27 LLS 173.28 After an only partially successful attempt under Queen Mary to dismantle the

royal headship, a new Act of Supremacy was passed in 1559 with a change of the title“Supreme Head” to “Supreme Governor,” I Eliz. I. c. 1, “An acte restoring to the

190 chapter four

“Whether there may be two heads of the Church, one visible, the otherinvisible,” Vermigli argues that while the exercise of spiritual headshipbelongs properly to Christ alone, terrestrial headship of the Church isthe office of the Prince: “… this perhaps is it, why the king of Eng-land would be called head of his own Church next unto Christ. For hethought that that power which the Pope usurped to himselfe was his,and in his owne kingdome pertained to himselfe. The title indeed wasunwonted and displeased manie godlie men: howbeit if we consider thething it selfe, he meant nothing else but that which we have now said.”29

Following the deprivation of the Marian bishops in 1559, new ap-pointments to the bench of bishops were made by the Queen’s author-ity.30 Several of Elizabeth’s new prelates had been close associates ofVermigli during his tenure of the Regius chair of divinity at Oxford inthe reign of Edward VI and had subsequently fled along with him tothe continent after the accession of Queen Mary. Vermigli had beentreated rather better than most in that he had been allowed safe con-duct.31 A number of them visited Zurich and enjoyed the hospitality ofHeinrich Bullinger during their period of exile.32

Testimony to the role of Princes in establishing religion and wor-ship is to be found according to Vermigli in the examples of Hezekiah,Josiah, Jehoash, and the king of the people of Nineveh who is men-tioned in the Book of Jonah; Darius and Nebuchadnezzar are cited aswell. Constantine, Theodosius, and Charlemagne as well as Elizabeth’sbrother Edward are identified as further exemplars of this royal office.By embracing the cura religionis Elizabeth will “restore Christ’s Churchwhich has almost completely collapsed; [she] will win the satisfactionof those in [her] nation who are godly; and [she] will clearly show to

crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual and abolishingall foreign power repugnant to the same.” See Claire Cross, The Royal Supremacy in theElizabethan Church (London: Allen and Unwin, 1969), 128–129.

29 CP 4.3.6, fol. 38. See Marvin Anderson, “Royal Idolatry: Peter Martyr and theReformed Tradition,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, Jahrgang 69 (1978), 163.

30 Of the twenty-three Elizabethan bishops, fourteen were returned exiles, threehad been appointed in the reign of Edward of whom just one, Thomas Kitchin ofLlandaff, had conformed under Queen Mary. See Scott Wenig, Straightening the Altars:The Ecclesiastical Vision and Pastoral Achievements of the Progressive Bishops under Elizabeth I,1559–1579 (New York: Peter Lang, 2000), 23.

31 For Vermigli’s description of his flight from England after the death of Edward VI,see his letter to Heinrich Bullinger dated 3 November 1553 at Strasbourg, LLS 126;Epistolæ Tigurinæ 332.

32 These include John Jewel, Richard Cox, Robert Horne, John Parkhurst, EdmundGrindal, Edwin Sandys, and James Pilkington.

vermigli’s panegyric to elizabeth 191

foreign princes by [her] illustrious example a sound and godly patternfor ruling.”33 Scripture demonstrates and both tradition and philosophyconfirm that it is the task of the godly magistrate to defend both tablesof the law. For

if the bishops and ministers of the churches have not performed theirduty, if in handing down dogmas and administering the sacraments theyforsake the just regulation of the divine letters, who will recall them tothe right path unless it be the godly prince? Your Majesty should notexpect in the current situation that they will be impelled to these thingsby themselves; unless royal spurs move them they will not rebuild theruins of God’s temple.34

Vermigli then invites Elizabeth to “play the role of holy Deborah forour times” and bring her own elect nation, having been oppressed bythe rule of her sister, “into the sincere and pure liberty of the Gospel.”The examples of Jael and Esther both offer encouragement to theyoung Queen. By way of continuing the balance between scripturaland non-scriptural authorities, Vermigli adds to these the examples ofArtemesia who fought at the Battle of Salamis “with a manly heart”and Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, who ruled over the eastern RomanEmpire and defeated the army of the Emperor Gallienus in the latterhalf of the third century.35 Vermigli’s recollection of Xerxes’s remarkthat “the men in that battle were women, and the women showedthemselves the bravest men” presages Elizabeth’s famous speech to hertroops at Tilbury on the eve of the fight against the Spanish Armadain 1588.36 He concludes by urging the Queen to gird herself “for theholy work” before her.37 Vermigli ends the epistle by returning to his

33 LLS 175.34 LLS 175.35 LLS 176. On Artemesia’s distinguished role at Salamis see Herodotus, The History,

8.87–88.36 See The Norton Anthology of English Literature, ed. M.H. Abrams, 6th edn., vol. 1

(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1993), 999: “Let tyrants fear, I have always sobehaved myself, that under God I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard inthe loyal hearts and goodwill of my subjects; and, therefore, I am come amongst youas you see at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in themidst and heat of battle, to live or die amongst you all—to lay down for my God, andfor my kingdoms, and for my people, my honour and my blood even in the dust. Iknow I have the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of aking—and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or anyprince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which, rather thanany dishonour should grow by me, I myself will take up arms—I myself will be yourgeneral, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.”

37 LLS 176.

192 chapter four

opening theme of salvation history: “the heavenly Father has the heartsof kings in his own hands, and kings reign through him. By his owndecision he transfers empires to whomever he wishes.”38 He prays that“the English church and nation” will be guided by God’s Spirit andthat the Queen herself will be kept “safe for a very long time by hissaving grace.” Elizabeth was to continue on the throne for forty-fivemore years until her death in 1603.

38 LLS 177.

text

PETER MARTYR VERMIGLI

An Epistle to the Most Renowmed Princes[s] Elizabeth by the grace ofGod Queene of England, France and Ireland, Grace and everlastinghappinesse from God the Father through Jesus Christ our Saviour.1

That the whole worlde (most renowmed Queene) is a schoole or acertain place of warfare of the Almercifull and Almightie God, wherehe through sundrie laboursome exercises, sometimes by afflictions andsometimes by diverse perils teacheth and instructeth them that be his: Isuppose that of Godly men it is iudged most certaine and undoubted.Yet for all this, the heavenly father doth not so deale, as he hathdetermined that those whom he leaveth shal perpetually be troubledwith afflictions, and bee pressed with everlasting griefes, but sometimeshelpeth to overcome evils, and at such oportunitie as he hath deter-mined with himselfe, suffereth them to escape out of the floods andwhirlepittes of daungers, to the intent he may declare that it is he thatleadeth them to the gates of death and bringeth them back againe,2

while hee taketh care that in his adopted children may shine the imagewhom he naturally begate unto himselfe before all eternitie.3 For thesame our first begotten brother Jesus Christ dyed first before hee shouldbe raised up by his owne and his fathers power. Therefore it behooveththat we also which are appointed to be made like his image, shouldefirst die before we rise againe. After this sort the Israelites were in a man-ner deade while they were pressed under the most grievous tyrannie ofPharao in Egypt: but they being delivered by Moses and Aaron, wereafter a sort plucked away from death. Moreover they seemed again tohave perished in the manifold daungers and sundrie mischances of the

1 Published in Martyr’s Divine Epistles, an appendix to the English edition of CommonPlaces, transl. Anthony Marten (London: Henry Denham, 1583), part V, fols. 58–61. Forthe original Latin version of the letter, see Martyris Epistolæ Theologicæ, appended to Locicommunes, ed. Robert Masson (London: Thomas Vautrollerius, 1583), fols. 1121–1124;first edition (London: John Kingston, 1576).

2 1Samuel 2:6.3 Romans 8:28.

194 chapter four

wast wildernesse, who afterward revived by entering into the lande ofChanaan. To conclude, they being ledde into captivitie, were thoughtutterly consumed: who neverthelesse returning after 70 yeares, flour-ished againe, and were then restored unto life. The verie which thing,O most mightie Queene Elyzabeth, seeing God hath done unto you,he hath not departed from that his olde manner of custome, but hathrather confirmed the same, and made it more manifest. For while hisworkes are executed in the meaner and baser sort of men, they indeedappeare the lesse. But on the other side, when they be shewed in menand woemen of noblest and highest estate, then are they made in amanner famous in the eye of al men.Wherfore since you (most noble Queene Elizabeth) are advanced to

the kindome not in verie deede by a gentle, easie and pleasant way butfor certain yeares now passed, you have appeared to be scarse a footefrom death: (For so great and deepe have bin the daungers as the shipof your life was now welneere soonke) you are preserved by the powerof God, not by the helpe of man, and are promoted as we now see tothe possession of that famous kingdome. Wherefore by the mercie andgoodnesse of the sonne of God, in whom you did put your trust, youare revived by the good helpe of God to inioy the kingdome of yourfather and grandfather, and that to the safetie of the Church of Christ,and to the restitution of the common weale of England falling in decay.Therefore fitlie doth that saying sounde in the mouthes of all Godliemen at this time which is most ioyfully pronounced in the Psalme: Thisis the Lords doing and it is marueilous in our eyes. The stone which the buildersrefused is become the head stone of the corner.4 I confesse indeede that thesewordes appertaine unto Christ. But seeing Godly men are accountedfor his members, I iudge they may be applied unto them also. For thatthe other members of the bodie are both garnished and have profite bythe ornaments and honour of the head, Paul the Apostle of Christ dothaboundantly testifie,5 which in verie deede must be specially understoodof those members which are so eminent in the Lords bodie as it pleasedGod that your maiestie should at length excellently appeare among hispeople. Now this is so great a benefite of God, as it cannot be shutup in you onely, but through your own selfe is derived unto a greatnumber of the faithfull. For so manie as either are borne subiects inthe kingdome, or wish well thereunto and which seeke nothing else but

4 Psalm 118:28.5 Ephes. 5:27.

text: vermigli, epistle to princess elizabeth 195

the glorie of Christ, all these seeme to themselves to be raised togetherwith you from death.6 Amongst whom because I neither am nor wilbethe last, even as I perceiued my selfe by these welcome newes to bemade exceeding and marveilous ioyfull, so I thought it meete, that firstof all we should give thanks unto our most mighty and mercifull God,secondly that we shoulde reioyce on the behalfe of your maiestie, andalso of the Church and Realme of England. Wherfore let us praise Godand the father of our Lorde Jesu Christ which hath visited his peoplebeing almost deade, and hath opened the way which a long time wasshut up from preaching of the Gospel of the sonne of God.7 Beholdenowe againe is the horne of salvation lifted up in the kingdome ofEnglande, whereby the chosen of God by the inuincible power of ourSaviour Jesus Christ, are delivered out of the hand of their enemies,and doe most syncerelie worship the blessed G O D, according to theprescript rule of the holie Scriptures. Glorie be nowe to G O D onhigh,8 Peace in the Church, and the good will of God towards the

6 This resurrection analogy is central to Vermigli’s conception of a messianic king-ship. Vermigli proposes that the accession of Elizabeth is nothing less than a resurrec-tion of the entire “corpus politicum.” As the “body” of the faithful are raised up by virtueof their participation in Christ their common mystical “head”, so also by analogy the“politique bodie” that is the realm of England is raised through participation in Eliza-beth who is their royal or political head. The logic of the invisible, mystical, and inwardcommunity heavenly kingdom is transferred and applied to the visible, political, andexternal body of the earthly realm. The Queen is in this analogy the political “type” ofChrist.

7 Here Vermigli launches into his panegyric based upon the hymn in Luke 1:67–79.8 This passage invokes the ancient liturgical hymn Gloria in excelsis deo. The hymn

was sung from the early centuries of the church in the liturgy of the Eucharist, and wasretained by Thomas Cranmer in the vernacular liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer,both in the first version of 1549 and in the major revision of 1552 in which Vermiglihimself assisted. In the former liturgy, the Gloria in excelsis held its traditional place atthe beginning of the mass, immediately following the the Kyrie eleison. In the revisionof 1552, the Gloria was transferred to the post-communion thanksgiving. The openingline is derived from Luke’s account of the song of the angels at Christ’s Nativity. Im-portant theological significance is attached to the re-positioning of this hymn in therevised liturgies of 1552 and 1559. It is arguable that this liturgical alteration reflectsVermigli’s own substantive contribution to the revised theology of a Sacramentarian“real presence” based upon his celebrated disputation on the Eucharist held at Oxfordin 1549. According to Vermigli’s theology of “instrumental realism” participants inthe eucharist would be enabled to “sing the song of the angels” only after they had“participated” the body and blood of Christ, hence the liturgical repositioning of theGloria. For a discussion of Vermigli’s influence on Cranmer’s revision of the Prayer-Book liturgy, see McLelland’s “The Second Book of Common Prayer,” in The VisibleWords of God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of Peter Martyr Vermigli (Edinburgh,Oliver and Boyd, 1957), 28–40.

196 chapter four

people of England, that by the guide and good gouernement of thisgodlie Queene, her subiects being adorned with righteousnesse andholinesse,9 may walke always and innocentlie before him, and that heewill so lighten them from above, as they which through the night thatwent before were againe fallen into darkenesse, and into the shadowewelneere of death, now the daies of peace being sprung up, may walketheir waies safelie without any offence. And that this may be done mostmightie Queene, it is in your hand next unto God.10 Neither doe Idoubt but for your auncient faith sake, your godlinesse and fauour ofGod, which hath protected, defended and gouerned you from yourchildehood unto this daie, you wil give the due honour unto God and tohis worde. God keepe from your sincere and religious heart the blemishof an ungratefull minde, which though in every sort of man it be mostfowle, in you which by the benefite of Christ are in this place, it wouldbe altogether intolerable.11 Howbeit I am wholly perswaded that yourMaiestie is both of a readie minde and will to restore the EuangelicallReligion. And albeit that you are sufficientlie prepared and learned ofyour selfe this to doe, and that you have no want of the holie counselsand godlie exhortations of others, which daily sound in your eares, Yethave I also thought good for the verie great bounden duety that I oweunto your Maiestie, with no lesse brevitie than modestie to put youin minde of some things which principallie belong hereunto. Whichthinges I humblie beseeche you, may bee no otherwise taken of youthan I have written them. For that which I speake with a sincere faith,I would also to be taken in good part. I knowe how tender be the earesof the Princes of this world: Howbeit as touching yours I have a veriegreat hope, since you are of Christ, not of this world.

The Example of Dauid in restoring the Religion of God

Wherefore setting aside the reasons of the Ethnickes,12 I will leade youa while to the singular and notable example of David. For he, while he

9 Here Elizabeth is likened to Christ as an agent in the sanctification of her subjects.10 In this passage the messianic hope placed upon Elizabeth’s accession reaches full

pitch.11 Vermigli brings the rhetoric back down to earth, as it were. Elizabeth, though a

“Christus” figure, is also mortal and fallen. Thus there is a theological transition fromthe panegyric to the didactic mood of what follows in the Epistle.

12 Vermigli’s common name for the pagan poets, philosophers, and historians.

text: vermigli, epistle to princess elizabeth 197

liued, was both famous in princelie power, and greatlie renowmed inexcellent holinesse. Wherefore if I be desirous to have you become sucha one as he was, I desire nothing contrary either to your dignitie orgodliness. He when hee should be appointed to the gouernement ofthe kingdome in Israel, before he could attaine to the same, sufferedeuen as you have dooen most greeuous troubles, but when he wascome thereunto, he thought nothing ought to be done before he hadrestored Religion now ruined: whereof the principal point and summein that age herein consisted, that the arke of the couenaunt being theprincipall token of God, might bee reduced unto the former estimation,which by the negligence of king Saul laie without regard had thereuntoin the priuate house of one Aminadab in Gibea. This the godlie kingcould not suffer, wherefor he determined to conueigh the same untothe kinges Court.13 Howbeit in that wherein hee indeuoured to dealegodlie, the Priestes did not rightlie exercise their office. Wherefore thegodlie king in a maner despaired of that he looked for. Howbeit hewithin a while after gathering his wittes together, both draue them todoe their office rightlie, and he himselfe also with incredible ioie, andwith singular gladnesse of the people, most happily brought home thearke of the mightie God into Sion. Even this same worke (most nobleQueene Elizabeth) is together with your kingdome, committed to yourtrust. For it behooueth that you restore againe into his place the holieGospell of Christ, which through iniurie of the times and importunitieof the adversaries, hath lien some yeeres past neglected, I will not saytrodden under foote. This if you shal performe, all things shall happenprosperouslie unto you, no lesse than they did unto most godlie kingDauid. For if it be saide unto euerie Christian man, that he shouldefirst seeke the kingdome of God, then other thinges should easily besupplied, shal we not thinke that the same is commaunded unto kings?Certes, if it be commanded all men to worship God most sincerely,kings are not exempted from the precept: nay rather the greater estatethey beare amongst men, the more are they bounde to that law of God.Howbeit there is no need to admonish your maiestie in many words,whom the heauenly father hath inspired with a principall spirite as hedid Dauid.

13 2Sam 6:3.

198 chapter four

A danger in the Church as concerning Pastors

But this daunger is like to happen, namely least those which at thisday be called Priests, should erre in the worke of restoring the Church:euen as it came then to passe not without great trouble when the Lordsmote Oza.14 For the Arke of the Lord shoulde not have beene carriedin a carte, but borne upon the shoulders of the Priestes, euen as thelaw of God had prescribed. Wherefore we must now take speciall careand heede lest such thinges doe happen that while the gouernours ofthe Church either be deceiued by error, or indeuor to shun labours andiust discipline, they goe about to beare the Arke of the Gospel, not bythe word of God, and example of a more pure life: but upon the Cartsof unprofitable ceremonies, and foule labours of hyred servants.15 Thisif you shall consider (most noble Queene) that it came so to passe, youshall not as Dauid was, be mooued more than is requisite, neither willyee intermit the worke begun as he for a time did, but will doe thesame out of hande, as we reade that he a while after did: He correctedthe error of the Priestes, he disposed the Levites into certaine orders,and commaunded all things to be done by the strickt rule of the lawe.16

These be the things which all Godly men (most blessed Queene) doexpect of you. Hitherunto the kings of the earth (which is very greatlyto be lamented) agree together and withstande God and his anointed.17

From whose socitie euen as your maiestie is a straunger, so must youheare what is saide unto you and to the rest of kings: Vnderstande nowe Oyee kings, be learned O yee that iudge the earth, serue the Lord in feare.18 But youwill say: shewe mee what religious worship that shalbe which is requiredtowards God? Uerilie no other but with Godly seueritie to prohibitand correct especially in worshipping of him those things which becommitted against the law of God. For it is necessarie that a king serueGod two manner of wayes, first in respect that he is a man, by faithfullbeleeuing and liuing: then in that he is a king which gouerneth thepeople, by establishing in force conuenient, such lawes as commaundeiust and Godly thinges, and forbid the contrarie.19

14 2Sam. 6, 7.15 On Vermigli’s contribution to controversy over the prescribed ceremonies of

divine worship, see the following chapter ‘Relics of the Amorites’.16 1Chron. 23–26.17 Psalm 2:2.18 Psalm 2:10.19 The king’s two-fold service of God, namely as a man and as the wearer of the

text: vermigli, epistle to princess elizabeth 199

The Example of Godly Kings

This did Ezechias when he destroyed the groues, ydoll temples, andthose high places which were erected against the commaundement ofGod, although that sometimes they did not sacrifice amisse in them.20

The selfe same thing did godly Iosias bring to passe with great diligence,zeale and incredible godlinesse.21 This did the king of the Niniuitesnot foreslowe to doe, which compelled the whole citie to pacifie thewrath og God.22 This did Darius performe unto the true God as itis written in Daniel.23 This also did Nabucadnezer fulfill when by amost seuere lawe he bridled the tongues of them that dwelt in hiskingdome from blaspheming the liuing God.24 I might easily sheweof verie manie kings and mightie Emperours after Christ that didthe same: I meane Constantine, Theodosius, Charles the Great and manyothers. But because I wil not goe either from the memorie of our timesor from your own most honourable progenie, this did your most noblebrother Edwarde king of England endeuour to his power and morethan his age would give leaue, whose reigne our sinnes and intolerableingratitude suffered not any longer to be continued: Onely God wouldeshewe unto the worlde the singular virtues and passing Godlinesse ofthat ympe, secondlie that hee might somewhat chasten us according asour ill desertes required, hee the sooner called him out of the earthunto him.Howbeit the case goeth wel, because he after a certaine fatherly

correction used, hath taken pitie upon us, seeing he hath at this timeplaced you his dearest sister in his roume, who maie perfourme manymoe things than he could, and shall the more fully answere the opinionconceiued of you, in that you are the elder, and therefore shall gouerne

divine mask of rulership, reveals a duality of nature which has significant theologicalimplications. The king has “two bodies”—a natural and therefore mortal body as aman, and an immortal “politique” body as sovereign. This is another way in whichVermigli conveys a messianic analogy. The king as the anointed of God, as “christus”,unites two distinct natures in the simple identity of his person. This might reasonablybe described as a kind of “political Chalcedonianism.” See Ernst Kantorowicz, TheKing’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1957).

20 2Kings 18:4.21 2Kings 13:4.22 Jonah 3:7.23 Daniel 6:26.24 Daniel 3:95.

200 chapter four

the kingdome not by the will of others, but by your owne iudgement.Wherefore you haue (most gracious Queene) most liulie examples ofthe auntient and also of the latter kings, and finallie of your most deerebrother,25 in whose steps if you be willing religiously to walke, (andwilling thereunto you ought to be) you shall obtaine many and singulargreat commodities. First you shall doe an acceptable thing unto God,by ioining your selfe unto his word: you shall restore the Church ofChrist which is almost utterly decaied: you shal satisfy the godlier sorteof your owne nation: By your noble example you shal shew to foreineprinces a sounde and sincere patterne of gouernment.

That the state of Religion belongeth unto kings

And I beseech you neuer hearken unto them, which faigne that theregard of the reformation of religion belongeth not unto Princes. Forthe good kings whome I before remembred did not so iudge. The holyScriptures doe not so instruct us, neither did the verie Ethnickes andPhilosophers themselues so iudge. Is it the office of a godlie Magistrateto defende onely one, and that the latter table of the lawe diuine? Shallthe Prince take upon him the care of all other businesse, that they beedoone rightlie and without fraude, and shall cast awaie the respect ofReligion onelie? God forbid. If Bishops and Ministers of churches shallnot doe their duetie, if in handling of doctrine and administering ofthe sacraments they forsake the iust rules of the holy Scriptures: whobut a godlie Prince shall reuoke them into the right way? Let not yourMaiestie expect, (as things nowe be) that those men are stirred up tothese things of themselues: unlesse they be moved thereunto by princelyauthoritie, they will not repaire the ruine of the Temple of God. Ioas aking of the Iewes, when he perceiued that the Preestes perfourmed notthis, took unto him the charge to amend the decayed buildings of theTemple.26

25 King Edward VI ruled 1547–1553.26 2Kings 52:1.

text: vermigli, epistle to princess elizabeth 201

The manlie courage of godlie women

Go forward therefore O holie Debora of our times. Ioine unto you somegodlie Barac.27 The Israelites which are diuers waies oppressed, deliveryou to the sincere and pure libertie of the Gospell. Bee not afraide,for God is not woont to leaue these enterprises destitute of his fauour.Him you shall haue with you: that you, like valiaunt Iahel may strikethe head of Iabin with the hammer of your power, and fasten it to theground whence it came, whereby he may cease to be troublesome untoyour good nation.28 We haue verie great hope, that you shall bee thesame Hester which shall driue Haman unto hanging, which thirsteth forthe slaughter and blood of the people of God.29 Let these holie womenbe an incouragement unto you Maiestie: and suffer not your selfe tofaint for this cause that you are not borne a man but a woman. Forwhere doth the power of God rather discouer it selfe than it dooth inweakenes?30 Neither he used the strong things of the world to spreadthe kingdom of Christ: but by weake and base men he subdued to theGospell the wisedome of man, and the loftie reasons of the flesh. Andin that warre which Xerxes waged against the Gretians (if we shal regardthe Ethnicke affaires) the men of Persia were slaine, and gaue themselues to shameful flight, when in the meane time Artemisia the mostrenowmed Queene, with a manly minde fought most stoute battailes.Which thing being understood, Xerxes saide that the men in that battailewere women, and that the women had shewed themselues to be mostvaliant men.31 Also Zenobia defended the Empire of Rome much morevaliantly than did Galienus.32 Albeit thankes be to God, there is nothingsauing woman kinde that can iustly bee noted in your Maiestie eitherwoman like or weake. But least I should be thought to speake to pleaseyour eares, I am minded to passe ouer the incomparable learning, theknowledge of tongues, the clemencie, virginitie, wisedome, and aboueall other the godlinesse and other virtues wherewith you being adornedby the benefite of God are not onelie called but are in verie deede most

27 Judges 4:6.28 Judge 4:21.29 Esther 7.30 1Corinthians 1:28.31 Herodotus, The History, VIII. 68.32 In AD 270–272, Zenobia “Augusta”, Queen of Palmyra, took control of Roman

Egypt, Arabia, and parts of Asia Minor. See Zosimus, Historiae novae libri VI (Basel:Petrus Perna, 1576) I. 14–40.

202 chapter four

famous. Wherefore girde your selfe with a good courage unto that holyworke which all good people doe expect of you, feare nothing at allthe deceits of the divell, the impediments of wicked persons, nor yetthe weakenesse of woman kind. God shall put awaie all these thingeswith one breath of his mouth. In the meane time verilie it shall be mypart and such as I am to desire of God in our daily deuoute praiersthat he will first graunt unto your Maiestie that you may thoroughlyperceiue all that good is by your own wit and understanding, secondlythat wholesome and profitable counsels may by others be suggestedunto you; further that you may receiue those things that shall be rightlyshewed you: and finally that in whatsoeuer you shal undertake, Godwill graunt you fortunate and happie successe. These praiers doe Idailie make unto God for you most gratious Ladie, and doe promisethat while I liue I will neuer cease from these prayers. But the heauenlyFather which hath the heartes of kings in his owne hand,33 by whomkings doe raigne,34 and who at his owne pleasure transferreth Empiresto whom he will,35 euen he by his spirit direct your Maiestie, togetherwith the Church and nation of England and by his comfortable gracelong continue the same in safetie. At Tigure 22 of December, 1558.

Your Maiesties most humble Oratour,Peter Martyr.

33 Proverbs 21:1.34 Proverbs 8:15.35 Daniel 2:21.

chapter five

‘RELICS OF THE AMORITES’: THE CIVILMAGISTRATE AND RELIGIOUS UNIFORMITY

Item her maiestie beyng desyrous to haue the prelacye and cleargye ofthis Realme to bee hadde as well in outwarde reuerence, as otherwyseregarded for the worthynesse of theyr ministeries, and thynkynge it nec-essarye to haue them knowen to the people, in al places and assembles,bothe in the Churche and without, and thereby to receaue the hon-our and estymation due to the specyall messengers and mynysters ofalmyghtie Godde: wylleth and commaundeth that all Archebyshoppesand byshoppes, and all other that bee called or admitted to preachyngeor ministerye of the Sacramentes, or that be admitted into anye voca-tion Ecclesiastycall, or into any societie of learning in eyther of the uni-uersities, or els where, shall use and weare suche semely habytes, gar-mentes, and such square cappes, as were moost comenly and orderlyreceyued in the latter yeare of the raygne of kynge Edwarde the vi. Notthereby meanyng to attrybute any holynesse or special worthynesse tothe sayde garmentes, But as as Saint Paule wryteth: Omnia decenter et secun-dem ordeinem fient. I.Cor. 14. Cap. [Let all things be done decently and ingood order.]1

In the years immediately following the enactment of the ElizabethanSettlement of 1559, the threat of schism loomed over the Church ofEngland with respect to provisions governing uniformity of churchornaments and ecclesiastical dress—the so-called ‘Vestiarian Contro-versy’. A number of leading lights of the new Protestant establish-ment—especially among those who had been in exile on the continentduring the reign of Elizabeth’s sister Mary, and who had seen first-handthe visible state of religious reform in Strasbourg, Basle, Zurich, Frank-fort, and Geneva—were in doubt about the deliberate policy enunci-ated in the Act of Uniformity of 15592 which provided for uniformity of

1 Iniunctions geven by the Quenes Maiestie (London: Richard Jugge and John Cawood,Printers to the Quenes Maiestie, 1559), item 30, Cii recto.

2 An Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and Service in the Church and Administrationof the Sacraments (1 Elizabeth, c. 2) was passed. The first effect of this statute was torepeal the Act of Mary as and from 24 June 1559, and to restore the Book of CommonPrayer from that date. The Second Prayer-book (1552) of Edward VI with certain

204 chapter five

clerical dress and the retention of the oranments of the Church whichhad been in use “in this Church of England, by authority of Parlia-ment, in the second year of King Edward VI,” that is, by implication,consistent with the First Edwardine Act of Uniformity of 1549.3 Werethese more traditional vestments and ornaments of worship the equiv-alent of ‘relics of the Amorites’ whose use was not only evidence of anincomplete reformation of ecclesiastical order, but could be regarded asthe very presence of the Antichrist?4 Or, alternatively, were the tradi-tional vestments and ornaments to be viewed rather as ‘adiaphora,’ thatis ‘things indifferent,’ and therefore to be tolerated? Numerous appealsby both parties to the dispute were made to Peter Martyr Vermigli,now settled in Zurich, for his judgement of the matter. Although Ver-migli’s authority was cited by both sides, he emerges a staunch defenderof the Settlement. Consistent with his intervention of 1550 in John

additions and alterations was thenceforth to be used. Severe penalties culminating inthe forfeiture of all goods and chattels and imprisonment for life were decreed againstall persons who spoke against the Book of Common Prayer. Attendance at church serviceon Sunday at the parish church was rendered compulsory, and any person absentwithout reasonable cause was to pay a fine of twelve pence.

3 3 and 4 Edward VI, c. 10, An Act for the abolishing and putting away of diverse booksand images. The preamble of the Act recites that the King had recently set forth andestablished by authority of Parliament an order for common prayer in The Book ofCommon Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the Church,after the Church of England (1549). The First Prayer-book was subsequently revised in amore thoroughly Reformed direction and replaced by a new order in 1552 which alsoreceived the sanction of parliamentary authority with a new statute, viz. 5 and 6 Edw.VI, c. 1. An Act for the Uniformity of Service and Administration of Sacraments throughout the realm.

4 The expression “relics of the Amorites” is an allusion to Joshua 7 which recountsthe transgression of the covenant by Achan. Israel, under the command of Joshua, hasjust been defeated in battle by the Amorites, and it emerges that the source of thisloss was the secret possession of “an accursed thing,” i.e. spoils previously taken fromthe Amorites against Yahweh’s command. 7:20, 21: “Achan answered Joshua, and said,Indeed I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and thus have I done: WhenI saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels ofsilver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them…” The strength of Israel is thus linked with the avoidance of all contact with these“relics”. Joshua punishes Achan with death by stoning and he, the relics, and all hisproperty are burned in the valley of Achor. Jewel refers to the “relics of the Amorites”as Vermigli’s own expression for the “theatrical habits” and “comical dress” of theRomish practice, ZL 1, 52. Vermigli refers to the “mere relics of Popery” in a letterto Sampson of 4 November 1559, ZL 2, 32. See also Thomas Sampson to Martyr, 2January 1560, ZL 1, 64. Laurence Humphrey refers again to the “relics of the Amorites”in a letter to Bullinger of 9 February 1566 complaining about Archbishop MatthewParker’s enforcement of conformity in the matter of ecclesiastical habits through hisAdvertisements. See ZL I, 151–152.

the civil magistrate and religious uniformity 205

Hooper’s brief period of resistance to the Edwardine vestments rubric,Vermigli counselled conformity with careful nuance. Vermigli’s stancein the vestiarian controversy in turn raises important questions aboutthe ‘Reformed’ identity of the Elizabethan Church.In the days and months following the accession of Elizabeth Tudor

to the throne of England, correspondence exchanged between PeterMartyr Vermigli and various disciples of his among the Marian exilesreveals the spectre of schism looming within evangelical ranks of theChurch of England. In letters to Vermigli, Thomas Sampson articulatesthe uncertainty felt by many of the returning exiles concerning theeventual shape of the expected new religious settlement. Sampson,who in exile had visited both Zurich and Geneva before his returnto England in 1559, was a clear candidate for appointment to thebench of bishops.5 He addresses Vermigli as “my excellent father”and “most faithful father”, he bemoans the prospect of an episcopalappointment, and asks for advice on how to proceed: “I am quiteready to undertake the office of a preacher, in whatever place she [theQueen] may choose; but I cannot take upon myself the governmentof the church, untill, after having made an entire reformation in allecclesiastical functions, she will concede to the clergy the right ofordering all things according to the word of God, both as regardsdoctrine and discipline, and the property of the church.”6 Vermigliadvises a cautious and moderate course, and encourages Sampson notto “let go any opportunity of directing things in a proper manner.”7 A

5 Surviving anonymous correspondence reveals that he was in fact considered forthe See of Norwich. Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series 1559–1560, 138 (no. 323).

6 In a letter to Vermigli dated 17 December 1558, just a few weeks after the acces-sion, Sampson expresses doubt whether an episcopal appointment can be accepted ingood conscience: “I cannot take upon myself the government of the Church until, afterhaving made an entire reformation in all ecclesiastical functions, she [i.e. the Queen]will concede to the clergy the right of ordering all things according to the word of God,both as regards doctrine and discipline …” [ZL 1, 1–2].

7 Peter Martyr Vermigli to Thomas Sampson, 15 July 1559, ZL 2, 25–27. In asubsequent letter to Sampson of 4 November 1559, ZL 2, 32–34, Vermigli writes: “Butalthough I have always been opposed to the use of ornaments of this kind, yet as Iperceived the present danger of your being deprived of the office of preaching, and thatthere will perhaps be some hope that, like as altars and images have been removed,so this resemblance of the mass may also be taken away, provided you and others whomay obtain bishopricks, will direct all your endeavours to that object, (which wouldmake less progress, should another succeed in your place, but would rather defend,cherish, and maintain them;) therefore was I the slower in advising you rather to refusea bishoprick, than to consent to the use of those garments.”

206 chapter five

year later, after the enactment of the Settlement statutes, John Jewel,close associate of the Italian reformer from Oxford days, fellow exilein Zurich, and soon to be appointed bishop of Salisbury, writes tothe master lamenting the continued use of the “scenic apparatus ofdivine worship”8 and the “theatrical habits” of the clergy: “These areindeed, as you very properly observe, the relics of the Amorites. Forwho can deny it? And I wish that sometime or other they may be takenaway, and extirpated even to the lowest roots.”9 In a subsequent letterto Vermigli dated 2 January 1560, Sampson sounds the alarm of thecoming vestiarian strife: “O my father!” he writes,

What can I hope for, when the ministry of Christ is banished from court?While the crucifix is allowed, with lights burning before it? … What canI hope, when three of our lately appointed bishops are to officiate atthe table of the Lord, one as a priest, another as deacon, and a thirdas subdeacon, before the image of the crucifix, or at least not far fromit, with candles, and habited in the golden vestments of the papacy …What hope is there of any good, when our party are disposed to look forreligion in these dumb remnants of idolatry, and not from the preachingof the lively word of God? I will propose this single question for yourresolution … Should we not rather quit the ministry of the word andsacraments, than that these relics of the Amorites should be admitted?Certain of our friends, indeed, appear in some measure inclined toregard these things as matters of indifference: for my own part, I amaltogether of opinion, that should this be enjoined, we ought rather tosuffer deprivation.10

In his response of 1 February 1560, Vermigli exhorts Sampson veryfirmly against schism “for if you, who are as it were pillars, shall declinetaking upon yourselves the performance of ecclesiastical offices, not

8 John Jewel to Peter Martyr, from London, no date, ZL 1, 23.9 Jewel to Martyr, 5 Nov. 1559, ZL 1, 52. Jewel reports to Peter Martyr in 16 Novem-

ber 1559, ZL 1, 55, that “religion among us is in the same state which I have oftendescribed to you before. The doctrine is every where most pure; but as to ceremoniesand maskings, there is a little too much foolery. That little silver cross, of ill-omened ori-gin, still maintains its place in the Queen’s Chapel. Wretched me! This thing will soonbe drawn into a precedent. There was at one time some hope of its being removed;and we all of us diligently exerted ourselves, and still continue to do, that it might be so… There seems to be far too much prudence, too much mystery, in the managementof these affairs; and God alone knows what will be the issue. The slow-paced horsesretard the chariot.” Those slow-paced horses were seen to be those in authority whohad not been in exile, e.g., bishops Richard Cheyney of Gloucester, William Downhamof Chester, Edmund Guest of Rochester, and Thomas Davies of St. Asaph. See Wenig,Straightening the Altars, 23.

10 ZL 1, 63.

the civil magistrate and religious uniformity 207

only will the churches be destitute of pastors, but you will give place towolves and anti-Christs.”11 Vermigli is hopeful that some of the defectsof the Settlement may be corrected, though perhaps not all.With an echo of an argument made by Thomas Cranmer during the

Edwardine vestiarian disputation between John Hooper and NicholasRidley, Vermigli urges Sampson to conform to the vestments rubric:“As to the square cap and episcopal habit in ordinary use, I do not thinkthat there is need of much dispute, seeing it is unattended by supersti-tion, and in that kingdom especially there may be a political reason forits use.”12 Among the bishops present at the liturgy in the Chapel Royalso vividly described by Sampson were the recently consecrated Marianexiles Edmund Grindal, Richard Cox, and Edwin Sandys.13 Togetherwith them, many returned exiles of evangelical persuasion, includingJewel, affirmed their decision to conform to use of the “Babylonish gar-ments” required by the Act of Uniformity despite the objections manyhad made in the early days of the new regime. Others, including Samp-son, remained in dissent.14 Throughout the mounting controversy overthe continued use of distinctive clerical attire and traditional forms ofceremonial, the so-called “relics of the Amorites,” Peter Martyr Ver-migli was frequently consulted by both sides of the dispute, and appealsto his authority, as we shall see, continued by members of both theconformist and non-conformist parties long after his death in 1562.

11 ZL 2, 38–39.12 Vermigli to Sampson, 1 February 1560, ZL 2, 39. In a letter written to Martin

Bucer concerning Hooper’s non-conformity, Cranmer puts the question “Whether hethat shal affirme that it is unlawfull or shal refuse to weare this apparel, offendethagainst god, for that he saieth that thing to be uncleane that God hath sanctified: andoffende against the magistrate, for that he disturbeth the politike order?” Whether itbe mortall sinne to transgresse civil lawes which be the commaundementes of civill magistrates. Thejudgement of Philip Melancton in his Epitome of morall Philosophie. The resolution of D. HenryBullinger, and D. Rod[olph] Gualter, of D. Martin Bucer, and D. Peter Martyr, concerning thapparelof Ministers, and other indifferent things (London: Richard Jugge, Printer to the QueenesMaiestie, 1566), 47. See also Edmund Cox, ed., Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of ThomasCranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the PS,1846), 428.

13 Parker, Grindal, Sandys, and Cox were consecrated on 19 and 21 December 1559.14 According to John Strype, “Cox, Grindal, Horne, Sandys, Jewel, Parkhurst, and

Bentham [all of them returned exiles and appointed bishops under the Settlement of1559] concluded unanimously after consultation not to desert their ministry for somerites that were but a few, and not evil in themselves, especially since the doctrine ofthe gospel remained pure and entire.” See Annals of the reformation and establishment ofreligion, and other various occurrences in the church of England, during Queen Elizabeth’s happy reign(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1824), I.i.263.

208 chapter five

By 1563, the divergence of views is plainly reflected in the tone oftwo letters sent to Heinrich Bullinger by Jewel and Sampson respec-tively. According to Jewel, things “are going on successfully both as tothe affairs of religion, and of state”15 while to Sampson, writing just afew months later, “affairs in England are in a most unhappy state; Iapprehend worse evils, not to say the worst: but we must meanwhileserve the Lord Christ.”16 By the mid-1560s, controversy over the pro-visions of the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity had begun to reach ahigher pitch. In 1564 the Queen wrote to Archbishop Parker deploringthat “diversity, variety, contention, and vain love of singularity, eitherin our ministers or in the people, must needs provoke the displeasure ofAlmighty God, and be to us, having the burden of government, discom-fortable, heavy, and troublesome; and finally must needs bring dangerof ruin to our people and country.”17 Elizabeth chastises the Primatethat “these errors, tending to breed some schism or deformity in thechurch, should have been stayed and appeased.” Perceiving that thecauses of schism have begun to increase, Elizabeth declares her royalpurpose:

We, considering the authority given to us of Almighty God for thedefence of the public peace, concord and truth of this his Church, andhow we are answerable for the same to the seat of his high justice, meannot to endure or suffer any longer these evils thus to proceed, spread, andincrease in our realm, but have certainly determined to have all suchdiversities, varieties, and novelties amongst them of the clergy and ourpeople as breed nothing but contention, offence, and breach of commoncharity, and are also against the laws, good usages, and ordinances ofour realm, to be reformed and repressed and brought to one manner

15 5 March 1563, ZL 1, 123–125.16 26 July 1563, ZL 1, 130–131.17 See Correspondence of Matthew Parker, D.D., Archbishop of Canterbury, comprising letters

written by him and to him, 1535–1575, ed. by John Bruce and Thomas Perowne, PS(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1853), 223–227. The Queen further chargesher metropolitan with the task of ensuring that “the clergy observe, keep, and maintainsuch order and uniformity in all the external rites and ceremonies, both for the Churchand for their own persons, as by laws, good usages, and orders, are already allowed,well provided, and established. And if any superior officers shall be found heretodisagreeable, if otherwise your discretion or authority shall not serve to reform them,We will that you shall duly inform us thereof, to the end we may give indelayed orderfor the same; for we intend to have no dissension or variety grow by suffering of personswhich maintain dissension to remain in authority; for so the sovereign authority whichwe have under Almighty God should be violate and made frustrate, and we might bewell thought to bear the sword in vain.”

the civil magistrate and religious uniformity 209

of uniformity through our whole realm and dominions, that our peoplemay thereby quietly honour and serve Almighty God in truth, concord,peace, and quietness …

The controversy over vestments and the ornaments rubric proved to bea breaking point for English Protestantism largely because the Queen’sinsistence upon conformity prompted prominent figures like Sampsonopenly to question their submission to the Supreme Governor of thechurch and to propose seeking further reforms by other means.18 ByMarch 1566, with the publication of Matthew Parker’s Advertisements indirect response to the Queen’s reprimand, the threat of schism hadbecome considerably more palpable. In a letter to Bullinger Samp-son puts the question of the Elizabethan Vestiarian Controversy withgreat clarity.19 He begins by alluding to the Edwardine “contest abouthabits, in which Cranmer, Ridley, and Hooper, most holy martyrs ofChrist were formerly wont to skirmish” and follows up with twelve keyquestions: (1) Should a distinctive clerical habit be required in a trulyreformed church? (2) Is such prescription consistent with Christian lib-erty? (3) Are “things indifferent” subject to coercion and (4) may newceremonies be introduced? (5) Were Jewish “sacerdotal” practices notabolished by Christ; (6) can rites be borrowed from idolaters for usein the reformed church; (7) can conformity to such rites be a matterof necessity? (8) what if the ceremonies occasion offence? (9) What ifthey are unedifying? (10) May such ceremonies be prescribed by thePrince without the assent of the clergy? In the final two questions theimmanent threat of schism comes to the fore. Sampson contemplatesseparation with the summary inquiry (11) “whether a man ought thusto obey the decrees of the church; or on account of non-compliance,supposing there is no alternative, to be cast out of the ministry?” And(12) “whether good pastors, of unblemished life and doctrine, may right-fully be removed from the ministry on account of non-compliance withsuch ceremonies?”Bullinger’s reply landed like a bomb-shell.20 In response to every one

of Sampson’s twelve questions, and to another similar set of questions

18 See Scott Wenig, Straightening the Altars: The Ecclesiastical Vision and Pastoral Achieve-ments of the Progressive Bishops under Elizabeth I, 1559–1579, New York 2000, 111ff.

19 Sampson to Bullinger, 16 February 1566, ZL 1, 153–155.20 Heinrich Bullinger to Laurence Humphrey and Thomas Sampson, 1 May 1566,

ZL 1, 345–355. For a full discussion of the letter see Walter Phillips, “Henry Bullingerand the Elizabethan Vestiarian Controversy: An Analysis of Influence,” Journal ofReligious History 2 (1981), 363–384.

210 chapter five

put by Sampson’s colleague Laurence Humphrey, President of Mag-dalen College, Oxford,21 Bullinger sided unequivocally with Parker andthe Queen, both in his own name and also on behalf of RudolphGualter. He affirms that clerical habits are acceptable “for the sakeof decency, and comeliness of appearance, or dignity and order,”22 thatthey are allowable as “a matter of indifference and of civil order,”23

quotes Vermigli in support of their being “agreeable to the light ofnature,”24 and points out that the habits are retained “not by any popishenactment, but by virtue of the royal edict”25 and that the Queen hascomplete authority in the matter.26 Bullinger dismisses any suggestionthat separation or schism might be justified on the grounds of opposi-tion to the provisions of the Act of Uniformity:

Since the Queen’s majesty only enjoins the wearing a cap and surplice,which, as I have often repeated, she does not in any way make a matterof religion; … I could wish that pious ministers would not make thewhole advancement of religion to depend upon this matter, as if it wereall in all; … For if the edifying of the church is the chief thing to beregarded in this matter, we shall do the church a greater injury bydeserting it than by wearing the habits … I exhort you all, by JesusChrist our Lord, the Saviour, head, and king of his church, that everyone of you should duly consider with himself, whether he will not moreedify the church of Christ by regarding the use of habits for the sake oforder and decency, as a matter of indifference, and which hitherto hastended somewhat to the harmony and advantage of the church; thanby leaving the church, on account of the vestiarian controversy, to be

21 See Laurence Humphrey to Henry Bullinger, 9 Feb. 1566, ZL 1, 151–152 whereseven points on the question are formulated. This discussion had been developing forsome considerable period. See Humphrey to Bullinger, 16 Aug. 1563, ZL 1, 133–134where he requests Bullinger’s opinion “whether at the command of the sovereign, (thejurisdiction of the pope having been abolished,) and for the sake of order, and not ofornament, habits of this kind may be worn in church by pious men, lawfully and witha safe conscience.”

22 ZL 1, 346–347.23 ZL 1, 348, 349 “It is a matter of civil ordinance, and has respect only to decency

and order, in which things religious worship does not consist.”24 ZL 1, 347. Bullinger notes at the outset that he had addressed the vestiarian

question “in a letter to the reverend master doctor Robert Horne, bishop of Winchester,and briefly repeated the words of master Martyr.” See ZL 1, 341–344.

25 ZL 1, 348.26 ZL 1, 353 “I can easily believe that wise and politic men are urgent for a

conformity of rites, because they think it will tend to concord, and there may beone and the same church throughout all England; wherein, provided nothing sinfulis intermixed, I do not see why you should oppose yourselves with hostility to harmlessregulations of that kind.”

the civil magistrate and religious uniformity 211

occupied hereafter, if not by evident wolves, at least by ill-qualified andevil ministers.27

For Bullinger, certainly no friend of popish ceremony and other such“relics of the Amorites,” the necessary requirement of preaching thegospel nonetheless takes unconditional priority over the retention orabolition of things “of themselves” indifferent. Separation is a greaterinjury than the burden of conformity. In addition, the constitutionalright of the sovereign to determine such matters indifferent is to berespected as pertaining to “civil regulation and good order”. In obser-vations directed specifically to a question on the necessity of conformityraised by Thomas Sampson, Bullinger replies that “Wise and politicmen are urgent for a conformity of rites, because they think it will tendto concord, and that there may be one and the same church through-out all England; wherein, provided nothing sinful is intermixed, I donot see why you should oppose yourselves with hostility to harmelessregulations of that kind.”28

Bullinger sent copies of his letter to the former exiles who had beenresident in Zurich and had since become bishops. Edmund Grindal sawto it that the letter was published in Latin and English for benefit of thelower clergy.29 Moreover, according to Grindal and Horne, owing toBullinger’s strong endorsement of vestiarian conformity

Some of the clergy, influenced by your judgment and authority, haverelinquished their former intention of deserting their ministry. And manyalso of the laity have begun to entertain milder sentiments, now that theyhave understood that our ceremonies were by no means considered byyou as unlawful, though you do not yourselves adopt them; but of this,before the publication of your letter, no one could have persuaded them.There are nevertheless some, among whom are masters Humphrey andSampson, and others, who still continue in their former opinion. Nothingwould be easier than to reconcile them to the Queen, if they would butbe brought to change their mind; but until they do this, we are unable toeffect any thing with Her Majesty, irritated as she is by this controversy.30

27 ZL 1, 351, 353, 355.28 ZL 1, 353.29 Grindal to Bullinger, from London, 27 August 1566, ZL 1, 168.30 Grindal to Bullinger, 27 Aug. 1566, ZL 1, 168. See also Grindal and Horne to

Bullinger and Gualter, dated at London, 6 Feb. 1567, ZL 1, 175. “Your erudite letter toHumphrey and Sampson, so well adapted for allaying both our diversities of opinionrespecting the habits, and our erbal altercations and disputes, we received with thegreatest satisfaction … [it] has persuaded some of the clergy who were thinking ofwithdrawing from the ministry on account of the affair of the habits, (which was the

212 chapter five

The letter goes on to lament that some of the clergy had beendeprived owing to their non-conformity, although “not many in num-ber; and though pious, yet certainly not very learned. For among thosewho have been deprived, [Thomas] Sampson alone can be regardedas a man whose learning is equal to his piety.”31 In early Septem-ber Bullinger and Gualter wrote to Bishops Grindal and Horne32 and,in the week following, to Francis Russell, Earl of Bedford, to expresstheir regret owing to the publication of their response to Sampson’sand Humphrey’s questions: “Indeed it is a cause of most just grief,that godly brethren, to whom we desired rather to afford counsel andconsolation than to occasion any trouble, are weighed down by theauthority of our names.” They entreat Bedford to employ his influence“with the Queen and the nobility of the realm, that the reformation ofthe Church of England, begun with the great admiration of the wholeworld, be not disfigured by new filth and the restored relics of wretchedpopery. For should that be the case, not only will the mark of inconsis-tency be branded upon many in your most flourishing kingdom, but theweak will also be offended; and to the neighbouring churches of Scot-land, France, and Flanders, who are yet suffering under the cross, willa scandal be afforded, the punishment of which will doubtless redoundto the authors of it.”33

At several points in his letter, Bullinger appeals directly to the author-ity of Vermigli. Indeed the arguments mounted are for the most partderived from a letter written by the Italian reformer to John Hoopersixteen years earlier.34 During the crisis stemming from his refusal to

only occasion of controversy and cause of contention among us,) not to suffer thechurches to be deprived of their services on so slight a ground; and it has establishedand brought them over to your [viz. Bullinger’s] opinion … As to the morose, andthose who cannot endure any thing but what they have themselves determined upon,although your letter has not satisfied them, it has been so far of use, that they are eitherless disposed or less able to load the godly with invectives.”

31 ZL 1, 176.32 ZL 1, 357–360.33 Henry Bullinger and Rodolph Gualter to Francis Lord Russell, dated at Zurich,

11 Sept. 1566, ZL 1, 138.34 The original of Vermigli’s letter to Hooper, 4 November 1550, is in the MSS

of John More, Bishop of Ely, Cambridge University Library, Mm 4.14, Art. 2. Itwas published in Petri Martyris Epistolæ Theologicæ, ed. Robert Masson (London: JohnKingston, 1576), fol. 1085; translated by Anthonie Marten in Peter Martyr, Divine Epistles(London: John Day, 1583), fo. 116, col. 2. See also John Strype, Memorials of the MostReverend Father in God Thomas Cranmer, sometime Lord Archbishop of Canterbury: wherein thehistory of the church, and reformation of it …, are greatly illustrated (London: Richard Chiswell,

the civil magistrate and religious uniformity 213

be consecrated Bishop of Gloucester according to the prescribed cere-monies and wearing the canonical dress, Hooper had himself requestedMartyr’s counsel on the question of his nonconformity.35 It should beremembered that Hooper had lived at Zurich in the late 1540s wherehe became a friend of Bullinger. After returning to England, where hewas hailed as “England’s future Zwingli,” Hooper was made chaplainto Protector Somerset and nominated to the bishopric of Gloucester in1550.36 After engaging in an extended disputation with Nicholas Rid-ley on the lawfulness of “those Aaronic habits” and being confined foralmost three weeks in the Fleet Prison by order of the Privy Coun-cil, Hooper submitted unconditionally and was duly consecrated to hisSee.37 In a letter to Martin Bucer, Vermigli relates how he had metwith Hooper on three separate occasions at Lambeth Palace and howhe “exerted every effort to break down his determination” to resistthe habits and to secure his conformity.38 Against this background ofEdwardine vestiarian strife antagonists on both sides of the Elizabethandebate of the mid-1560s honed their polemics.Vermigli’s importance in all of this is underscored by the wider use

made of his writing on the vestiarian question by proponents on bothsides. In The Unfolding of the Pope’s Attyre, the first salvo in a furious

1694; new edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1812), I:304–307. The text of the letter inEnglish translation is also printed in Goreham, Gleanings of a Few Scattered Ears, during theperiod of the Reformation in England and of the Times immediately succeeding; AD 1533 – AD 1588(London: Bell and Daldy, 1857), 187–196.

35 See Hooper to Bullinger, 29 June 1550, OL 87, where he explains his refusal “bothby reason of the shameful and impious form of the oath, which all who choose toundertake the function of a bishop are compelled to put up with, and also on acctof those Aaronic habits which they still retain in that calling, and are used to wear,not only at the administration of the sacraments, but also at public prayers.” For afull account of the episode see J.H. Primus, The Vestments Controversy: An Historical Studyof the Earliest Tensions within the Church of England in the Reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth(Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1960), chap. 1. For Hooper’s account of his reasons for vestiariannonconformity, see Constantin Hopf, “Bishop Hooper’s Notes to the King’s Council,”Journal of Theological Studies XLIV (Jan. – April 1943), 194–199.

36 Letter from Micronius to Pellican, Simler Collection of MSS, S. 70, 136, Zentral-bibliothek Zurich. See Primus, Vestments Controversy, 5.

37 Hooper was committed to the Fleet on 27 Jan 1551 “Upon a letter from tharche-busshop of Canterbury, that Mr. Hoper can not be brought to any conformytie, butrather persevering in his obstinacie coveteth to prescribe order and necessarie lawes ofhis heade, it was agreed he shulde be committed to the Fleete.” Acts of the Privy Council,199–200. Nearly three weeks later Hooper wrote a letter of submission. See BishopHooper to Archbishop Cranmer, 15 February 1550, in George C. Gorham, Gleanings,233–235.

38 Vermigli to Bucer, 10 January 1551, in Gorham, Gleanings, 231–233.

214 chapter five

spate of polemical tracts published in response to Parker’s Advertise-ments, Robert Crowley invokes the Florentine’s authority in a full-frontalassault on the ceremonies.39 Crowley points out quite correctly thatVermigli was willing to endure the “remnaunts of the Amorites” fora season, but nevertheless looked forward to their eventual abolition.40

Crowley even cites Ridley and Jewel in support of his nonconformity.In a tract published shortly afterwards intended to refute Crowley, bothMartyr’s and Bucer’s letters to Hooper of 1550 are reprinted.41 On 3May 1566, just two days after their reply to Sampson and Humphrey,Bullinger and Gualter sent a blind copy of the letter to Bishop RobertHorne and asked that it be sent on to Grindal, Jewel, Parkhurst, San-dys, and Pilkington, all of whom had been Bullinger’s guests as exilesin Zurich, and all of whom were now sitting side by side on the Eliza-bethan bench of bishops.42 The letter was published, somewhat to the

39 Robert Crowley, A briefe discourse against the outwarde apparell and Ministring Garmentesof the Popishe Church ([Emden: Egidius van der Erve], 1566). See sig. Cii verso: “And PeterMartyr, whose iudgement hath in this matter bene oftentimes asked, dothe more thanonce in his writings call [the ceremonies] Reliquias Amorræorum, leavings or remnaunts ofthe Amorites. And although he do in some case thinke that they maye be borne withfor a season: yet in our case, he would not have them suffered to remaine in the Churchof Christ.” See Strype, Annals of the Reformation, I.ii.163.

40 This argument for a “temporizing” solution is characteristic of Vermigli’s lettersto Sampson in 1559 and 1560. See, e.g., Vermigli to Sampson, 4 November 1559, ZL 2,32–33: “Though I have always been opposed to the use of ornaments of this kind, yetas I perceived the present danger of your being deprived of the office of preaching, andthat there will perhaps be some hope that, like as altars and images have been removed,so this resemblance of the mass may also be taken away, provided you and otherswho may obtain bishopricks, will direct all your endeavours to that object, (whichwould make less progress, should another succeed in your place, who not only mightbe indifferent about putting away those relics, but would rather defend, cherish, andmaintain them …)”.

41 The pamphlet collectanea, attributed to Archbishop Matthew Parker, appearedunder the title A brief examination for the tyme, of a certaine declaration, lately put in print, in thename and defence of certaine Ministers in London, refusing to weare the apparel prescribed by the lawesand orders of the Realme … (London: Richard Jugge, 1566): “In the ende is reported, thejudgement of two notable learned fathers, M. doctour Bucer, and M. doctour Martir,sometime in eyther universities here of England the kynges readers and professoursof divinitie, translated out of the originals, written by their owne handes, purposelydebatying this controversie. Paul. Rom. 14, I besech you brethren marke them whichcause division, and geve occasions of evyll, contrary to the doct which ye have learned,and avoyde them: for they that are such serve not the Lorde Jesus Christ, but their ownbellyes, and with sweete and flattering wordes deceive the hartes of the Innocentes.”

42 See Bullinger to Horne, 3 May 1566, ZL 1, 356–357: “We send our letter onthe vestiarian controversy, written by us to the learned men, and our honoured godlybrethren, N. and M. [viz. Sampson and Humphrey]. And we send it to you that ye

the civil magistrate and religious uniformity 215

consternation of its authors, who had been compelled to take sides ina confrontation between their mutual friends.43 As Walter Phillips hasargued, from this point forward Bullinger and Gualter were cast in therole of defenders of the Elizabethan Settlement while the opponents ofconformity, such as Sampson and Humphrey, were “compelled to lookmore and more to Geneva” for succour.44

Appeals to the authority of Vermigli were by no means restricted tosupporters of the Establishment. His name appears on the mastheadof two more counter blasts in the pamphlet war of 1566, one oneither side of the dispute. The letter to Hooper appears once againin a conformist tract titled Whether it be mortall sinne to transgresse civillawes which be the commaundementes of civill magistrates, which bears allthe marks of government approval, published by Richard Jugge, theQueen’s printer and, like A brief examination for the tyme, may even havebeen composed by Parker himself.45 The tract reprints both Bullinger’sletter to Sampson and Humphrey and the letter to Bishop Horne aswell as a number of tracts related to the Edwardine controversy of 1550,including Vermigli’s letter to Hooper. The latter, a nonconformist tract,is addressed anonymously to “all such as unfainedly hate (in zeale of aGodly love) all monuments, and remnauntes of Idolatrie” and followsthe now well established model of an assemblage of “gleanings” fromvarious “learned men,” Vermigli included.46 That Vermigli’s authoritywas of considerable consequence in the Elizabethan vestiarian debatethere can be no doubt whatever.

may understand that we would not have any private communication with the brethren,without the knowledge of you, the principal ministers.”

43 The judgement of the godly and learned H. Bullinger declaring it lawfull to weare the apparellprescribed, two parts (London: W. Seres, 1566). See Grindal and Horn to Bullingerand Gualter, ZL I, 175, which announces the publication of Bullinger’s letter. “Wehave also undertaken, not however without due consideration, and with the omissionof the names of our brethre, to have it printed and published, from which step wehave derived the good effect we expected. For it has been of much use to sound andsensible men, who look to the general design and object of the gospel; and has certainlypersuaded some of the clergy, who were thinking of withdrawing from the ministry onaccount of the affair of the habits …”.

44 Phillips, “Henry Bullinger and the Elizabethan Vestiarian Controversy,” 382.45 Whether it be mortall sinne to transgresse civil lawes which be the commaundementes of civill

magistrates. The judgement of Philip Melancton in his Epitome of morall Philosophie. The resolution ofD. Henry Bullinger, and D. Rod[olph] Gualter, of D. Martin Bucer, and D. Peter Martyr, concerningthapparel of Ministers, and other indifferent things (London: Richard Jugge, Printer to theQueenes Maiestie, 1566).

46 The Fortresse of Fathers, ernestlie defending the puritie of Religion, and Ceremonies, by the trewexposition of certaine places of Scripture: against such as wold bring in an Abuse of Idol stouff, and

216 chapter five

What does remain something of a puzzle, however, is the apparentease with which Vermigli is cited as an authority on both sides of whatis undoubtedly the bitterest clash of ecclesiological principle to face theChurch of England in the first decade following the enactment of theElizabethan Settlement. Let us look more closely at the argument ofhis letter to Hooper. From the outset Vermigli expresses his agreementwith Hooper’s main purpose:

I was not a litle delighted with your singular and ardent zeale, wherebyyou indeuour that Christian Religion may againe aspire to the uncorruptand plaine purenesse. For what ought to bee more desired of all godliemen, than that all things may by litle and litle be cut off which hauebut litle or nothing at all that can be referred unto sounde edifying, andwhich of godlie mindes are iudged to bee ouerchargeable and superflu-ous? Verilie to saie, as touching mine owne selfe, I take it grieuouslie tobee plucked awaie from that plaine and pure custome, which you knoweall we used a great while together at Argentine [Strasbourg], where theuarietie of garments bout holie seruices were taken awaie. That customehaue I alwayes most allowed of all other, as that which is the purer andmost sauoreth of the Apostles Church.47

Yet for all his agreement with Hooper “in the chiefe and principallpoint,” Vermigli refuses to allow that the use of traditional vestmentsand ceremonies is “fatal” or contrary to Scripture on the ground thatthey are of themselves “altogether indifferent.” Vermigli is careful todistinguish personal judgement and sensibility from the expression of

of thinges indifferent, and do appoinct th’authority of Princes and Prelates larger then the trueth is.Translated out of Latine into English for there sakes that understand no Latine by I.B.([Emden: Egidius van der Erve], 1566).

47 Vermigli, Divine Epistles, transl. Anthony Marten, fols. 116–117. See also Vermigli,Epistolæ Theologicæ, fol. 1085 and Whether it be mortall sinne, 61. For an account of aReformed church purged of all images, statues, altars, ornaments and music see Lud-wig Lavater’s description of the practice of the Church of Zurich in Ludwig Lavater,De Ritibus et Institutis Ecclesiæ Tigurinæ (Zurich: Christopher Froschauer, 1559), Art. 6,fol. 3: “Templa Tigurinorum ab omnibus simulachris & statuis repurgata sunt. Altarianulla habent, sed tantum necessaria instrumenta: veluti, cathedram sacram, subsellia,baptisterium, mensam quæ apponitur in medium quando celebranda est coena, lucer-nas, quarum usus est hyemne quando contractiores sunt dies in antelucanis coetibus.Templa non corruscant auro, argento, gemmis, ebore. Hæc enim non vera sunt tem-plorum ornamenta. Organa & alia instrumenta musica, in temples nulla sunt, eo quodex eorum strepitu, verborum dei nihil intelligatur. Vexilla quoque & alia anathemataex temples sublata sunt.” [quoted Primus, 4] Vermigli had a fairly extensive corre-spondence with Lavater. See letters 29, 30, and 31 in Divine Epistles, fols. 110–112,152.

the civil magistrate and religious uniformity 217

public will.48 Furthermore, vehement contention leads to a dangerousconfusion of the “necessarie points” of salvation with “matter indiffer-ent”:

sometimes in these things indifferent, some things, although they begrievous and burthensome, are to bee borne withall so long as it cannototherwise bee, least if wee contend for them more bitterly than behoou-eth, it may be a hindrance to the proceeding of the Gospel, and thosethings which in their owne nature be indifferent, may be taught by ourvehement contention to be wicked.49

For Vermigli opposition to the ornaments rubric is simply bad strat-egy from an evangelical standpoint. His council to Hooper continues:“Nowe when there is brought in a change in the chiefe and necessariepoints of religion, and that with so great disquietnesse, if wee shouldealso declare those things to be wicked (impius) which be things indif-ferent, al mens mindes in a manner woulde be so alienated from us,as they woulde no more shewe themselues to be attentiue and pacienthearers of sounde doctrine and necessarie sermons.” Moreover, opposi-tion to the �δι���ρα as ungodly in principle leads to a condemnationof many Churches “which are not straunge from the Gospel.”Vermigli then proceeds to address Hooper’s several arguments

against the adiaphoristic principle. First is the contention that the Gos-pel abolishes the ceremonies of the Law. Vermigli assents to the replace-ment of the Aaronic sacraments by the Eucharist, but adds that certainacts, “agreeable unto the light of nature,” are nevertheless continued,such as the payment of tithes, the singing of psalms, the custom ofprophesying, and the observance of feast days in commemoration ofthe nativity, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. “Shoulde allthese thinges be abolished, because they be steppes of the olde lawe?By all these things I thinke you see that all the thinges belonging toAarons priesthood are not to be abrogated, as nothing of them maybe retayned or used.”50 For Vermigli, extreme opposition to the cer-

48 “Although I saide, that I thinke a diversitie of garments ought not to be retainedin holy services, yet neuerthelesse would I not say, that it is a wicked (impius) thing, soas I would be so bold to condemne whomsoever I shoulde perceiue to use the same.Certianlie if I were so perswaded I would never have communicated with the Churchhere in England, wherein there is as yet kept still such a diversitie.” See Divine Epistles,fol. 117.

49 Divine Epistles, fol. 117.50 Divine Epistles, fol. 118.

218 chapter five

emonies imperils Christian liberty.51 In the spirit of this liberty pagancultic practices were taken over by the early Christians and use ofvestments (such as the pallium) affirmed by the Fathers long beforethe establishment of the “tyrannie of the Pope.” Even verses of thepagan poets “dedicated unto the Muses and unto diuerse Goddes”were employed by Church writers when they were deemed “commodi-ous, and excellent and true.”52 The detested vestments are indeed ahuman invention, yet all human inventions, Vermigli argues, are not atonce to be condemned.53 On the contrary, symbols and signs are appro-priate to Christian worship. “The ministers of the church be Angelsand messengers of God as Malachie testifieth. And Angelles haue in amanner alwayes shewed themselues cloathed in white garmentes. Howcan we depriue the Church of this libertie,” Vermigli asks, “that it maynot signifie some thing by her actions and rites, the same being doone,without placing any woorship of God therein, modestlie and in fewethinges, so as the people of Christ be not burthened with ceremonies,and that better things be not letted.”54 He goes on to compare thissymbolic function of clerical vestments to the “visible words used inthe sacraments”: “unto which end the signes of the sacramentes seemeto haue beene deuised, that euen by the uerie sight and sense weemaie bee rauished to thinke of diuine thinges. Neither doe I thinke thattyrannie is straight waie brought in if any indifferent thing be taken inhande to bee doone in the Church, and be constantlie kept of manie …

51 Divine Epistles, fol. 119: “Doubtlesse we must take heede, that we presse not theChurch of Christ with too much bondage so as it may not be lawefull to use aniething that belonged to the Pope. Certainely our forefathers receiued the temples ofIdolles, and converted them into holie houses wherein Christ should be worshipped,and the reuenues consecrated to the gods of the Gentils, to plays of the theater, and tovestall virgins, they tooke to maintaine ministers of the Church: whereas these thingesdid first serve not onelie Antichrist, but the devill himselfe. Yea and the uerses of thePoets which were dedicated unto the Muses, and unto diverse Goddes or unto fablesto be doone in the Theater for pacifying of Goddes: when they be commodious, andexcellent and true, the Ecclesiasticall writers use them, and that by the example of theApostle, who disdained not to cite Menander, Aratus, and Epimenides, and that euen inthe holie scripture which hee delivered; and those words which otherwise were profane,hee adapted to divine service.” In his sermon on the Areopagus in Acts 17:22–34, Paulquotes from Epimenides’ Cretica (“For in him we live and move and have our being”)and Aratus’ Phænomena (“For we are also his offspring”). In 1Corinthians 15:33, he citesMenander’s comedy Thais (“Evil company corrupts good habits”).

52 Divine Epistles, fol. 119.53 Divine Epistles, fol. 119.54 Divine Epistles, fol. 119; compare Richard Hooker, Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Polity

V.78; Folger Library Edition, 2:435.20.

the civil magistrate and religious uniformity 219

This generallie is enough to knowe by faith, that thinges indifferentcannot defile them which liue with a pure and syncere minde and con-science.”55

Vermigli’s staunch support of vestiarian conformity is all the moreremarkable for being in a profound sense contrary to his own evi-dent personal inclination and sensibility. Given, however, that fromVermigli’s theological perspective the gospel principle of Christian lib-erty was itself at stake in this controversy concerning the use of thingsindifferent, the theologically reasonable course demanded a thoroughdefence of Cranmer’s policy. Vermigli’s position is grounded in hisinterpretation of the first principles of Reformed ecclesiological ortho-doxy, especially with regard to the crucial distinction between mat-ters necessary and matters merely accessory to salvation. By keepingthese two matters in clear and evangelical distinction, he allows him-self to be led by what might be described as a “theological neces-sity” to a conclusion which came to epitomize the very substance ofthe Elizabethan Settlement. Diarmaid MacCulloch and Scott Wenighave recently restated the old Tractarian canard that the ElizabethanChurch of England sought to achieve a middle way between Rome andGeneva, the so-called Anglican via media.56 According to MacCulloch,the Settlement of 1559 represents a “theological cuckoo in the nest.”57

That is to say, the Church of England was an essentially “Catholic”structure operated by a “Reformed” clerical leadership. On this viewof the matter, “the story of Anglicanism, and the story of the dis-comfiture of Elizabeth’s first bishops, is the result of the fact that thistension between Catholic structure and Protestant theology was neverresolved.”58 According to this interpretation of the Elizabethan Settle-ment, the criticism levelled against the Establishment by such radicalcritics as Thomas Sampson, Laurence Humphrey, and Robert Crow-

55 Divine Epistles, fol. 120. Compare Vermigli’s position to Richard Hooker’s, forexample: “The sensible things which Religion hath hallowed, are resemblances framedaccording to things spiritually understood, whereunto they serve as a hand to lead anda way to direct.” Lawes IV.1.3; Folger Library Edition, 1:275.21–24.

56 Scott Wenig, Straightening the Altars: The Ecclesiastical Vision and Pastoral Achievementsof the Progressive Bishops under Elizabeth I, 1559–1579 (New York: Peter Lang, 2000), 10:“Forced by their own theologically-based Erastianism to submit to Crown’s will, thebishops’ drive for an authentically Reformed English church was undermined at thenational level.”

57 Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Later Reformation in England, 1547–1603, 2nd ed. (NewYork: Palgrave Press, 2000), 29.

58 Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Later Reformation, 29.

220 chapter five

ley is taken to be representative of Reformed orthodoxy. On our read-ing of Vermigli’s and Bullinger’s contribution to the vestiarian contro-versy, however, as well as to the discourse on the relation between civiland ecclesiastical jurisdiction more generally, the question plainly ariseswhether the claim to Reformed orthodoxy may in fact lie more plausi-bly with the Queen and her loyal bishops. For as we have seen, it is thelatter who succeeded in enlisting the two pre-eminent Reformed divinesof Zurich in support of the key elements of the Elizabethan Settlementof 1559. Vermigli’s letter to Hooper, along with Bullinger’s to Sampsonand Humphrey, suggests that far from intruding a evangelical cuckoointo a Romish nest, the architects of the Elizabethan Settlement mayvery well have succeeded in demonstrating—at least to their sixteenth-century contemporaries—the essential consistency of the ecclesiologyof the Settlement with the principles of magisterial Reformed ortho-doxy as formulated by the Schola Tigurina.

text

HEINRICH BULLINGER

Concerning thapparel of Ministers (1566)

Bullinger’s Prefatory Letter

To the reuerende fathers in Christe D. Rob[ert] Horne Bishop ofWinchester, D. Ed[mund] Grindal Bishop of London, D. Ioh[n] Par-custe B. of Norwich, his honorable Lordes, and most deare brethren inEnglande.1

Ryght reuerende honorable Lordes and dearely beloued brethren,the Lorde Jesus blesse you, and preserue you from all euyll. We sendeyou here our opinion, concerning matters of apparel, written to ourworshipfull frende maister. N. and maister. M. those godly and learnedmen.2 And for that cause we sende it unto you, that you might under-stande, we deale not with our brethren priuily, without your knowledge,who are the princiapall and cheefe ministers, and that so muche as in

1 The text which appears below of Bullinger’s letter to Robert Horne, EdmundGrindal, and John Parkhurst—of whom Horne and Parkhurst had been guests inBullinger’s house at Zurich during the period of the Marian exile—first appeared inEnglish translation in a pamphlet collectanea published at the height of the VestiarianControversy and whose compilation is traditionally attributed to Matthew Parker,Archbishop of Canterbury: Whether it be mortall sinne to transgresse civil lawes which be thecommaundementes of civill magistrates. The judgement of Philip Melancton in his Epitome of morallPhilosophie. The resolution of D. Henry Bullinger, and D. Rod[olph] Gualter, of D. Martin Bucer, andD. Peter Martyr, concerning thapparel of Ministers, and other indifferent things (London: RichardJugge, Printer to the Queenes Maiestie, 1566), 27–46. See also The judgement of the godlyand learned H. Bullinger declaring it lawfull to weare the apparell prescribed, two parts (London:W. Seres, 1566). See ZL 1, 356–357.

2 Study of the correspondence confirms that the anonymous initials ‘N.’ and ‘M.’plainly refer to Thomas Sampson, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford (deprived on26 May 1565 for non-conformity), and Laurence Humphrey, President of MagdalenCollege, Oxford, who appealed to Bullinger at the height of the Vestiarian Controversyin 1565–1566 with a list of questions on the key matters held in dispute. See LaurenceHumphrey to Bullinger, 9 February 1566, ZL I, 151–152 and Thomas Sampson toBullinger, 16 February 1566, ZL I, 153–155 for the substantive questions addressed byBullinger in his response. This identification of ‘N.’ and ‘M.’ is confirmed by Bullingerand Gualter in their letter to Grindal and Horne, 6 Sept. 1566, ZL 1, 357.

222 chapter five

us lyeth, we seeke the unitie and concorde of your congregations,in all respectes. And we heartely beseeche almightie God, to havea speciall regarde of your [28] estate, and to continue you in oneconsent and unitie. We earnestly exhort your, right honorable anddeare brethren, to be carefull for those faythfull ministers and learnedmenne for they haue commonly their affections. For which cause theapostle warneth us, that one helpe to beare anothers burthen.3 Youmay by your aucthoritie do very muche with the most noble Lady yourQueene: bryng it therefore to passe with her Maiestie, that our goodbrethren may be reconciled and restored againe. And we also beseechethat you, D. Horne, our good lorde, and deare brother, that as sooneas these my letters may be deliuered, ye cause them to be sent to theBishop of Norwiche, to communicate them to D. Juel, to D. Sandes,and to D. Pilkinton,4 to whom also I purpose to write at the next martat Franckforte by gods grace. These I have written in haste aswel inmaister Gualters name, as in myn owne, sendyng them to Basile, fromthence to be conueyed to Antwarpe. And we hartily desire you to sendeus word, whether ye haue receaued them or no. Fare ye well ryghtreuerend fathers. The Lorde blesse you, and your labours.

From Tigurine this third of Maye. M.D.Lxvi.H. Bullinger yourVery frende

We pray you, reverend master Horne, to communicate this letter also tothe illustrious personage, Edmund Grindal, bishop of London, whom,although he is not personally known to us, as you are, we love, anddesire to be loved by him in return. Again and again, farewell.5

[29]

To maister N. and M.6

3 Galatians 6: 2.4 To bishops John Parkhurst of Norwich, John Jewel of Salisbury, Edwin Sandys of

Worcester, and John Pilkington of Durham. All had been guests of Bullinger in Zurichduring the Marian exile.

5 This postscript was omitted from the version published in Whether it be mortall sinne.See ZL 1, 357.

6 At this point begins the letter addressed by Bullinger and Gualter to Humphreyand Sampson, ZL 1, 345–355.

text: bullinger, concerning thapparel of ministers 223

The Lorde Iesu blesse you right worshipful and welbeloued breth-ren, and preserue you from all euyll. I haue receaued your letters, inthe which you doe seeme to complayne, that my aunswer unto yourquestion was ouer short and brief.7 Verily my brother, I saw no causethen, neyther do I see any yet, why I shoulde haue written those lettersany larger. For you only required to knowe my iudgement, touchingthe matter of apparel, for the which ye now contende in England.Unto which question I thought I should answere in few wordes: for somuche as in fewe wordes I coulde declare my iudgement. And then alsoI understoode, that D. Peter Martyr, of most happie remembraunce,handled the same question at Oxforde,8 and heare too many tymes

7 Laurence Humphrey wrote to Bullinger on 9 February 1566 complaining aboutthe enforcement of conformity in the matter of ecclesiastical habits. See ZL I, 151–152: “I again and again entreat your piety to reply in few words to those little ues-tions of mine; first, whether laws respecting habits may properly be prescribed tochurchmen, so as to distinguish them from the laity in shape, colour, &c? Secondly,whether the ceremonial worship of the Levitical priesthood is to be reintroduced intothe church of Christ? Thirdly, whether in respect of habits and external rites, it isallowable to have any thing in common with the papists, and whether Christians mayborrow ceremonies from any counterfeit and hostile church? Fourthly, whether the dis-tinguishing apparel of the priesthood is to be worn [upon all occasions] like a com-mon dress? Whether this does not savour of monkery, popery, and Judaism? Fifthly,whether those persons who have till now enjoyed their liberty, can with a safe con-science, by the authority of a royal edict, involve in this bondage both themselves andthe church? Sixthely, whether the clerical dress of the papists may be regarded as amatter of indifference? Seventhly, whether the habit is to be worn, rather than theoffice deserted? I had sent both to master Beza and yourself some other questions;I know not whether you received them. I entreat you to condescend to explain yourjudgment and opinion a little more fully as soon as possible; and also to touch uponand note the reasons upon which it is founded. You see that it is the Lernæan Hydra,or the tail of popery. You see too what the relics of the Amorites have produced. Yousee my importunity. Confer, I beseech you, on the whole matter with master Gual-ter and your colleagues, and write their opinion either to me or master Sampson.Oxford, 9 February 1565, according to the English computation. [Until the intro-duction of the new, i.e. Gregorian style, in 1752, the year in England commenced 25March.] May Christ long preserve you to his church in health and happiness! Yourmost attached, Laurence Humphrey.” [my italics] See also Humphrey’s earlier let-ter to Bullinger of 16 Aug. 1563 in which he broaches the same subject. ZL 1, 133–134.

8 Martyr’s response to the questions of the vestiarian controversy were composedduring the period of John Hooper’s period of imprisonment in 1550 for resistance to thecanonical dress required for his consecration to the See of Gloucester. It was publishedin Whether it be mortall sinne, 61–80 and in another translation by Anthonie Marten (ed.),Another Collection of certeine Divine matters and doctrines of the same M[aster] D[octor] Peter Martyr(London: H. Denman et al, 1583), 116–120.

224 chapter five

at large, whereto I could say no more. And I remember also, thatin my letters unto you, brother M.9 I made mention of my opinionherein. And that I may nowe speake a worde or twaine what I thinkehereof: Surely, I like not in any wyse, that (yf ye were commaunded) yeshoulde say seruice at an aulter rather burthened, then beauified withthe image of [30] a crucifixe in massing apparel, that is, in albe, andin a vestment, which hath the picture of Christ crucified hanging onthe back. And so farre as I can perceive by my letters returned out ofEnglande, there is no contention now of any such garment. But thequestion is whether it be lawfull for Ministers of the Gospel to wearea round cap or a square, or to put on a white robe called a surplesse,whereby the Minister may be decerned from the vulgare sort? Andwhether a Minister ought rather to leaue his holye calling, then toweare such apparel?10 Touching whiche question, I wrote my myndethe last mart, unto the reuerende father my lorde R[obert] HorneB[ishop] of Winchester briefly repeating D[r] Martyrs wordes.11 Myfelowe minister and welbeloued kinsman D[r] Rodolphe Gualter, wroteunto hym also not long before, a coppie wherof I send here inclosedunto you, and to the rest of our brethren.12 Wherefore, yf ye wyll heareus, and be desirous to know our iudgement concerning this matter ofapparel, as you signified unto me the last mart you were: loe you haueour iudgement in that Epistle, whereunto yf you wyll not agree, we areheartily sorie: and seeing we haue none other counsel, we moste hartilyand incessantly pray to god, who is in all thynges, and at all tymes to becalled upon, that he vouchsafe by his holy grace and power, to comfortand helpe our miserable state.You brother N. [Humphrey] proposed a fewe such questions,13 but

our brother M. [Sampson] heaped together a great many more ofthe same argument.14 Albeit I, according to my simple skil, did neuerallowe to have matters distracted into so many questions, and to beentangled with so many doubtes, which otherwise being more plaine

9 Namely Thomas Sampson.10 Humphrey’s and Sampsons’ first question. See ZL 1, 151 and 153.11 Bullinger to Horne, ZL 1, 341–344. See letter of Peter Martyr Vermigli, dated 4

Nov. 1550, Epistolæ Theologicæ, fols. 116–120.12 See ZL 1, 141–143.13 Humphrey to Bullinger, 9 Feb. 1566, ZL 1, 151–152. Laurence Humphrey, Pres-

ident of Magdalen College, Oxford. Unlike Sampson, Humphrey managed to avoiddeprivation for nonconformity.

14 Sampson to Bullinger, 16 Feb. 1566, ZL 1, 153–155.

text: bullinger, concerning thapparel of ministers 225

by them selues, might be more easily resolved: yet notwithstanding,I wyl write downe a lytle to euerye one of them, that herein also Imay satisfie you my worshipful and deare brethren, as much as lyeth inmy lacke of utteraunce, and rather dull, then quicke and sharpenedwit. And I beseeche you, that you woulde accept in good part thismy doing, as of your brother, and one that unfainedly loueth you,and to iudge therof with a quiet mynde, voyde of all affections. Formy part I utterly abhorre all contentions, and desire nothing morehumblye of almyghtie God, then that it might please him to remoue[32] all dissention and strife farre from his Church which from the firstbeginning hath marueylously hurt true godlynes, and as it were torneand rent the Churche in peeces, were it neuer so quiet and flourishing.

Whereas it is demaunded, whether lawes ought to be enioyned on Ecclesiasticallpersons for wearyng apparel, that thereby they may be knowen from the lay people?15

I aunswere, that there is ambiguitie and doubt in the worde, ought: forin case it be understoode for that whiche is necessarie, and apparteyn-yng to euerlastyng lyfe, I suppose the lawmakers themselues do not sounderstande or meane it. But yf it be sayde that it may be done forcomlynes and decencie, and for dignitie and orders sake, that it shouldbe but a ciuill obseruation, or some such lyke thing, as is that whereinthe apostle wull haue the minister or Bishop κ�σμι�ν, that is modest,or comlye, I do not see howe he offendeth, which weareth suche agarment, who is commaunded to weare it.

Whether the ceremonial attire or worshippyng of the Leuitical [33] priesthood, be tobe brought agayne into the Church?16

I aunswere, That yf a cap or a seemely garment, without superstitionbe commaunded to be worne by a minister, no wyse man wyll saye,that right Iudaisme is brought in agayne. Moreover here I repeate thesame, that I see Peter Martyr hath aunswered,17 who when he had

15 Humphrey’s and Sampson’s first question, ZL 1, 151, 153.16 Humphrey’s second question and Sampson’s fifth, ZL 1, 152, 154.17 See Vermigli’s letter to John Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester of 4 November 1550,

printed alongside the present letter of Bullinger and Gualter in the pamphlet Whetherit be mortall sinne to transgresse ciuil lawes, which be the commaundementes of ciuill magistrates(London: Richard Jugge, cum privilegio Regiæ Maiestatis, 1566), 61–80 and in anothertranslation by Anthonie Marten (ed.), Another Collection of certeine Divine matters and doctrinesof the same M[aster] D[octor] Peter Martyr (London: H. Denman et al, 1583), fols. 116–120.

226 chapter five

shewed how the sacraments of the olde lawe were quite abolished,which we ought not to bring agayne into the Churche of Christe,hauing nowe Baptisme and the Lordes Supper, in steede of them, thushe sayth. There were notwithstanding in the Leuiticall lawe certayneactions of that nature, which coulde not properly be called sacraments,for they serued to decencie, order, and some commoditie, which asagreeable to the light of nature, and also profitable for our commoditie,I suppose may both be brought in, and also retained. Who seethnot, that for maintaining peace, and for that the faythfull might thebetter lyue together, the Apostles commaunded the gentiles to absteynefrom that is strangled, and from blood. No doubt these were thingesbelonyng to the Leuiticall lawe. Furthermore, no man is ignoraunt whattithes are appointed at this day to su[34]steyne ministers. It is euidentthat Psalmes and Hymnses are now songe in holy congregations andmeetings, whiche notwithstandyng the Leuites also used. And that I letnot this passe neither, we haue holy dayes in remembraunce of Christesresurrection, and suche lyke. Shall all those be abolished, because theiare tokens and reliques of the olde lawe? You see therefore, al thinges ofthe leuitical lawe are not so abrogated, that none of them may be used.Thus farre P. Martyr.18

Whether we maye weare suche apparel, as the papistes do?19

I aunswere. We may, so long as it is not prouen that the Pope brought inthe difference of garments. Nay it is manifest, the difference of apparelis more ancient then the Pope is. Neyther do I see any cause, why wemay not go as the papistes do in apparel, whiche is not superstitious,but of pollicie, and for comlynesse sake. If we shoulde haue nothingcommon with them, then must we forsake all our Churches, refuse alllyuinges, not minister baptisme, not say the Apostles or Nicene creede,yea and quite caste away the Lordes prayer. Neyther do you boroweany ceremonies of them. The matter of apparel was neuer taken awayat the beginning of refor[35]mation, and is yet reteyned, not by thePopes lawe, but by the kynges commaundement, as an indifferent thingof mere pollicie.20 Yea truly, if you weare a cap or a peculiar kynde of

18 Divine Epistles, fol. 118.19 Humphrey’s third question, ZL 1, 152.20 Matthew Parker sought to issue his Advertisements of 1566 (ESTC 10026) as “royal

injunctions” although he was unsuccessful in persuading the Queen to agree to this

text: bullinger, concerning thapparel of ministers 227

apparel, as a ciuill and politike thing,21 it smelleth neyther of Iudaisme,nor Monachisme: For these wil seeme to separate them selues fromthe ciuill and common lyfe, and account a meritorious deede in thewearyng of a peculiar garment. So Eustachius Bishop of Sebastia, wasnot simply condemned for wearyng a peculiar kynde of garment: butfor that he put religion in his garment.22 The cannons of the counselof Gangren, Laodicen,23 and of the vi. councell,24 are well knowen. Ifin case any of the people be perswaded that these thynges sauour ofPapisme, Monachisme, or Iudaisme, let them be tolde the contrarie,and perfectly instructed therein. And if so be, through the importunatecrying out hereon before the people by some men, many be disquietedin their conscience, let them beware which so do, that they bring notgreater yokes on their owne neckes, and prouoke the Queenes Maiestie,and bring many faythfull ministers in suche daunger, as they can notryd them selues out of agayne.

Whether these men, which hy[36]therto haue vsed their libertie, maye nowe withsafe conscience, bring them selues and their Churche into bondage, through thecommaundement of the prince?25

I aunswere thus. I thinke thei ought to take heed, lest by odious dis-puting, exclaymyng, and stryuing for apparel, and by this importunatedealing, occasion be offered to the princes Maiestie, not to leaue thematter any longer in their choise, who haue hitherto used this liber-tie, and that she being incensed with necessarie clamours, commaunde

explicit invocation of the royal prerogative in determining such matters. Elizabeth sawepiscopal privilege as a bulwark of the Royal Supremacy.

21 Cp. Letters of Thomas Cranmer, 428.22 Eustathius of Sebaste, d. 377, was one of the founders of monasticism in Asia

Minor. He studied under Arius, and was condemned along with his followers at thesynod of Gangra for extravagant asceticism. The garment in question was the philoso-pher’s mantle, worn to show contempt for all luxury. The canon does not reject distinc-tive dress, but blames proud and superstitious over-estimation of its worth. Sozomen,Ecclesiasticæ historiæ autores Eusebij Pamphili Cæsariæ Palæstinæ episcopi historiæ Ecclesiastic[a]elib. x Vuolfgango Musculo interprete … Hermij Sozomeni Salaminij Musculo interprete lib. ii eodeminterprete (Basle: Froben, 1549), 3.14.36. See CICan, Gratian’s Decretum, I. Dist. xxx, c. 15.

23 The Council of Laodicea, probably held sometime after the General Council ofConstantinople in 381. Theodoret, “In Coloss.” 2.18, PL LXXXII, 619.

24 The third General Council of Constantinople, held in 680–681. The main con-cern of this council was the condemnation of “monotheletism.”

25 Humphrey’s fifth question; compare Sampson’s second. ZL 1, 152–153.

228 chapter five

them eyther to weare that apparel, or to geue ouer their charges.26

Truly it seemeth very straunge unto me (be it spoken, my worshipfuland deare brethren, without your offence) that you so perswade yourselues, that you can by no meanes with a safe conscience submit yourselues and your congregations to the bondage of apparel, and do notrather way with your selues, if ye refuse to weare a thing meere poli-tike and indifferent, and odiously contende alwayes, unto what manerof bondage you submit your selues and your Churches to Wolues, orat the lest wise to unfit teachers, who [37] are not so able to edifie thepeople, as ye your selues are. Do you set your churches at libertie, whenyou minister occasion to oppresse them with more and with greaterburthens? You knowe wel inough after what a great many seeke, howthey are affected towards the preaching of the Gospell, and what theywoulde proue, if they succeede you, and what we may hope for at theirhandes.

Whether the apparel of the Cleargie, be a thing indifferent?27

Surely it seemth to be an indifferent thing, in so much as it is a mereciuil thing, appointed for decency, seemelines, and for order, wherinis put no religion. This muche I thought good to answer briefly untoyour questions, my learned and louing brother N. Nowe I com to ourbrother M. [’s] questions, in dissoluyng whereof, perchaunce I wyll bemore briefe.

Whether a particular kynde of apparel, differying from the lay men, were euerappointed for ministers of the Churche? And whether in these dayes, it may beappointed in reformed Churches?28

I answere that in the auncient Churche, there was a particular fash-ion of apparell for Priestes. It appeareth in the Ecclesiasticall historieof Theodoret29 and of Socrat[es Scholasticus].30 [38] No man is igno-

26 See Elizabeth’s letter to Archbishop Matthew Parker, Correspondence of MatthewParker, D.D., Archbishop of Canterbury, comprising letters written by him and to him, 1535–1575,ed. by John Bruce and Thomas Perowne, PS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1853), 223–227.

27 Humphrey’s sixth question; compare Sampson’s third question below, n. 34.28 Sampson’s first question.29 Palladii diui Euagrii discipuli Lausiaca quæ dicitur historia, et Theodoreti episcopi Cyri

[theophiles], id est, religiosa historia (Paris: Apud Martinum Iuuenem, 1555) 51.2.ca.2.7.30 Ecclesiasticæ historiæ … Theodoriti Episcopi Cyri, Ioachimo Camerario interprete libri v

(Basle: Froben, 1549), 51.6.ca.22.

text: bullinger, concerning thapparel of ministers 229

rant, which hath but lightly read ouer the monuments of the auncientfathers, but that the ministers used a cloke in their seruice. And there-fore I sayd before, that the diuersitie of garments had not his originallof the Pope. Eusebius citeth out of the auncient writers, that S. John theapostle ware on his head a leafe, or thinne plate lyke unto a Byshoppesmiter.31 And Pontius Diaconus witnesseth of S. Cyprian the martyr, thatwhen he offered his necke to the executioner, he first gaue hym his cap[birrus], and the deacon his upper garment [dalmatica], and so stoodappareled in white linnen.32 Moreouer, Chrysostom maketh mention ofwhite apparell of ministers. But it is certayne, that where the Christiansturned from their paganisme to the Gospell, in steade of gownes, theyput on clokes: for the which beyng afterwarde mocked of the infidels,Tertullian wrote a very learned booke, De pallio.33 I could bring morestuffe of this sort, yf this suffised not. In deede I had rather no apparrellwere layde upon the ministers against their will but that they used thecustome of the Apostles. But in so muche as the prince commaundeththe cap, and the surplesse, wherein (as I haue often saide) she puttethno religion, and [39] sithe the same thing hath ben used amongest theolde fathers without superstition, or offence, whyle the Churche was asyet in better estate: I would not wishe good ministers to account therforwardnesse of religion to be cheefly in these thinges, but te yeeldesomewhat unto the tyme, and not to braule contentiously in mattersindifferent, but to iudge with modestie, that these things may be, andthat we must go foreward accordyng to the tyme: for they are nearerthe Apostles simplicitie, who know of no such distinction, nor do urgeit, but yet in the meane whyle do not refuse discipline in their apparrell.

Whether the prescribying of apparrell, be agreeable with Christian libertie?34

I answer. That indifferent things may sometymes be prescribed, yea,and also constrayned to, as I may terme it, as touching the use, butnot as of necessitie, that is, that any indifferent thyng of his owne natureshoulde be forced to a mans conscience, and thereby a kynde of religion

31 Eusebius, Ecclesiasticæ historiæ, Bk. 5. 24.32 Opera D. Cæcilii Cypriani Carthaginiensis Episcopi, totius Africæ primatis ac gloriosissimi

martyris … in tres tomos nunc primum distincta … Ab eodem recens adiecta D. Cypriani Vita èscriptis ipsius collecta … (Antwerp: Johannes Stelsius, 1568).

33 Q. Septimii Florentis Tertulliani Carthaginensis, Opera omnia, non omissis accuratisB. Rhenani annotationibus (Basle: Froben, 1539).

34 Sampson’s second and third questions.

230 chapter five

charged to his conscience. The times and places of holy assemblies,are rightly accounted to be indifferent: and yet if there be no orderprescribed therein, I pray you what confusion and mis-order would rysehereby? [40]

Whether any new ceremonies may be increased, besides the expresse worde of God?35

I aunswer. That I like not with increasing of new ceremonies, and yet Iwyll not deny, but the new may be deuised, so that there be no worship-pyng of God placed in them, and that they be appoynted for order anddiscipline. Christe hymselfe celebrated the feast or ceremonie of thededication,36 and yet we reade not, that the same feaste was commaun-ded by the lawe. To be short, the greater part of those propositionsor questions touchyng matters of apparrell, doe stande on this point.Whether any lawes ought or may be made in the churche, touching apparrel? Andso the question is broughte to this general proposition, that is, Whatis lawful to be decreed concerning cermonies? Unto these questions I brieflyanswere. That I woulde haue no ceremonies brought into the Church,but such as are necessarie: yet in the meane season I confesse, thatthe lawes touchyng these ceremonies, which perchance are not neces-sarie, and sometyme unprofitable, may not by and by be condemned ofwickednesse, so that factions and schismes be stirred up in the Churche,for so muche as they are without superstition, and things of their [41]own nature meere indifferent.

Whether it be lawfull to renue the customes of the Iewes, being abrogated, and totranslate the rytes proper to idolatrous religion from them, to be vsed in reformedchurches?37

Touching this question, I answered before, when I spake of Leuiticallrites and ceremonies.38 But I wil not in any wyse haue the ceremoniesof Idolaters, not purged from their superstition and errours, translatedinto reformed Churches. And agayne on the other side, it may beasked, whether the receaued customes, after the superstition is takenaway, may be for discipline and orders sake, reteyned without sinne?39

35 Sampson’s fourth question.36 John 10: 22.37 Sampson’s fifth and sixth questions.38 See Bullinger’s response to Humphrey’s second question above, n. 16.39 This is the classic distinction found in arguments in favour of the adiaphoristic

principle.

text: bullinger, concerning thapparel of ministers 231

Whether conformity must of necessity be required in ceremonies?40

I answer. That the agreement of ceremonies in al Churches, pera-duenture is not necessary. In the meanetime, if a thing unnecessarie,whiche yet is not wycked, be commaunded, therefore we may notforsake the Church committed to our charge. There was not the likefashion in ceremonies in all the auncient Churches: and yet thosewhich used conformable cermonies, despised not [42] those which werewithout the same. I easily beleue, that wyse and politike men do urgea conformitie in ceremonies, because they thinke this wyl mainteyneconcorde, and because the Churche throughout all England is one:wherein if there be no wicked thyng mixt withall, I can not see howeyou can enuiously obiect any thing agaynst suche good orders.

Whether ceremonies ioyned with open offence, maye be retayned or no?41

I aunswere. That all offences must be auoyded, but in the meanewhyle, we must beware lest we conceale, and cloke our owne affec-tions under the colour of offences. You knowe there is one kynde ofoffence geuen, and an other kinde taken, and wylfully procured. HereI wyll not dispute, whether you without great offenc geuen, can forsakeyour Churches, for the whiche Christe dyed and that for a matter ofindifferencie.

Whether that any constitution of men, are to be tollerated in the Churche, whichalbeit they are not wicked of their owne nature, yet do helpe to edification neuer awhit?42

I answer. That yf the constitutions, which [43] the princes Maiestiewould enioyne you to be without impietie, you must rather bear withthem, then forsake your Churches. For if edifiyng the churche, becheefly to be consydered in this behalfe: surely then in leauing theChurche, we shall more destroy it, then in wearing apparrell.43 Andwhere there is no impietie, nor the conscience is not offended, thereought we not geue ouer our vocations, although there be some kyndeof seruitude therby laied upon us. And in the meane tyme, it may be aquestion, whether we may rightly comprehende the matter of apparrell

40 Sampson’s seventh question.41 Sampson’s eighth question.42 Sampson’s ninth question.43 For Bullinger the bottom line is that conformity must be preferable to schism.

232 chapter five

under the name of bondage, in respect that it serueth for comlinesseand order?

Whether the prince may prescribe any thyng touchyng ceremonies, without the wylland free consent of the Cleargie?44

I aunswere. That if the prince shoulde alwayes tarrye for the consent ofthe Cleargie: perchaunce those most wyse and godly kinges Iosaphat,Ezechias, Asa, and Iosias, with other good princes, shoulde neuer hauebrought the Leuites and Ministers of the Churche, into good order.45

Albeit I would not wishe in any wyse, that Bishops shoulde be excludedfrom con[44]sultations concerning matters of the church. Neytherwoulde I agayne haue them challenge unto themselues that power,which they usurped agaynst princes and magistrates in tyme of poperie.Lykewyse I would not haue Bishops kepe silence, and geue consent towicked statutes of princes.46

The two latter questions touche the matter more narrowly.

Whether it be more conuenient to serue in the Church after this manner, or rathertherefore to be depriued of Ecclesaisticall function?47

I answere. That if there be no superstition in suche ceremonies, norany ungodlynesse, and yet notwithstandyng they are layed on goodpastours, which had rather thei were not so layed upon them, I wyllgraunt in deede, and that franckly, that there is a burthen and abondage layed on them, but yet I will not graunt (for very good causesto) that therefore their charge and ministerie is to be forsaken, andtheir place left unto wolues (as I sayde be[45]fore) or to other unmeteministers: especially the libertie of preachyng remayneth free, and thatthere be heed taken, lest greater seruitude be thrust upon them, withsuch other thinges of this nature.Thus have I spoken those thinges which I thought meet, concerning

these propounded questions, knowyng right well that other men accor-dyng to their learning, might have discussed the matter much better,

44 Sampson’s tenth question.45 See Bullinger’s sermon on the duty of the Magistrate to exercise the “cura

religionis” in chapter one above where he frequently cites the same examples the godlykings in the Old Testament histories.

46 In this comment Bullinger recapitulates the concept of the minister’s “propheticaloffice”. See the discussion of this concept in the first chapter above.

47 Sampson’s eleventh and twelfth questions.

text: bullinger, concerning thapparel of ministers 233

and farre more eloquently. But because it was your wylles I shouldemake aunswere, I haue done what I coulde, leauyng the matter freeunto other mens iudgement and writyng. That whiche remayneth, is,that I would not haue any mans conscience urged or snared: but I putfoorth these thinges to be examined, and I warne al men, that nonein this controuersie frame hymselfe a conscience, because he wyl con-tende. And I also exhort you al in Christ Iesu our Lorde, sauiour ofhis Churche, our head and kyng, that euery one of you deepely con-sider with your selues, by which of these twayne he shall most edifieChristes congregation: whether if for order and comlynesse sake, heuse the apparrell as a thing indifferent, which hytherto hath not a litleset forewarde the unitie and profite of [46] the Church: or els whetherfor a matter of a garment, he leaue his Church to be possessed if not ofwolues, yet of verye unmeete and naughtie ministers. The Lorde Iesugraunt you grace to see, understande, and folow that which tendethto the settyng foorth of his glorie, and the Churches peace and tran-quilitie. Fare ye well in the Lorde, with al other faythfull ministers. Wewyl pray diligently unto God, that ye may thinke and do those thingeswhiche are wholesome and holy. M. Gualtherus commendeth him mostheartily unto you, and wisheth you all prosperitie, as do also the rest ofthe ministers.

From Tigure the Kalendes of May. The yere of our Lord M.D.Lxvi.Henrie Bullinger, Minister of the Church at Tigure,in Maister Gualtherus name and his owne.

appendix 1

‘VERMILIUS ABSCONDITUS’: THE ZURICH PORTRAIT*

In 1560, at the pinnacle of his distinguished and varied career as areformed theologian and biblical scholar, Peter Martyr Vermigli sat tohave his portrait painted in Zurich. The painting now hangs in theNational Portrait Gallery in London. The presence of Vermigli’s like-ness in the Gallery stands as testimony to his distinction as the firstprotestant reformer to occupy the Regius Chair of Divinity in the Uni-versity of Oxford. While the portrait is unsigned, the evidence suggestsstrongly that Hans Asper (1499–1572), the leading portrait-painter ofmid-sixteenth-century Zurich, was the artist.1 Asper’s authorship hasnot stood unchallenged. In his catalogue of the Gallery’s Tudor andJacobean portraits, Roy Strong refrains from ascribing the painting ofVermigli to Asper and characterizes the piece as of “workshop qual-ity, perhaps once part of a set of reformers.”2 More recently, however,Asper’s title to authorship has been reaffirmed by Marianne Naegeli,Urs Hobi and their collaborators in a thorough and scholarly sur-vey of Asper’s paintings. In their catalogue to an exhibit of art inZurich after the Reformation held in 1981, the iconography of theVermigli portrait proves to be decisive in establishing authorship.3 In

* I acknowledge with gratitude the research contributions made toward this paperby Kurt Jakob Rüetschi, Joseph McLelland and Frank James III. This paper was firstpublished under the title “Vermilius Absconditus? The Iconography of Peter Martyr”in Petrus Martyr Vermigli: Humanismus, Republikanismus, Reformation, ed. Emidio Campi(Geneva: Droz, 2002), 295–303.

1 In the judgement of Walter Hugelshofer “ohne jeden Zweifel ist Asper der Urhe-ber.” See Zwingliana, vol. 3 no. 1 (1930), 128. See also Hugelshofer, Die Zürcher Malerei derSpätgotik: Mitteilungen der Antiquarischen Gesellschaft in Zürich 30, Heft 5 (Zürich: Leemann,1928/29), 102.

2 Tudor and Jacobean Portraits (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1969), NPG195 (Pl. 635), 319, 320. Strong notes that the portrait of Vermigli was purchased for theNPG in 1865 from one John L. Rutley and that its previous history is unknown. A copyof the portrait hangs in the current lodgings of the Regius Professor of Divinity in TomQuad, Christ Church, Oxford.

3 Marianne Naegeli, Urs Hobi, with the collaboration of Bernhard Anderes, HansChristoph von Tavel and Katherina Vatsella, Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation: Hans

236 appendix 1

the course of his career as Stadtmaler of Zurich Asper painted as manyas thirty known portraits of leading personalities of the city. Perhapsthe most famous is his small portrait of Huldrych Zwingli, paintedshortly before the reformer’s death on the field at Kappel in 1531.4 Ithas often been observed that Asper’s portraits show a marked simi-larity of style to those of Hans Holbein the younger.5 The portrait ofVermigli resembles the others in this respect as well. Dated 1560, thepainting exhibits a remarkable iconographical resemblance to a seriesof portraits painted by Asper during the previous decade. In a letterto Rudolph Gualter dated 4 March 1550, a young Englishman namedChristopher Hales commissioned six portraits of prominent Zurichreformers: “I request you, my dear Rodolph, to procure your Apelles topaint for me the following portraits, those namely of Zuinglius, [Kon-rad] Pellican, Theodore [Bibliander], master [Heinrich] Bullinger, andyourself … And if the artist can paint a good likeness of Oecolampa-dius, I would have it in addition to the other five.”6 Hales does not men-tion Asper by name in his correspondence but refers to the artist onceas “your Apelles” and again as “your Zeuxis,” references to notableGreek painters of the 4th century BCE.7 Between September 1549 and

Asper und seine Zeit: Katalog zur Ausstellung im Helmhaus, Zürich, 9. Mai bis 28. Juni 1981(Zürich: Schweizerisches Institut für Kunstwissenschaft, 1981). The exhibition was or-ganised by the Präsidialabteilung der Stadt Zürich and the Schweizerisches Institut fürKunstwissenschaft. The portrait of Vermigli is reproduced in “Katalog” nr. 31, 68, 69.

4 This painting hangs in the Kunstmuseum, Winterthur, Inv.-Nr. 133. See “Kata-log,” Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, nr. 3, 46. For an account of Hans Asper’s careeras Stadtmaler of Zurich, see “Katalog,” 45, 46.

5 Concerning the probable influence of Holbein on Asper see Hugelshofer, DieZürcher Malerei der Spätgotik, 90. According to Lucas Wüthrick in “Die Zürcher Malereiim 16. Jahrhundert,” Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, 10: “Daß Asper Zugang zuPorträts von Holbein hatte, muß als sicher angenommen werden, denn seine Abhängig-keit von solchen ist offensichtlich.” Whether Asper actually studied the art of portrai-ture with Holbein is not known with any certainty. It is supposed that he was appren-ticed to Hans Leu the younger (1490–1531) in Zurich.

6 Hastings Robinson, editor, Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation Writtenduring the Reigns of King Henry VIII, King Edward VI, and Queen Mary: Chiefly from theArchives of Zurich (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Parker Society, 1846),184–186; cited hereafter as OL. See also Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, 13, 64 andPaul Boesch, Die Wiler Glasmaler und ihr Werk. Reihe: Neujahrsblatt/Historischer Vereindes Kantons St. Gallen; 89 (Wil: Gegenbauer, 1949), 21. Oecolampadius died on 1stDecember 1531.

7 Pliny dates Apelles of Colophon at c. 332BCE on account of his famous portraitof Alexander the Great with the thunderbolt. Ernst Pfuhl, Malerei und Zeichnung derGriechen (München: F. Bruckmann a. g., 1923), 801; see T.B.L. Webster’s entry in theOxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 79. See also OL,

‘vermilius absconditus ’: the zurich portrait 237

February 1550, while recovering in Zurich from a bout with consump-tion, Hales had been living in the household of Gualter, then Pastor ofSt. Peter’s Church.8 The elder Hales was also an ally of John Hooper,Bishop of Gloucester, who studied theology in Zurich between 1547and 1549, and who remained a close friend and associate of Bullin-ger and the Schola Tigurina. Christopher Hales’s friend Richard Hilles,an English cloth merchant in Strasbourg, arranged Hooper’s sojournat Zurich. It appears that Hilles may also have arranged the youngerHales’s stay with Gualter. Hales’s correspondence with Bullinger andGualter, preserved in the Archives at Zurich, reveals a warm friend-ship with “the most worthy ministers of your church and school.”9 Inhis correspondence with Gualter after his return to England, Halesrefers also with admiration to a pair of paintings by Asper, one ofGualter himself (now lost) and the other a remarkable 1549 portraitof Gualter’s wife and Zwingli’s daughter Regula with their daughterAnna.10 The portraits of the six reformers were executed over a periodof nine years.11 Those of two deceased subjects—viz. Oecolampadiusand Zwingli—were eventually delivered to Hales in England throughthe offices of John Burcher, while those of Bibliander, Bullinger, Gual-ter and Pellikan remained behind in Zurich.12 Apparently, there wasconcern on the part of the living subjects that there should be no occa-sion for idolatry given to the faithful in the Church of England.13 Ina letter to Bullinger dated 10th December 1550 Hales observes that

193: “your Zeuxis shall be paid at my expense.” Zeuxis of Heraclea is dated by Pliny atc. 397BCE. In his Poetics, 25 (1461b12) Aristotle refers to the paintings of Zeuxis as ideal:“It may be impossible that there should be such people as Zeuxis used to paint, but itwould be better if there were; for the type should improve on the actual.”

8 Christopher Hales’s elder brother John played a prominent role in English politicsduring the reign of Edward VI and was a friend and hunting companion of ArchbishopThomas Cranmer. See Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life (New Haven:Yale University Press, 1996), 196. OL, 195.

9 OL, 189.10 OL, 186 and 194. “Malerei,” Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, nr. 23, 62, 63. See

also Walter Hugelshofer, Die Zürcher Malerei der Spätgotik, 100ff. The painting of Regulaand Anna Zwingli-Gualter now hangs in Zentralbibliothek, Zurich, Inv.-Nr. 5.

11 The precise dating of the portraits has been subject to some revision since theexhibit of 1981. While the exhibition catalogue lists the portraits of Bullinger, Bibliander,Oecolampadius as having been painted in 1550, recent research on the inscriptionssuggests that dates later in the 1550s are more likely.

12 Burcher, cloth merchant and partner of Richard Hilles, appears to have beenHales’s agent in Zurich. See OL, 184 and 259.

13 OL, 190, 191. See also Wüthrick, “Die Zürcher Malerei im 16. Jahrhundert,” 13and Bruno Meyer, Thurgauische Beiträge zur vaterländischen Geschichte 103 (1966), 97ff.

238 appendix 1

Gualter had “retained four of [the portraits] for two reasons; first,because there is some danger lest a door shall hereafter be opened toidolatry; and next, lest it should be imputed to you [i.e. Bullinger] as afault, as though it were done by you from a desire of empty glory. Butthe case is far otherwise, for I desired to have them on this account,both for an ornament to my library, and that your effigies might bebeheld in the picture, as in a mirror, by those who by reason of distanceare prevented from beholding you in person. This is not done, excellentsir, with the view of making idols of you; they are desired for the reasonsI have mentioned, and not for the sake of honour or veneration.”In yet another letter to Gualter Hales expostulates in a tone of someimpatience on doubts expressed concerning the idolatry of portraiture:

I am greatly surprised that Burcher should persist in thinking that por-traits can nowise be painted with a safe conscience and a due regardto godliness; since there is not a single letter in the holy scriptureswhich appears really to sanction that opinion. For, if I understand aright,images were forbidden in the sacred books for no other reason, than thatthe people of god might not be drawn aside from the true worship ofone true God to the vain worship of many false gods. And if there be nodanger of this, I do not see why pictures may not be painted and pos-sessed, especially when they are not kept in any place where there can bethe least suspicion of idolatry … Who bows himself before your Charlesplaced on the top of the tower? Who is so senseless, as to worship apainting or picture deposited in the library? But it is said that times mayoccur, when there will be danger lest encouragement be given to idolatryby their means. Well then, it may in the same manner be argued, thatno image or likeness ought to be made of any thing whatever! Indeedmy worthy friend, if I thought it possible that the worship of idols couldbe re-established by such means, believe me, that if I had the pictures, Iwould tear them into a thousand pieces with my own hands.14

The portrait of Bibliander was apparently executed by Asper in secretwithout a sitting, owing to the great linguist’s firm opposition to theproduction of images.15

14 OL, 191, 192. The south tower of the Großmunster at Zürich is called Charles’sTower, named for a statue placed there which is supposed to represent Charlemagne.The original statue is now to be found in the crypt of the Großmunster.

15 OL, 193: “I entreat you, my worthy friend, that should I not be able to obtain allthe portraits, I may at least obtain the two others, namely, that of Theodore, whichyou tell me was taken without his knowledge, and as it were by stealth, also yourown; for I am well assured that you are of quite the contrary opinion [viz. concerningthe supposed idolatry of portraiture], unless you have lately very much changed it, or

‘vermilius absconditus ’: the zurich portrait 239

Sometime after the original commission Hales seems to have re-quested an additional portrait for the series, one of Peter Martyr him-self. Although resident in Oxford at the time of the original commissionof the portraits, the death of King Edward VI in 1553 compelled Ver-migli to flee England and return to the continent. By 1556 Vermiglihad been appointed to succeed Konrad Pellikan in the chair of Hebrewat Zurich. Thus, Vermigli himself had come to be numbered amongthe eminent Zurich divines, which probably accounts for the extensionof the commission to a seventh portrait.16 The best evidence of this isthe very close iconographical resemblance the National Gallery portraitbears to the others in the series commissioned by Hales. In his originalcommission, Hales had been quite specific about the iconography: eachof the reformers was to be portrayed in scholar’s attire and holding abook; each portrait was to be inscribed with a text set in the form of atetrastich.17 Vermigli’s portrait is no exception. Like the other reform-ers, he is depicted in the current academical dress of a learned divine—cap, gown and tippet. He is shown seated at half length and facing rightwith a three-quarter profile. His right hand is extended with the indexfinger pointing emphatically to a book with a crimson binding. Thebook rests on his left knee and is held upright by his left hand. His eyesare brown, hair white, and he wears a heavy moustache and a forkedbeard, the latter an especially distinctive characteristic which is faith-fully reproduced in subsequent derivative images of the reformer. Miss-ing from the picture of Vermigli, however, is Asper’s monogram “HA”which is plainly visible in the portraits of Zwingli, Regula and AnnaGualter-Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bibliander and Pellikan. It shouldalso be noted that Asper portrayed Bibliander, Bullinger, Pellikan andthe earlier of two versions of Oecolampadius with a table top in theforeground whereas this particular feature of the iconography is miss-ing in the Vermigli portrait.18

A prominent feature of the iconography of the series is a verseinscription which appears together with the subject’s name at the top

else you would never have had the portraits taken of your wife and little girl.” See“Malerei,” Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, nr. 26, 64, 65.

16 “Katalog,” Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, 69.17 OL, 185, 186.18 Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, plates 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 28; see also plates 29

and 30, portraits of Heinrich Brennwald (1551) and Alexander Peyer (1554); 62–68.Hales remarks that his commissioned portrait of Oecolampadius was taken from acopy in Bullinger’s possession. OL, CII, 194.

240 appendix 1

of each likeness. The tetrastich inscribed above Vermigli’s head in goldcapitals reads

hvnc genvit florentia, nvnc peregrinus oberratqvo stabilis fiat civis apvd svperos

illivs effigies haec, mentem scripta recondvntintegritas pietas pingier arte neqvit

“Florence brought him forth, Now he wanders as a foreigner and pil-grim/That he might forever be a citizen among those above./This ishis likeness; the writings conceal his mind;/ Integrity and piety cannotbe represented by art.” It has been suggested that the tetrastich wasmost probably composed by Gualter. The tetrastichs on the paintingsof Bibliander, Bullinger, Oecolampadius and Pellikan have been defi-nitely identified as Gualter’s.19 In the middle on the right-hand edgeof the Vermigli portrait there is another inscription “anno: dni: md:lx/aetatis lx.”20 The latter reference may shed light on the long-heldbut mistaken view that Vermigli was born in 1500.21

Walter Hugelshofer observes of the portrait that Vermigli appearsa weary, prematurely aged man and that the reformer looks “dried-up, torpid, and even distinctly petit-bourgeois”! The overall impressionof the picture is indeed disappointing. In this respect, it is somewhatironic that Hales should have referred to Asper as “Zeuxis Tigurinus.”The Vermigli of this portrait does not sparkle with vitality. Hugelshoferremarks that “the sun of Grace” does not illuminate this likeness, andconcludes that the painting must consequently be relegated to the sta-tus of a merely historical rather than genuinely artistic representa-tion of the reformer.22 This is no idealised “type” of the reformer, no“improvement on the actual,” as Aristotle put it; indeed quite the con-

19 For Gualter’s manuscript drafts of the verses see Zurich Zentralbibliothek, MS D152, 85v–86r. I am grateful to Kurt Jakob Rüetschi for this reference. See also Wüthrick,“Die Zürcher Malerei im 16. Jahrhundert,” 13.

20 In the year of our Lord 1560, 60 years old.21 Philip McNair suggests that Vermigli himself probably did not know that he was

born in 1499 rather than 1500. See McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy: An Anatomy of Apostasy(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), xvi, 53. Coincidentally Asper and Vermigli were bornin the same year. For the life of Hans Asper see Marianne Naegeli und Urs Hobi,“Katalog,” Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, 45. Emmanuel Benezit, ed., Dictionnairecritique et documentaire des peintres, sculpteurs, dessinateurs et graveurs de tous les temps et de tousles pays/par un groupe d’écrivains specialistes français et étrangers (Paris: Gründ, 1999).

22 Walter Hugelshofer, “Zum Porträt des Petrus Martyr Vermilius,” Zwingliana, vol.3, no. 1 (1930), 129.

‘vermilius absconditus ’: the zurich portrait 241

trary.23 While Hugelshofer’s analysis is, on the whole, fairly convincing,it is nonetheless worth noting how remarkably fitting the second dis-tich is to such a lacklustre image: “This is his likeness; the writingsconceal his mind;/ Integrity and piety cannot be represented by art.”Hugelshofer goes on to suggest that the book held by Vermigli is mostlikely the Bible.24 This interpretation does not fit very well, however,with the insinuation of the second distich. The verse intimates thatwhile the painted figure represents Vermigli’s effigies, that is to say hismerely external appearance, his mentem remains concealed in the writ-ings, presumably beyond the power of æsthetic representation. If weaccept the guidance of the tetrastich in the interpretation of the paint-ing, then the book which “conceals” the reformer’s mind is more likelyto be representative of his commentaries and treatises than the Bibleitself. Whatever the painter’s intention may have been, the author ofthe verse, at any rate, suggests that the most significant qualities of thereformer cannot be conveyed by the merely outward representation ofthe effigies. On this view, the true “icon” of the great theologian cannotbe found in daubs of paint, but must be sought altogether elsewhere.Hugelshofer’s interpretation proceeds from a classical æsthetic assump-tion that the external image properly ought to convey the underly-ing substantial reality of the subject. On this assumption, the markedabsence of spiritual and intellectual vitality in the likeness of Vermigliwould seem to render the painting a failure. The hermeneutic impliedby the inscription, on the other hand, nevertheless holds out the possi-bility that the painting may at some level “succeed” precisely by virtueof its failure to represent Vermigli’s widely acknowledged intellectualand spiritual qualities—integritas pietas pingier arte neqvit. Onemight describe the latter interpretation, admittedly somewhat strained,as a “negative iconography,” that is an interpretation of the portraiton the assumption of the essential hiddenness of the subject—VermiliusAbsconditus. Have the suspicions of idolatry which surrounded Hales’scommission from the outset informed the iconography of Asper’s finalportrait? Both distichs of the inscription appear to point the viewerbeyond the effigies of the reformer to a substantial but hidden realitybeyond mere images, apud superos.Asper’s portrait of Vermigli provides a pattern for numerous subse-

quent depictions of the reformer. In 1562, the year of Vermigli’s death,

23 See note 7 above.24 “Zum Porträt des Petrus Martyr Vermilius,” 128.

242 appendix 1

a silver medal was struck in Zurich to commemorate the death of thegreat reformer.25 Designed by the Zurich artist and craftsman HansUlrich Stampfer II (1534–1580), the round medal bears the image ofVermigli on the obverse with the inscription “Petrus: Martyr: Vermil-ius: Flor[entinus].”26 The image on the medal is a bust quite plainlyderived from the portrait by Asper. The head is portrayed in the iden-tical three-quarter profile facing right with the same detail of mous-tache, forked beard, academic cap and tippet. On the reverse of themedal is the first of the two distichs appearing on the portrait: hvncgenvit … apvd svperos. Underneath the distich appear the words“obiit anno dom. mdlxii. aet. 63.”27 The absence of the second dis-tich is no doubt owing to the restricted space for a legible inscriptionon the face of the medal. More importantly, however, the reduction ofthe figure with the consequent removal of both the book and Vermigli’sgesturing hand renders the second distich iconographically superflu-ous.Within less than a year after Vermigli’s death Josias Simler’s Funeral

Oration was published in Zurich by Christoph Froschauer the youn-ger.28 A woodcut portrait of the reformer is printed as a frontispieceto the folio.29 It bears the signature mark of Jos Murer (1530–1580),Glass-painter to the Council of Zurich, on the inner band of the ovalborder.30 Like Stampfer, Murer has based his design on the originalportrait, once again omitting the lower portion of the painting along

25 Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, Katalog no. 258, 208.26 For an account of the artist Stampfer and his work see Hans-Ulrich Geiger,

“Zürcher Münz- und Medaillenkunst im 16. Jahrhundert,” Zürcher Kunst nach der Ref-ormation, 27–31. See also Ulrich Thieme und Felix Becker, Allgemeines Lexikon der bilden denKuntsler von der Antike bis zum Gegenwart XXXI (Zwickau: Ullmann, 1964–1966), 460.

27 He died in the year of our Lord 1562, aged 63. Here the age is given correctly.28 Josias Simler, Oratio de vita et obitu clarissimi viri et præstantissimi theologi D. Petri Martyrys

Vermilii (Tiguri: apud Christophorum Froschouerum Iuniorum, 1563). For a modernEnglish translation of the Oratio see Joseph C. McLelland, The Life, Early Letters &Eucharistic Writings of Peter Martyr (Appleford, England: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1989).

29 For a detailed description of the frontispiece to the Oratio see “Illustrierte Bücher,”Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, Katalog nr. 188, 170. Murer’s woodcut portrait ofVermigli is also reproduced in Hans Ulrich Bächtold, editor, Schola Tigurina: Die ZürcherHohe Schule und ihre Gelehrten um 1550; Katalog zur Ausstellung vom 25. Mai bis 10. Juli 1999in der Zentralbibliothek Zürich, Institut für Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte (Zürich;Freiburg im Breisgau: Pano Verlag, 1999), 54.

30 André J. Racine, Jos Murer: ein Zürcher Dramatiker aus der zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhun-derts (Zürich: Stiftung von Schnyder von Wartensee: Kommissionsverlag Berichthaus,1973), Nr. 49, 63. Bernhard Anderes, “Glasmalerei im reformierten Zürich,” ZürcherKunst nach der Reformation, 19.

‘vermilius absconditus ’: the zurich portrait 243

with the icongraphically relevant second distich. In Murer’s adapta-tion of Asper, however, the likeness is reversed. Although still in three-quarter profile, Vermigli is now looking to the left rather than to theright. Curiously each and every letter “S” of the inscription in theoval-shaped band which surrounds the likeness is also reversed in theprint—perhaps a subtle, self-referential allusion by the sculptor to hisreversal of the original portrait? Murer certainly displayed no similarevidence of dyslexia in the carving of the letter “S” in other, similar por-traits.31 The oval perimeter of the portrait is inscribed petrus martyrvermilius florentinus anno aetatis suae lxiii.32 In the lower portionof the oval, underneath the image, there is the further inscription obiitanno dni/mdlxii. pri: die idvs nov/embris.33 Aside from the rever-sal of the image, the iconographical detail once again closely resem-bles the oil portrait. The effect of the sharp contrast between dark lineand white background in the woodcut suggests a somewhat youngerman, perhaps owing to a heightened sharpness of detail with respectto the hair and beard. Murer has somehow succeeded in conveying aspark of intensity in the reformer’s gaze wholly lacking in the oil por-trait.The Murer woodcut firmly establishes the iconographical pattern

for subsequent images. The most well-known portrait of Vermigli, pub-lished in the Icones of Theodore Beza in 1580, follows Murer closely,although the derivative is a somewhat less refined and exact image.34 Ittoo shows a three-quarter profile looking to the left. The same icono-graphical notae are present: the academical cap and tippet, full mous-tache and forked beard. The brow is pensively knit. Like Stampfer’smedal Beza’s “icon” of Vermigli shows just head and shoulders. Likethe Murer woodcut, the “icon” is presented in an oval shape thoughwithout an inscription. Surrounding the oval-shaped portrait is an elab-orate rectangular Jacobean frame with fanciful gargoyles at the fourcorners.

31 See Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, Katalog nr. 189 and 190, 170.32 Peter Martyr Vermigli, Florentine, in his 63rd year.33 He died in the year of our Lord 1562 on the day before the Ides of November (i.e.

November 12th).34 Theodore Beza, Icones, id est, Veræ imagines virorum doctrina simul et pietate illustrium:

quorum præcipu e ministerio partim bonarum literarum studia sunt restituta, partim vera religio invariis orbis Christiani regionibus, nostra patrumque memoria fuit instaurata: additis eorundem vitæ &operæ descriptionibus, quibus adiectæ sunt nonnullæ picturæ quas emblemata vocant (Geneuæ: ApudIoannem Laonium, 1580).

244 appendix 1

Yet another early portrait of Vermigli—a hand-coloured, copper-plate engraving—was shown at a recent exhibit devoted to the ScholaTigurina and held at the Zurich Central Library from May to July1999.35 The engraving is closely modelled on Murer’s woodcut anddepicts Vermigli in three-quarter profile facing left with the same fullmoustache and forked beard. The detail of the visage follows the wood-cut closely but the gown’s appearance of richness, even elegance evokesthe oil portrait directly. In the engraving, the reformer is depicted clasp-ing a quarto-size volume in both hands; this pose manages to convey adistinctly pious demeanour. As with the oil portrait, medal and wood-cuts, this likeness of Vermigli impresses the viewer with a curious air ofremoteness. The external effigies conceals much more than it reveals. Nodoubt Vermigli himself would have been pleased to refer the viewer tothe contemplation of those things that are apud superos.

35 Michael Baumann, “Petrus Martyr Vermigli: Der Kosmopolit aus Italien in Zu-rich (1556–1562),” Schola Tigurina: Die Zürcher Hohe Schule und ihre Gelehrten um 1550, 34.

appendix 2

PETER MARTYR VERMIGLI:AN EPISTLE VNTO THE RIGHT HONORABLE ANDCHRISTIAN PRINCE, THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

YOU maye peraduenture thynke it a straunge and maruellous thingmoste excellent Duke, that I am so bolde as nowe to begin to wryteunto you.1 It had ben my dewtie to haue done it rather before, whenthe tempest had almost drowned you, and we (whiche began to reioysefor the enterprised, but not fullye ended, restorynge of religyon) were inmaner ouercome with sorowe and greate heuynes.2 And paraduentureit would not haue displeased you, yf I or any suche as I shoulde hauewryten unto you. For where tentation dothe abounde, there a frendlyeand Christian confortynge beynge used goeth not without his effecte.But I [Aii vº] and other of my profession, in that perillous tyme werelytle lesse troubled than you. Yea, I dare say for you, that you youreselfe were of better cheare in the myddes of the water, than we thatstode upon the shore and behelde your wreck. Wherefore I thought itmetest to spede that tyme in wepynge and in prayers, for to obteyne,both preseruation for you which haue done so muche good in religyon,and also a sure staye for the churche, for as much as it was alredyshaken.3

1 An epistle vnto the right honorable and christian prince, the Duke of Somerset written vnto himin Latin, awhile after hys deliueraunce out of trouble, by the famous clearke Doctour Peter Martyr, andtranslated into Englyshe by Thomas Norton (Londo[n]: [N. Hill] for Gualter Lynne, 1550). OnVermigli’s warm rapport with Somerset, see M.L. Bush, The government policy of ProtectorSomerset (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1975), 109–112. Calvin also wroteAn epistle both of godly consolacion and also of aduertisement … to … prince Edwarde, duke ofSomerset … & tr. by the same duke himselfe (London: Edward Whitchurche, 1550).

2 The “tempest” referred to is the series of uprisings in 1549 which eventuallyresulted in the toppling of Protector Somerset from power. Somerset resigned fromoffice and was incarcerated in the Tower on 13 October 1549. On 14 January 1550 hisdeposition as Lord Protector was confirmed by Act of Parliament. See chapter 3 above.

3 As Lord Protector Somerset pursued a cautious programme of religious reform,and succeeded in transforming the Henrician Church of England into one that canbe accurately described as protestant or reformed. While Cranmer provided religiousleadership, Somerset determined the pace of reform. During Somerset’s protectoratethe vernacular became the language of religious services in the first Book of Common

246 appendix 2

And now that you maye haue a testimonye of the ioye, whicheI haue conceaued by your delyuerance, and of my sorowe past, Ithought it best not to let go this occasion, but by this my epistle,suche as it is, with such reuerence as is mete, with suche modestie asbecommeth, bothe reioyse of your happye lucke, and [Aiii rº] comforteyou touchynge those thynges which haue of late dayes happened untoyou, not withoute the ordinance of almyghtye God. For them that haueben once versed with greuous myseries, the remnantes of myschieffesare wont often to greue, and make them not a lytle sorye that they weredryuen to suffre that, which they were as lytle worthye of, as they lytlethought that any such thing should chaunce.4

As for that whiche I haue taken upon me, yf I performed it not sowell as my wyll is, yet I praye you to take it in good parte, and at theleast yet gentlye to accept this token of my harte towarde you. It isset forthe in the historye of the holy gospel, that the disciples were ina ship Christ beyng absente, there rose a mightye storme, the wyndewas so sore agaynste them, and the waues dyd [Aiii vº] so well thatthey had no hope of sauynge their lyues.5 Then Christ, whiche alwayesat suche tyme bestirreth hym selfe to helpe us, when we are in manerbrought euen to despeire, aboute the latter ende of the nyght cameunto them. When they sawe him go upon the water, they were themore afrayde, because they thought that he was a spirite or fantasticallthynge. But when he bade them be of good cheare, Peter (which dydalwaies beare a burnynge loue towarde Christe) as soone as he heardehim thus speake, sayed, Mayster, yf it be thou, byd me to come untothe[e] upon the water. He thoughte hymselfe, yf he were once in hys

Prayer (1549). The reformed liturgy incorporated a reformed theology that moved Eng-land closer to the doctrine and practices of the continental reformed churches. Afterthe accession of Edward VI in 1547 Parliament repealed the conservative HenricianAct of Six Articles, and in January 1549 passed the First Edwardine Act of Uniformitythat sought to maintain religious unity throughout the realm principally by means ofthe new English prayer book. Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Boy King: Edward VI and theprotestant reformation, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001), originally publishedas Tudor Church Militant (London: Allen Lane, 1999).

4 Somerset was released in February 1550 and his lands restored after his fall frompower in the wake of the 1549 rebellions. He was received by the King and readmittedto the Privy Council in April. His rehabilitation was to be temporary. He was latertried and convicted of conspiracy in December 1551 and beheaded on 22 January 1552.William Seymour, Ordeal by ambition: an English family in the shadow of the Tudors (London:Sidgwick and Jackson, 1972). Barrett L. Beer, “Edward Seymour,” Oxford Dictionary ofNational Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

5 See Matt 14: 22–33 and Mark 6:45–52.

vermigli: epistle to the duke of somerset 247

maysters companie, saffer from the storme, than yf he had kepte hymselfe styll within the defence of the shyppe.When he had obteyned Jesus commaundemente [Aiv rº] he made

haste towarde hym upon the water, and as longe as he loked uponChriste, and cleaued unto his worde by faythe, he did wel ynough.But when he loked but a lytle asyde from Christ, and consyderedthe boysteousnes of the wynde and raginge of the waues, his faythewauered and he began to synke. Then, the so great daunger dyd thusmuche profyt hym, that he loked up agayne to Christ, and cryed out:Helpe me, O Lorde, els I peryshe. Christ gaue him his hande, wherebyhe plainly taught that the daunger that he was in, came not of therage, other of wynde or waues, but by the weaknes of hys faythe. For,sayde he, why dyddest thou stumble by reason of thy weake and feblefaythe. Whyle I consyder this noble historie, good Lorde, I do gatherand perceaue many thynges in it that do fytlye [Aiv vº] agree with yourchaunce.For all men do knowe, that to rule a commune weale is as it were

to sayle ouer a depe sea, which is alwayes tossed with tempestes, andalwayes swelleth with myghtie stormes of wynde. Herein were you,and whan there was almoste no hope of your preseruation, Christewas with you, and suffred you not to peryshe, seynge that you haueso aduaunced his relygion, which others estemed not to be true, but aspirite, a fantasye, a thyng made to deceaue, and neuer thoughte thatyour confydence in the gospel of Christ would do you any good.6 But ithath so helped you that you haue troden under your fete the ragyngewaues and mightie storme. And, sethe we are men, it was possyble, thatyour faythe, (althoughe by the helpe of God it be feruent,) myght wauer.Therefore, when [Av rº] you consydered your selfe to be almoste

drowned, I dowbte not that you cryed out: Oh lorde, yf I haue beleuedno lies, yf thy gospel be true which I haue promoted, yf thy wordehathe not begyled me, saue me this houre that I peryshe in. Whereforehe to delyuer hys truthe of wholsome and sure faythe from the despite

6 In December 1549 religious conservatives led by Thomas Wriothesley, earl ofSouthampton, attempted to exploit the charges levelled against Somerset at his fallfrom power in October in order to bring about his execution and with the intentionof taking control of government. After his rehabilitation in early 1550 Somerset leda delegation of members of the Council in an unsuccessful attempt to secure theconformity of Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, who was then imprisoned inthe Tower for his leading role in opposition to the Edwardine religious reforms. Beer,“Edward Seymour,” ODNB.

248 appendix 2

of scorners, by and by he gaue you his ryghte hande to helpe you,and set you in safetye, so that I doubt not, it hathe bene bothe a greatpleasure to all godlye men, and shalbe greatly proffitable unto you.For thus you do perceaue, not onely by faithe, but also by experience,how sure a staye it is to leane unto true godlynes. And nowe you haueno nede of any other man to preache unto you that whiche we redewryten to the Romanes: Who shall plucke us from the loue that God[Av vº] beareth towarde us? shal trouble? shal sorow? shal persecution?shal hunger? shall nakednes? shall danger? shal the swerde? No. Yea headdeth further, we ouercome in al these thinges throughe him whichloueth us.7

Surelye (moste noble Duke) greuous thinges in dede haue happenedunto you.8 All thinges in maner were stirred up agaynste you alone. Butwho ouercame them in you but Christe? who hath calmed so great astorme raysed up against you but Christ? The wicked styll loke for youto haue no other chaunce but extremite. But who dyd wrastle for youagainst present death, and destruction hangynge ouer your head butChriste? Beware, yf you be wise, that you thinke no otherwyse. As foral us that do embrase godlynes, we do confesse with one mouth withone accorde, that Christ hath taken your [Avi rº] parte: And I doubtenot that you your selfe haue boldlye sayd with Paule: If God be on ourside, who is against us.9 This sure comforte godlye men haue alwayes athande in aduersitye. We are Goddes, we do belonge unto Christ. Godhath taken upon him our defence. They say that they be mightye whichfight against us, but what? are they stronger than God? We know andstedfastlye beleue that God is almightie, who shal ouercome hym that isalmyghtye. O wholsome comforte? O sure toure of christian faithe? Ofaith buylded not upon sande but upon a most stronge rocke?Pompei in his desperate state coulde not so comforte hym selfe,

nor Cicero in his banishement, on the laste houre of hys miserabledestruction coulde strengthen hys courage being weakened on euery

7 Romans 8:35–39. Many of the scriptural references in this letter are to Paul’sEpistle to the Romans. Vermigli later published a full-length commentary on the epistlebased on lectures given at Oxford and at Strasbourg after his hasty departure fromEngland in 1553 following the death of Edward VI. See In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli adRomanos … Commentarii (Basle: P. Perna, 1558).

8 Between the time of his deposition in October 1549 and his rehabilitation inApril 1550, Somerset was imprisoned in the Tower of London and deprived of hislands and property. Vermigli is writing after the rehabilitation, and the publication ofthe epistle itself is a mark of this improvement of Somerset’s fortune.

9 Romans 8:31.

vermigli: epistle to the duke of somerset 249

syde, with anye such comforte.10 I coulde reherse Brutus, Cato, and[Avi vº] many other noble men after the iudgement of the world, whichwhyle they wer in state other prosperous or tolerable, semed bothewyse and valiant men, but when they sawe themselues brought to theextremite that there was no remedy or helpe, we rede that they othercryed out, Oh neuer was I wyse, or blamed bothe God and men, andknowyng not what to do, now layed the faulte upon destenie, now uponfortune, now upon falshed of men.11 Sometimes desperatlie thei wouldaccuse and lay the faulte upon their own blinde councelles. And manytymes, whiche they had in redynes, they would comforte themselueswithe abhominable and mischeuous remedye to kyll themselues. Butwe, yf we purely agree unto the gospel do undoubtedlye beleue, thatGod our father and Christe is almyghtye. Hym we haue put in truste[Avii rº] to defende oure cause.Therefore so we do reason with our selues, when we are in any

great daunger. They that come againste us, must prepare them selues tofighte not against men, but against God whom he that striueth against,hurteth not him, but maketh him selfe onely miserable. Therefore Godsayd from heauen to Saul that most earnest persecutour of Christians, itis harde for thee to kicke agaynst the prick.12 For the prick is not hurtethereby, but it woundeth the heles that do strike at it. Wherefore wemust not despeire, we must not disquiet our self with to much care.We must not go to it with crying, with weping, with stirring up oftroublesome sedicions, we rest under the shadowe of goddes winges,Christe shall care for us. We are couered with the shelde of Gods mercy.Nothing can happen [Avii vº] unto us, but it maketh for our profyt andthe glorye of God.Herby am I perswaded to beleue that you dyd comfort your selfe in

the middes of your troble, which I know that flesh is wont to wrastleagainst, and bringeth forth these reasons. These comfortes in dedethat you speake of ar[e] somwhat worth. But tell me not that in thesegreuous troubles Christian men do suffre nothinge. I perceaue, I se[e]by experience that they take not awaye our sorowe, our vexations,

10 See Plutarch’s “Life of Pompey,” The lives of the noble Grecians and Romanes comparedtogether by that graue learned philosopher and historiographer, Plutarke of Chæronea; translated byThomas North. (London: Thomas Vautroullier and Iohn VVight, 1579), 678–710. OnCicero’s banishment see M. Tullius Cicero, Epistolæ familiares (Venice, 1548), epist. X, adAtticum, 3.4; XI ad familiares, 14.4; XII ad Atticum, 3.12.

11 See, e.g., the “Life of Cato the Younger” in Plutarch, Lives, 372–394.12 Acts 9:5; 26:14.

250 appendix 2

wherwith we are almoste oppressed are no lesse greuous, our paineswherwith we are sore punished are nothinge eased by these comfortes.While they are spoken in dede they encourage oure hearte, but thatdoth profyt nothing, but to fall agayne, and is more hurt by the newefall that if it had been in one state still. For when a man hath taken agood hert unto him, if deliuerance [Aviii rº] do not straight way folow, agreater heape of mischiefes withoute remedy assaileth afreshe, yea andthat so hard, that it whorleth downe with more hedlonge destructionthan before. So is the flesh wont to trouble the refreshinges by thegospell and to barke agaynste the heauenlye comfort. But leaste thepower of the fleshe make us lese so greate fruite, we muste considerthe plentuous and full light of Christian doctrine, least while we beto[o] earnestlie moued with those thinges which the flesh putteth in ourhead, we take the lesse hede to thos thinges which we ought to loue.What can happen more happie to a christian man than bothe to beand be accepted the scholer of Christe? what more luckie thing canhe desyre, than to reigne for euer with hys maister? what more to beewished for, than to obteine euerlasting life with great glory. But thesethinges [Aviii vº] are not attayned but by the crosse.13

The sons of Zebede moued by a certayne gredines of honour, settheyr mother to require that they shuld sit next to Christ in his king-dome as head and chiefe.14 To whome he answerd. Can ye drinke ofthe cup which I shall drynke? Can ye be washed with the baptismewherwith I shalbe washed? By which wordes he plainlye declared thatall they that wil reigne foreuer, must drinke up the cuppe of aduersi-tie. And as many as are trewe suters for the heuenly kingdome mustbe washed with the baptisme of persecution. Finnallye without circum-stances our maister whome we professe Jesus Christe hathe taughte thatnone shall bee his disciple, whiche will not willingly take upon him hiscrosse, whereupon let him see that he nayle bothe himselfe, hys flesh,and the lustes therof.15 For the [Bi rº] which cause also saincte Paule

13 Somerset contributed a dedicatory epistle to Miles Coverdale’s translation of OttoWerdmüller’s Kleintot, von Trost und Hilf, published in 1550 by Walter Lynne, the printerof Vermigli’s letter. See A spyrytuall and moost precyouse pearle. Teachyng all men to loue andimbrace the crosse, as a mooste swete and necessary thyng, vnto the sowle, and what comfort is to betaken thereof, and also where and howe, both consolacyon and ayde in all maner of afflyccyons is to besoughte, and agayne, howe all men should behaue them selues therein, accordynge to the word of God.Sett forth by the moste honorable lorde, the duke hys grace of Somerset, as appeareth by hys epystle setbefore the same (London: [by S. Mierdman] for Gwalter Lynne, 1550).

14 Matt. 20:20–22.15 Mark 8:34–35.

vermigli: epistle to the duke of somerset 251

writinge to the Romaines dothe diligently instruct the congregation,sayinge: if we suffre with him, we shalbe glorified with him, and headdeth a comfort sayinge that he doth not esteme the troubles of thysworlde to be lyke the glorye whych shalbe declared in us.16 And to Tim-othe he saieth that he bringeth a sure and approued sayinge, that ifwe die together with Christ, we shall liue together with him, and if wesuffre together with him we shal reigne with him.17 And unto the sameman in the first epistle he sayth that all they that entende to liue godlyein Christ Jesu muste suffre persecution.18 And it is no otherwise mete.For it is no reason that we shoulde entre into the inheritance and king-dom an other way, than Christe him selfe entred into it. He obteinedthe kingdome [Bi vº] by obedience, glorye by shame, freedome fromdeathe by crosse and deathe.Further it is mete that the meanes and the ende should haue a

convenient likelhode. Seing therfore we be called therunto of Godour father (which we must consyder with ourselues now and then) tobe changed into the image and likenes of his sonne our Lord JesuChrist, that euen so as he triumphing after he had ouercome deth,and other temptations of this life, entred into euerlastynge life, so itmay at length be in us whiche are accompted his membres, as wese[e] hathe been done alredye in our head. Therefore it is mete thatthey which entend to obteine the same kind of reward, shoulde practisethe same kind of maisteries and labours. The which thing the Apostleof Christ gaue us warninge of when he sayde. Those whome he [Biirº] hathe foreknowen, he hath appointed before to be lyke to theimage of his sonne.19 Whereby it appereth how excellent the state ofthe chosen is. These thinges did God of his owne free will gyue usbefore we were, when we loked for no suche thinges: he gaue us greaterthinges than we durste aske, and more than we would haue hopedfor. Sainct Paul addeth farther and sayth. Whome he hath appointedbefore, them he hathe called, whom he hath called, them he hathemade ryghteous, whome he hathe made ryghteous, them he hath alsomade glorious.20 These so many and so great gyftes our most gentlefather hath appoynted and geuen us, not that we shoulde geue place to

16 Romans 8:17, 18.17 2Tim. 2: 8–13.18 1Tim. 1: 16–18.19 Romans 8:29.20 Romans 8:28–30.

252 appendix 2

the forwarde counselles of our fleshe, which other refuseth the crosse,or wyll not suffre itselfe but softlye and pleasauntlye to be [Bii vº]nayled unto it. And howe fonde a thyng is it to turne the crosse to acouche, and the sorowfull gallowes into a softe fetherbed. Such thinges,I saye, were not geuen us, that we shoulde be afrayed by aduersitie,mysfortuen, or myserie, and leaue the steppes of Christe, to folowe oursenses or the iudgement of reason. But when we haue consydered thatall these thynges are geuen us so lyberally of the bountefulnes of God,aboue the defect, aboue the worthynes, aboue the strenth of our naturethat we be nat unmyndfull, unthankfull, folyshe, as they are, whichby folowyng the fleshe and commodities therof, to auoyde aduersities,and sorowes, that are but shorte and continue for a tyme, do cruellyerobbe them selues of eternall life, and do wickedly forsake the wayesof godlines. Euen as Job answered [Biii rº] his wife, when (in stede ofthe comfort whiche she should haue geuen her afflicted husband) shecaste hys pure godlines in his teth: euen so oughte we to answere ourefleshe when it beginneth to be so bold as to rayle and bable againstthe heauenlye comfortes. Why (sayeth Job) haste thou spoken as oneof the folysh women? Seing we haue receued good thinges of the lord,why shuld we not receaue the euel also?21 O maruailous and incrediblestedfastnes of the man of God. Howe circumspectely, how wiselie, howegodly, he answered here?Ther can nothing be immagyned more folysh than the flesh, spe-

ciallye when it bableth against the word of god. It seeth nothing, itregardeth thinges present onlye, it neuer understandeth that whiche theApostle preached. We reioyce in trouble, knowing that trouble engen-dreth [Biii vº] sufferaunce, sufferaunce engendreth profe, profe engen-dreth hope.22 So the spirite of God poureth oute it selfe, that out ofthe stormes of miseries he may bring fourth strength whereby we maybe able to abide them: and out of this sufferance he bringeth fourththe tryed knowledge of our selues. Wherby we easelye perceaue, howefraile we are of our selues, and howe strong we are by the helpe ofChriste. By the which knowledge when we have so proued what is oursand what is Gods, we conceaue in our mind a great boldnes of thehelp of god. For we doubt not that god which hath once layed his handunder us when we were redie to fall, wyll do the same when otherlike or harder danguer shall assayle us. For by the benfites whiche we

21 Job 2:9–10.22 Romans 5:3, 4.

vermigli: epistle to the duke of somerset 253

receaue, the loue of god towarde us is so farre from being unknowen,that [Biiii rº] it poureth itself into every corner of our hartes. Where-fore there is no longer anye excuse lefte for us to doubt therof, wherbyin us also is stirred up a loue toward god, to set more by him, hiswill and commaundementes than all our own commodities, profites,desires, and purposes. Behold these be the greuous dammages, thesebe the losses, these be the hinderances, these be the euels that godlymen gather of aduersite. Surely seing so plentifull fruites, and largeprofites come to the chosen therby, the wise forseing gentlenes of ouralmighty father did not il[l] prouide for us, which hath opened us theway to heauen through crosse and troubles. For we are led unto thisby the degrees aforesayd, chiefly to truste to our creatour, and all ouraffections moste feruently to leaue upon him alone. Therefore unles we[Biiii vº] [be] to[o] folysh as sone as we haue escaped afflictions andtrouble, we muste geue oure heartie thankes to the mercy of god. For inthem the power of God dothe appere more than in any other thyng.This one thinge in dede doth often greue the chosen of God in

afflictions, that they see the ungodly and them that haue utterly putteaway al care of godlynes, to liue in quiet, to possess their goods,commodities and honours unto their lyues ende, whyle they are shakenwith most myghty temptacions, with sundrye and manyfold engines ofthe deuill, but they do not consyder, that the deuel is gentle ynougheto them that trouble him not, that whyle he semeth in manner toflatter his, leaste they should forsake him, by this trayne he maye entysemany moe unto him. A snake hurteth no man that toucheth him not,but yf thou [Bv rº] presse him neuer so lytle, strayghtwaye he risethup against the[e] with fearfull hyssinge and armed wyth poyson. Ascorpion semeth very gentle, and as thoughe he woulde embrase aman, but touche him neuer so lytle, and he wil turne the daungeroussting in his tayle againste the[e].You (right excellent lord) haue sore hurte the deuell which is both a

snake and a scorpion, and ruler of the darkenes of this world, wherforewhat maruel you if he labour to destroy you? Sureli, if I might se[e]it otherwise chaunce, I would much muse and be dismaide at thecontrarye fashion of thynges. He sore suspecteth that he shall not beable to fraye the people of Christe from the gospell, unles he rageagainst you, by whome supersticion is maruelouslye broken, by whomthe lyght of godlynes hath generallie shined upon this realme. But [Bvvº] comforte your selfe and be strong. His power hath an ende, hecannot passe his bo[u]ndes. But beware of this one thing that you

254 appendix 2

nether consyder nor remembre to[o] ofte, your old state, wherin youwere before your fall. For as ofte as any suche thought commeth inyour minde, the flesh complayneth againe that much goodes is takenaway, without which it iudgeth escaping with life not to be swete, andmurmureth that it were better to haue died at once, than to hauerecouered a life so broughte out of fashion. But we must not suffreour minde so to be moued with them, but that it may put away themist when it wil and se[e] that with taking awaye of great authorities,heapes of honours, and chief orderinge of matters, great cares are alsocut away. You may not learne of me how busy and how painfull athing it is to rule a com- [Bvi rº] mune weale with counsel and goodprouision. For that your self haue ben sufficiently taughte by experienceto knowe. Now at length (as I thinke) you may haue more leasure tostudy godlines and knowledge of thinges belonging to god.23 WherforeI wold haue you thus to thinke, that you muste nedes haue raunsomedthis quietness and peasable life, with some losse of those goods, which (Idare say for you) you neuer greatlye passed for, although the communepeople do singularly esteme and specially regarde them. Paul dothvery wholesomly instruct us concerning this matter wrytinge unto theRomanes. Raunsoming the time bycause the dayes are euill.24 Thesewordes are few and shortly spoken, and that they may be fully andperfectly understanded, they must thus be expounded. In the natureof the dayes [Bvi vº] yf they be consydred alone and by them selues,there is no euell, seynge they runne deuyded with a pleasant diuersyte,and carrye and recarrye into the worlde darknes and lyght, the one tofollowe the other in most goodlie order. But the Apostle called themeuell, by cause that in their tyme ii. [i.e. ‘two’] greate euells chaunceunto men, I meane miserye and synne.Howe myserable a lyfe we lyue in this worlde, thys playnlye prou-

eth, that no parte therof is withoute mysery. When are we not othertroubled or tempted with the nedes of nature? In what parte of ourage is not oure lyfe layed in wayte for, other of dyseases, of outwardechaunces, or noughtye men for to destroye us? How innumerable are

23 The fallen Protector also involved himself in good works on behalf of foreignProtestants. In June of 1550 during his period of rehabilitation after his fall frompower, Somerset obtained the property of the former abbey of Glastonbury through anexchange of lands with the king. Here he enabled some Flemish protestant refugees toestablish a community for the manufacture of cloth. Somerset’s eventual imprisonmentin October 1551 ended his involvement in the scheme.

24 Ephes. 5:16.

vermigli: epistle to the duke of somerset 255

the dangers which do besege us on euery side? Graunt that al thingesbe now and than quiet, who is out of the [Bvii rº] danger of falsebrethren? Fynallye, who is he that professeth Christe, and is not greued,troubled, and miserablie uexed in his mynde other with his ownesynnes or other mens? All these thynges withoute doubte do heape upthe myserie of our dayes. Sin also groweth, encreaseth and goeth for-warde more and more the longer that we lyue, unles it be resysted, withgreat hede and diligence. For our nature is so infected and corruptedwith oure naturall dysease which they call original synne that we car-rye aboute us euen within our selues the begynninge and fountanie ofal synnes, whiche yf a man do diligently marke he shall perceaue thatthe Apostle hath truly writen that goodnes dwelleth not in oure fleshe.25

Out of this natural corruption procede alwayes frowarde ententes, vio-lente fumes, and appetites in [Bvii vº] manner unable to be vanquished,that striue against the law of god, whiche (alas) oftentimes (suche is oureweakenes) oure will (whiche should stoutely kepe them under) unhap-pely obeyeth unto. Yea (and the more pitie is) it is so established inthem by custome and use, that euery day it waxeth harder to healethan other.Therefore seinge our dayes are so euil, both by reason of miserye

and also of sinne, by abundaunte wealth, great authority, hie honor,men become neuer the better, but waxe the prouder therby. He thatruleth a commune weale though he haue hie dignitie, yet oftentimeslacketh he good health. For of continual cares and troubles of the mindebrede euyll humors in the bodye, wheruon cometh plenty of diseases.As for outwarde perilles and chaunces that come by hap runne mostabrod there wher they find metest [Bviii rº] and largest rome. Wher(I pray you) do the blastes of enuy, the waues of wrath, the heat ofhatred and enimitie more cruelly rage than there. Manye times riseup vaine perilles, and destruction prepareth itself an easy way to crepein, by our familiars, euen those whom we we take to be our moste

25 Romans 7: 14–25 “19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which Iwould not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it,but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil ispresent with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I seeanother law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me intocaptivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! whoshall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ ourLord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the lawof sin.”

256 appendix 2

faithfull and secret frendes.26 I speake nothing how greuously the mindeis tourmented, when wise rulers do perceaue that oftentimes in thegouernance of the commune weale, those faultes which they or otherdo comit, can not be redressed by theyr power and authorite. Is thernot also a great numbre of miseryes heaped up to encrease all thesethynges whiche they must nedes suffre that rule in the commune weale?And although all men lyue myserable dayes, yet they most miserable ofall whome the people thynketh happye.27 [Bviii vº]But nowe let us loke asyde to the wretched pestilence of vices,

whether you recken those which be natural unto us, or passions thatviolentlye burste out, or euell workes which are purposed and agreedunto, or noughtye customes and auncient uses, and we shal sone per-ceaue, that men that be aduaunced to honorable estate, haue lesseleysure to fyght against them than priuat men haue. For whyle all thesenses of the mynde are occupyed aboute commune and other mensaffaires, O Lorde, what darknes? how great a mist, kepeth them fromseyng their owne? In no state we knowe oure selues worse than inthat, and all our laboure tendeth to this ende, rather to make othersbetter, than to fashion oure owne affections, workes and customes ofour mindes accordynge to the law of God and heauenly doctryne.Therefore [Ci rº] on both sydes the state of them that rule and gouernerealmes, is unhappier than theirs which liue a priuat and their ownelife. For they are loaden with the heauier burden of miseries, andabyde greater occasions of vices, and they can least labour to ammendethem selues. Wherfore God almyghtye somtyme pityeth their case, andfyndeth meanes for them to raunsome the dayes that be so euell.But unles we geue somwhat for to receaue somwhat agayne, it is noraunsominge. For we use to call them raunsomed, which being bondeto some necessite paye somwhat els to obteyne their lyberte. There toauoyde euels we must be contente to suffre some losse. Wyse and thriftiemen do prouyde to put away the lesse good for to obteyne the greater,and take upon them the lesser euell for to auoyde the greater. Thisdoeth the worde raunsome [Ci vº] signifye in our commune speache.Thus cometh it to passe, that that is rather to be reioysed at, which

26 Somerset’s brother Thomas Seymour thought that as uncle to the king thathe should have a more significant role in government and demanded promotion asthe king’s governor. When Somerset refused Thomas pursued reckless schemes toundermine his brother that led to his arrest in January 1549 and ultimately to hisexecution in March.

27 Henry IV, part 2, “uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.”

vermigli: epistle to the duke of somerset 257

blynde loue complayneth of in the fleshe. Therfore yf it at any tymelament the losse of the dygnite you had before, of the ordering of thecommune weale, of the gouernaunce of the realme, and other lyke, letGod be thanked whiche hathe partlye geuen you a raunsomynge ofthe euell dayes. Therfore I saye, partlye, because whyle we are in thislyfe, they shall neuer be perfectlye good, but we saye that they haueraunsomed them that for some losse haue obteyned to haue them notso euell as they were.I haye red that it is a commune prouerbe amonge the people of

Affrike. The plague standeth at thy dore to begge a pennye of the[e],geue him two to get him awaye. Surelye godly men ought to spendeawaye [Cii rº] muche ryches, speciallye suche as the ignoraunt peopledothe moste esteme, for to obteine more greater sounde and certayneriches. We are wonte to recouer oure healthe by lettynge of bloude,often times we put awaye by coarsynge certayne pushes or painfullbotches in our bodye, partlye with cuttyng, partlye with searinge, part-lye with pluckynge away parte of the membre. Why shoulde we not alsobe content to coarse the miserye of our lyfe, and more pure affection ofoure mynde with some losse. It is like to happen that they whiche donot here raunsome the euell dayes with putting awaye the commoditeesof thys lyfe, and pleasures of the bodye, at the last daye of iudgement,they shal haue them worse, and that not for a shorte tyme, but for euer.And the wretches shal abye28 their folishnes, that caused them to setmore by the [Cii vº] lesse good than the greater.This we oughte surely to beleue that God our father dothe order al

these thinges. And yf we that be euell, can geue good giftes unto ourchildren, howe muche more shal our heauenly father prouide wel forhis children?29 He taketh away somtimes earthly riches and worldlyglory, that we maye learne the frailtye therof.30 Are we so folyshe,that (although we do see harde stones broken in processe of tyme)and buildinges settled and strongly ioyned with lime, iron and led atlength to decay, yet we thinke that good fortune and prosperite of thisworld wil abide for euer? With whiche errour we being led (somtymesfarre from the treuth) do set more by these goods which brute besteshaue as wel as we, and euell menne as wel as the good, than thosewhich the lord of hys goodnes hathe appointed for [Ciii rº] hys chosen

28 i.e. “purchase”29 Luke 11:13.30 Job 1:21.

258 appendix 2

bothe in this life and in the worlde to come. And yet I do not writethis unto youre grace (most excellent Duke) as thoughe you had notthese remedies and far better then these in stoare. For I do wel knowewhat knowledge and wisdome the spirit of Christ hath geuen you,but that you shoulde take some pleasure in reding these, consideringethat throughe the selfe same spirit of Christ, concerning the selfe samethinges, all they that sauer of Christe agree in one selfe same tale, andthereby you maye be the more encouraged to use them. I wyshe youregrace in the lorde wel to fare, and offer unto you (as I am no lessebound both by your loue and benefites) my selfe and my seruice redyeat al assayes.

Yours graces most humble,Peter Martyr.

Seke peace and ensue itPsal. Xxxiii. i. Pet.iii

The feare of the lord is the beginnynge of wisedomePsalm. cxi.b. prou. ix.b. Job. xxviii.Eccle. i.c.

Imprynted at London for Gaulter Lynne, dwellynge on Somers Kaye,by Byllynges gate. In the yeare of our Lorde M.D.L. [1550]

And they be to be solde in Paules churche yarde, nexte the greatSchole, at the sygne of the sprede Egle.

Cum priuilegio ad imprimendum solum.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibliographies1

Donnelly, John Patrick, ed. with Robert M. Kingdon and Marvin W. Ander-son. A Bibliography of the Works of Peter Martyr Vermigli. Kirksville, Mo: Six-teenth Century Journal Publishers, 1990.

Büsser, Fritz, ed. Heinrich Bullinger Bibliographie. Hrsg. unter Mitwirkung des Zwing-livereins in Zürich, des Instituts für Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte; Bd. 1,Joachim Stædtke, “Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der gedruckten Werke vonHeinrich Bullinger”; and Bd. 2, Erland Herkenrath, “Beschreibendes Ver-zeichnis der Literatur über Heinrich Bullinger.” Zürich: Theologischer Ver-lag, 1972.

James, Montague Rhodes. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Libraryof Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1912.

Manuscript Sources—Vermigli

“A sermon concernynge the tyme of rebellion translated from the Latin of Pe-ter Martyr.” Corpus Christi College Cambridge, MS 102, no, 29, fols. 409–499.

“Cogitationes Petri Martyris contra seditionem.” Corpus Christi College Cam-bridge, MS 102, no. 34, fols. 530–532.

“Sermo Petri Martir manu propria scripta in seditionem Devonensium.” Cor-pus Christi College Cambridge, MS 340, no. 4, fols. 73–95.

Printed Sources—Vermigli

For a complete bibliographical listing of early editions of Vermigli’s works(both Latin and English) please refer to the Donnelly bibliography cited above.

Vermigli, Peter Martyr. The Common Places of the most famous and renowmed diuineDoctor Peter Martyr: diuided into foure principall parts: with a large addition of manietheologicall and necessarie discourses, some neuer extant before. Translated and partlie

1 My thanks to my research assistant, Jason Zuidema, doctoral student in ChurchHistory at McGill, for his thorough work on the bibliography of Peter Martyr Vermigli.

260 bibliography

gathered by Anthonie Marten. London: Henrie Denham, Thomas Chard,William Broome, and Andrew Maunsell, 1583.

———. Another Collection of certeine Divine matters and doctrines of the same M.D. PeterMartyr. An appendix to the above edition of Common Places, transl. AnthonyMarten. London: Henry Denham, 1583.

———. An epistle vnto the right honorable and christian prince, the Duke of Somerset writtenvnto him in Latin, awhile after hys deliueraunce out of trouble, by the famous clearkeDoctour Peter Martyr, and translated into Englyshe by Thomas Norton. Londo[n]:[N. Hill] for Gualter Lynne, 1550.

———. In duos libros Samuelis Prophetae qui vulgo Priores libri Regum appellanturD. Petri Martyris Vermilii Florentini, professoris diuinarum literarum in schola Tigurina,Commentarii doctissimi, cum rerum & locorum plurimorum tractatione perutili. Zurich:C. Froschauer, 1564; second edition, Froschauer, 1567.

———. In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli Ad Romanos D. Petri Martyris Vermilij Florentini,Professoris diuniaru[m] in schola Tigurini, com[m]entarij doctissimi, cum tractationeperutili rerum & locorum, qui ad eam epistolam pertinent Basle: Petrus Perna, 1558;repr. Perna 1560; second edition, 1568.

———. In librum Iudicum D. Petri Martyris Vermilij Florentini … commentarij doctissimi:cum tractatione perutili rerum & locorum. Accesserunt praetereà indices duo locupletiss.rerum scilicet & uerborum: locorum item sacrae scripturae, qui in hoc libro syncerissimèexplicantur. Zurich: Christopher Froschauer, 1561.

———. In Primum, Secundum, et Initium Tertii Libri Ethicorum Aristotelii ad Nichoma-chum. Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1563.

———. Loci communes: Ex variis ipsius aucthoris & libris in unum volumen collecti, &quatour classes distribute, ed. Robert Masson. 3 vols. London: John Kingston,1576; Basle: Petrus Perna, 1580–1582.

———. Most fruitfull [and] learned co[m]mentaries of Doctor Peter Martir Vermil Floren-tine, professor of deuinitie, in the Vniuersitye of Tygure: with a very profitable tract of thematter and places. Herein is also added [and] contained two most ample tables, aswel ofthe matter, as of the wordes: wyth an index of the places in the holy scripture. Set forth &allowed, accordyng to thorder appointed in the Quenes maiesties iniunctions. London:Iohn Day, 1564. [variant title: Commentarie vpon the booke of Iudges; an Englishtranslation of In librum Judicum commentarii doctissimi.]

———. Most learned and fruitfull commentaries of D. Peter Martir Vermilius Florentine,professor of diuinitie in the schole of Tigure, vpon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes:wherin are diligently [and] most profitably entreated all such matters and chiefe commonplaces of religion touched in the same Epistle. With a table of all the common places andexpositions vpon diuers places of the scriptures, and also an index to finde all the principallmatters conteyned in the same. Lately tra[n]slated out of Latine into Englishe,by H[enry] B[illingsley]. London: Iohn Daye, cum gratia & priuilegio RegiæMaiestatis per decennium, 1568.

———. Tractatio de sacramento Eucharistiæ [electronic resource]: habita in celeberrimavniuersitate Oxoniensi in Anglia, per D. Petrum Martyrem Vermilium Florentinum,Regium ibidem Theologiæ professorem, cum iam absoluisset interpretationem. II capi-tis prioris epistolæ D. Pauli Apostoli ad Corinthios. Ad hec. Disputatio de eode[m]Eucharistiae Sacramento, in eadem Vniuersitate habita per eundem D.P. Mar. AnnoDomini M.D.XLIX. London: [R. Wolfe] ad æneum serpentem, [1549].

bibliography 261

The Peter Martyr Library

Vol. 1. Early writings: creed, Scripture, church. 1994. M. di Gangi, Joseph C. McLel-land, and Philip McNair, translators and editors.

Vol. 2. Dialogue on the two natures in Christ. 1995. J.P. Donnelly translator andeditor.

Vol. 3. Sacred prayers drawn from the Psalms of David. 1996. J.P. Donnelly, translatorand editor.

Vol. 4. Philosophical works: on the relation of philosophy to theology. 1996. J.C. McLel-land, translator and editor.

Vol. 5. Life, letters, and sermons. 1999. J.P. Donnelly, translator and editor.Vol. 6. Commentary on Lamentations of the prophet Jeremiah. 2002. Daniel Shute,

translator and editor.Vol. 7. The Oxford Treatise and Disputation on the Eucharist. 2000. J.C. McLelland,

translator and editor.Vol. 8. Predestination and justification: two theological loci. 2003. Frank A. James, III,

translator and editor.Vol. 9. Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. 2006. Joseph C. McLelland

and Emidio Campi, editors.The Peter Martyr Reader. 1999. J.P. Donnelly, Frank A. James III, and J.C. McLel-

land, editors.All volumes in the Peter Martyr Library published—Kirksville, MO: Truman

State University Press.

Printed Sources—Bullinger

Bullinger, Heinrich. Bullæ papisticæ ante biennium contra sereniss. Angliæ, Franciæ& Hyberniæ Reginam Elizabetham, & contra inclytum Angliæ regnum promulgatæ,refutatio, orthodoxæq[ue] Reginæ, & vniuersi regni Angliæ defensio. London: JohnDay, 1571.

———. A confutation of the Popes bull which was published more then two yeres agoe againstElizabeth the most gracious Queene of England, Fraunce, and Ireland, and against thenoble realme of England: together with a defence of the sayd true Christian Queene,and of the whole realme of England. London: John Day, cum priuilegio RegiæMaiestatis per decennium, 1572.

———. De Scripturæ sanctæ authoritate, certitudine, firmitate et absoluta perfectione, de[que]episcoporum … institutione & functione, contra superstitionis tyrannidis[que] Romanæantistites … libri duo. Zurich: Christopher Froschauer, 1538.

———. Sermonum decades quinque, de potissimis Christianæ religionis capitibus, in trestomas digestae, authore Henrycho Bullingero ecclesiae Tigurinae ministro. Zurich:Christopher Froschauer, 1552.

———. Fiftie godlie and learned sermons, divided into fiue decades translated by H.I.London: R. Newberie, 1577. [STC 4056]

———. The decades of Henry Bullinger. Edited for the Parker Society [vols. 7–10] by Thomas Harding. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1849–1852.

262 bibliography

———. The judgement of the godly and learned H. Bullinger declaring it lawfull to wearethe apparell prescribed. Two parts. London: W. Seres, 1566. [STC 4063]

———. The iudgement of the Reuerend Father Master Henry Bullinger, pastor of the churchof Zurick, in certeyne matters of religion, beinge in controuersy in many countreys, euenwher as the Gopel [sic] is taught. [Emden: Printed by Egidius van der Erve],1566. [STC 4065. Translated excerpts from: Sermonum decades quinque.]

———. A treatise or sermon of Henry Bullynger: much fruitfull and necessarye for thistyme, concernynge magistrates and obedience of subiectes; Also concernyng the affayres ofwarre, and what scryptures make mension thereof; whether christen powers may waragainst their ennemies; And whither it be laufull for a christyan to beare the officeof a magistrate, and of the duety of souldiers with many other holsom instructionsfor captaynes [and] souldiers both. Made in the yeare of our lorde. [London]: [byW. Powell?] for Gwalter Lynne dwellynge vpon Somers Kaye by Byllyngesgate, 1549. [The ninth sermon of the second series of Sermonum Decades, tr.by W. Lynne]

Other Primary Sources

A briefe examination for the tyme, of a certaine declaration, lately put in print in the nameand defence of certaine ministers in London, refusyng to weare the apparell prescribed bythe lawes and orders of the realme: In the ende is reported, the iudgement of two notablelearned fathers, M. doctour Bucer, and M. doctour Martir … translated out of theoriginals, written by theyr owne handes, purposely debatyng this controuersie. London:Richarde Iugge, printer to the Queenes Maiestie, 1566.

Anglican Canons, 1529–1947, ed. Gerald Bray. Woodbridge: Boydell Press; [Read-ing]: Church of England Record Society in association with the Ecclesiasti-cal Law Society, 1998. [includes Reformatio Legum ecclesiasticarum: 1553 revisionof the Canon Law of the Church of England]

Chronicle of the Grey friars of London, ed. John Gough Nichols. London: CamdenSociety, 1852.

Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Emil Friedberg. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1879;repr. Graz, 1955, 1959.

A message sent by the kynges Majestie, to certain of his people, assembled in Devonshire.London: Richard Grafton, printer to the Kynges Maiestie, 1549.

Original letters relative to the English reformation: written during the reigns of King HenryVIII., King Edward VI., and Queen Mary: chiefly from the archives of Zurich. Trans-lated from authenticated copies of the autographs, and edited for the ParkerSociety, by the Rev. Hastings Robinson. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1846.

Synodalia: a collection of articles of religion, canons, and proceedings of convocations in theProvince of Canterbury, from the year 1547 to the year 1717, ed. Edward Cardwell.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1842.

The First and Second Prayer Books of King Edward VI. London: Dent, 1968; repr.London: Prayer Book Society, 1999.

The Fortresse of Fathers, ernestlie defending the puritie of Religion, and Ceremonies, by thetrew exposition of certaine places of Scripture: against such as wold bring in an Abuse

bibliography 263

of Idol stouff, and of thinges indifferent, and do appoinct th’authority of Princes andPrelates larger then the trueth is. Translated out of Latine into English for theresakes that understand no Latine by I.B. [Emden: Egidius van der Erve],1566.

The seconde tome of homelyes of such matters as were promised and intituled in the formerpart of homelyes, set out by the aucthoritie of the Quenes Maiestie: and to be read in eueryparyshe churche agreablye. London: Richard Jugge, 1563.

The Zurich letters (first series): comprising the correspondance of several English bishopsand others, with some of the Helvetian reformers, during the early part of the reign ofQueen Elizabeth. Transl. and ed. for the Parker Society by Hastings Robinson.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1842.

The Zurich letters (second series) comprising the correspondence of several English bishopsand others with some of the Helvetian reformers, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth.Translated from authenticated copies of the autographs, and edited forthe Parker Society by the Rev. Hastings Robinson. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1845.

Whether it be mortall sinne to transgresse civil lawes which be the commaundementes ofcivill magistrates/ the judgement of Philip Melancton in his epitome of morall philosophie[and] the resolution of D. Hen. Bullinger and D. Rod. Gualter, of D. Martin Bucerand D. Peter Martyr concerning th[e] apparrel of ministers, and other indifferent thinges.London: Richard Jugge, Printer to the Queenes Maiestie, 1566.

Anderson, Anthony. An exposition of the hymne commonly called Benedictus: with anample & comfortable application of the same, to our age and people. London: HenryMiddleton, for Raufe Newbery, 1574.

à Wood, Anthony. Historia et antiquitates universitatis Oxoniensis. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1674.

Augustine, Aurelius. The City of God against the Pagans, ed. and transl. by R.W.Dyson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Beza, Theodore. De vera excommunicatione et Christiano presbyterio. Geneva 1590.Cheke, Sir John The Hurt of Sedicion howe greueous it is to a commune welth. London:

John Day and William Seres, 1549.Cranmer, Thomas. The remains of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury. Ed.

Henry Jenkyns. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1833.———. The works of Thomas Cranmer. Ed. John Edmund Cox. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press, 1844–1846.———. The work of Thomas Cranmer. Ed. G.E. Duffield. Appleford, Berkshire:

Sutton Courtenay Press, 1964.Crowley, Robert. A briefe discourse against the outwarde apparell and Ministring Gar-

mentes of the Popishe Church. [Emden: Egidius van der Erve], 1566.Erastus, Thomas. Explicatio gravissimae quaestiones, utrum excommunicatio, mandato

nitatur divino, an excogitata sit ab hominibus. Ed. J. Castelvetro. London: J. Wolfe,1589. [STC 10511]

Frere, Walter H. and C.E. Douglas, eds. Puritan Manifestoes: A Study of the Originof the Puritan Revolt. London: SPCK, 1954.

Gorham, George C. Gleanings of a few scattered ears, during the period of the Refor-mation in England and of the times immediately succeeding, A.D. 1533 to A.D. 1588:comprehending I. Engravings of eleven seals of Cranmer, Parkhurt, and Jewel. II. Let-

264 bibliography

ters, &c. (for a great part hitherto unpublished) of [Peter] Martyr [Vermigli], BishopParkhurst, Sandys, &c. London: Bell and Daldy, 1857.

Hooker, Richard. The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker, gen.ed. W. Speed Hill. 7 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of HarvardUniversity Press, 1977–1998.

Jewel, John. Apologiae ecclesiae anglicanae. London: Thomas Vautrollier, 1581.[STC 14582]

———. An Apologie … in defence of the Church of England. London: R. Wolfe, 1562.[STC 14590]

———. A Defence of the Apologie of the Churche of Englande, an answeare to a certainebooke by M. Hardinge. London: H. Wykes, 1567. [STC 14600]

Josephus, Flavius. Antiquitatum Iudaicarum libri XX. Basel: Froben, 1548.Kingdon, Robert M., ed. The Political Thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli: Selected

Texts and Commentary. Geneva: Droz, 1980.Lavater, Ludwig. De Ritibus et Institutis Ecclesiae Tigurinae. Zurich: Christopher

Froschauer, 1559.Morison, Richard. A remedy for sedition: wherin are conteyned many thynges, concernyng

the true and loyall obeysance, that comme[n]s owe vnto their prince and soueraygne lordethe Kynge. London: Thomæ Berthelet, 1536.

Musculus, Wolfgang. Common Places of Christian Religion. Translated by J. Man,1563. London: H. Bynneman, 1578. [STC 18309]

———. Loci communes in usus theologiae candidatorum parati. Basel: House of Her-vagen, Eusebius Episcopius, 1573.

Parker, Matthew, ed. A brief examination for the tyme, of a certaine declaration, lately putin print, in the name and defence of certaine Ministers in London, refusing to weare theapparel prescribed by the lawes and orders of the Realme … London: Richard Jugge,1566. [STC 10387]

Pii Papae V sententia declaratoria contra Elizabetham praetensam angliæ regem, et eiadharentes haereticos. 1570. In John Jewel, A viewe of a seditious bul sent intoEnglande, from Pius Quintus Bishop of Rome, anno. 1569. Taken by the reuerendeFather in God, Iohn Iewel, late Bishop of Salisburie. London: R. Newberie &H. Bynneman, 1582. [STC 14614]

Pole, Reginald. De Summo Pontifice Christi in terris Vicario, eiusque officio & potes-tate, Louvain: Apud Ioannem Foulerum Anglum., 1569; facsimile reprint,Farnborough 1968.

———. Ad Henricum Octavum Britanniæ regem, pro ecclesiasticæ unitatis defensione, libriquatuor … Excussum. Romæ: Apud Antonium Bladum Asulanum, 1538;repr. in Juan T. Rocaberti, Bibliotheca maxima pontificia, Rome, 1698, XVIII.

———. Defense of the Unity of the Church, translated by Joseph G. Dwyer. Westmin-ster, MD: Newman Press, 1965.

Simler, Josiah. Oratio de vita et obitu viri optimi, praestantissimi Theologi Petri MartyrisVermilii, Sacrarum literarum in schola Tigurina Professoris. Zurich: Froschauer,1563.

Spalding, James C., ed. Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum: The Reformation of theEcclesiastical Laws of England, 1552. Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies.Vol. 19. Kirksville, Mo: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1992. (In-cludes Vermigli’s emendations to text of the Ecclesiastical Laws).

bibliography 265

Whitgift, John. The Works of John Whitgift. Edited by John Ayre. 3 vols. ParkerSociety, 46–48. Cambridge: University Press, 1851–1853.

Wriothesley, Sir Charles. A Chronicle of England during the reigns of the Tudors,from A.D. 1485 to 1559. ed. W.D. Hamilton, from a transcript made earlyin the seventeenth century for the third earl of Southampton. Westminster:Camden Society, 1875–1877.

Selected Secondary Sources

“Peter Martyr (1499–1562).” In the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rdedn. F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1997.

Alford, Stephen. Kingship and politics in the reign of Edward VI. Cambridge; NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Anderson, Marvin W. Peter Martyr, a reformer in exile (1542–1562): a chronology ofbiblical writings in England & Europe. Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1975.

———. “Peter Martyr on Romans.” Scottish Journal of Theology 26 (1973): 401–420.

———. “Peter Martyr, Reformed theologian (1542–1562), his letters to HeinrichBullinger and John Calvin.” Sixteenth Century Journal 4 (1973): 41–64.

———. “Peter Martyr Vermigli: Protestant humanist.” In Joseph C. McLelland,ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform. Waterloo, ON: Sir Wilfrid LaurierUniversity Press, 1980; 64–84.

———. “Rhetoric and Reality: Peter Martyr and the English Reformation.”Sixteenth Century Journal 19.3 (1988): 451–469.

———. “Royal Idolatry: Peter Martyr and the Reformed tradition.” Archiv fürReformationsgeschichte 69 (1978): 157–200.

———. “Vista Tigurina: Peter Martyr and European reform (1556–1562).” Har-vard Theological Review 83 (1990): 181–206.

———. “Word and Spirit in Exile (1542–1562): the Biblical Writings of PeterMartyr Vermigli.” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 21.3 (1970): 193–201.

———. “Vermigli, Peter Martyr.” In H. Hillerbrand, ed. Oxford Encyclopædia ofthe Reformation. Vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996; 229–231.

Artini, Alessia. “Un grande riformatore Italiano ed Europeo, Pietro MartireVermigli.” PhD diss. 2. vols. Universita degli studi di Firenze, 2000.

Asselt, Willem J. van and Eef Dekker. Reformation and Scholasticism: An EcumenicalEnterprise. Texts & Studies in Reformation & Post-Reformation Thought.Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

Bächtold, Hans Ulrich. Heinrich Bullinger vor dem Rat: zur Gestaltung und Verwaltungdes Zürcher Staatswesens in den Jahren 1531–1575. Bern: P. Lang, 1982.

Baker, J. Wayne. Heinrich Bullinger and the covenant: the other reformed tradition.Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1980.

———. “Erastianism in England: the Zurich Connection.” In Alfred Schindlerand Hans Stickelberger, eds. Die Zürcher Reformation: Ausstrahlungen und Rück-wirkungen. Wissenschaftliche Tagung zum hundertjährigen Bestehen desZwinglivereins 1997. Bern: New York: Peter Lang AG, 2001, 327–349.

266 bibliography

Baumann, Michael. “Humanist–Republikaner–Reformator: Petrus MartyrVermigli.” UniJournal 20.4 (1999): 20.

———. “Petrus Martyr Vermigli.” Theologika 1 (1999): 35–38.Beer, Barrett L. Rebellion and riot: popular disorder in England during the reign of

Edward VI. [Kent, Ohio]: Kent State University Press, 1982.———. “‘The Commoyson in Norfolk, 1549’: a narrative of popular rebellion

in sixteenth-century England.” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 6(1976): 80–99.

Beesley, Alan. “Unpublished source of the Book of Common Prayer: PeterMartyr Vermigli’s Adhortatio ad coenam domini mysticam.” Journal of EcclesiasticalHistory 19 (1968): 83–88.

Biel, Pamela. Doorkeepers at the house of righteousness: Heinrich Bullinger and the Zurichclergy 1535–1575. Bern; New York: P. Lang, 1991.

Blanke, Fritz Immanuel Leuschner. Heinrich Bullinger: Vater der reformierten Kirche.Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1990.

Boesch, Paul. “Julius Terentianus, Factotum des Petrus Martyr Vermilius undKorrector der Offizin Froshauer.” Zwingliana 8 (1948): 587–601.

Bouvier, André. Un père de l’Eglise réformée, Henri Bullinger: le second réformateurde Zurich (ouvrage posthume complété d’après les notes de l’auteur parAuguste Lemaitre). Genève: Diffusion, Fondation des Clefs de Saint-Pierre,1987.

Bravi, Giulio Orazio. “Uber Die Intellektuellen Wurzeln des RepublikanismusVon Petrus Martyr Vermigli.” In Emidio Campi, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli:Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation. Geneva: Droz, 2002; 119–142.

Bromiley, G.W. Zwingli and Bullinger; selected translations with introductions and notes.Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953.

Brooke, Christopher N.L. et al., eds. Church and Government in the Middle Ages.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Büsser, Fritz. “Vermigli in Zürich.” In Emidio Campi, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli:Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation. Geneva: Droz, 2002; 203–212.

———. Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575): Leben, Werk und Wirkung. Zürich: TVZ,Theologischer Verlag, 2004.

Campi, Emidio, ed. Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575): Leben, Denken, Wirkung. Interna-tionaler Bullingerkongress 2004. Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte,Bd. 24. Zurich: Theologische Verlag Zurich, 2007.

Campi, Emidio and Bruce Gordon, eds. Architect of Reformation: an introduction toHeinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004.

Campi, Emidio. Peter Martyr Vermigli: humanism, republicanism, reformation = PetrusMartyr Vermigli: Humanismus, Republikanismus, Reformation. Geneva: Droz, 2002.

———. “Streifzug Durch Vermiglis Biographie.” In Emidio Campi, ed. PeterMartyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation. Geneva: Droz, 2002;17–36.

Caraman, Phillip. The Western rising, 1549: the Prayer Book rebellion. Tiverton: WestCountry Books, 1994.

Clark, Francis. The Impact of Continental Protestantism on England. Eucharistic Sacrificeand the Reformation. Westminster: Newman Press, 1960.

Cross, Claire “Continental Students and the Protestant Reformation in Eng-

bibliography 267

land in the Sixteenth Century.” In Derek Baker, ed. Reform and Reforma-tion: England and the Continent, 1500–1750. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1979; 35–57.

———. The Royal Supremacy in the Elizabethan Church. London: Allen and Unwin,1969.

———. “No continuing city: exiles in the English Reformation, 1520–1570.”History Review 32 (1998): 17–22.

Dent, Christopher. Protestant Reformers in Elizabethan Oxford. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1983.

Denzinger, Heinrich. Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de RebusFidei et Morum. 37th edn. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1991.

Di Gangi, Mariano. Peter Martyr Vermigli, 1499–1562: Renaissance man, Reformationmaster. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1993.

———. “Peter Martyr Vermigli, 1500–1562: an Italian Calvinist.” BD diss.,Presbyterian College, Montreal, 1949.

Donnelly, John P. Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli’s doctrine of man and grace.Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976.

———. “Calvinist Thomism.” Viator 7 (1976): 441–455.———. “Italian influences on the development of Calvinist scholasticism.” Six-

teenth Century Journal 7 (1976): 81–101.———. “Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Political Ethics.” In Emidio Campi, ed. Peter

Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation. Geneva: Droz, 2002;59–66.

———. “The social and ethical thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli.” In JosephC. McLelland, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform. Waterloo, Ont.: SirWilfrid Laurier University Press, 1980; 107–120.

Duffy, Eamon. The stripping of the altars: traditional religion in England, c. 1400 –c. 1580. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2005.

Dupré, Louis. Passage to Modernity: An Essay in the Hermeneutics of Nature andCulture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

Ficker, Johannes. Handschriftenproben des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts nach StrassburgerOriginalen. 2 portfolios. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner, 1902–1905. [Facsimilesof Vermigli’s autograph MSS.]

Fletcher, Anthony and Diarmaid MacCulloch. Tudor Rebellions. Harlow: Long-mans, 2004.

Gäbler, Ulrich and Erland Herkenrath, eds. Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575: Gesam-melte Aufsätze zum 400. Todestag im Auftrag des Instituts für Schweizeriche Reforma-tionsgeschichte. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975.

Ganoczy, Alexandre. “La Bibliothèque de Pierre Martyr.” In his: La bibliothèquede l’Académie de Calvin le catalogue de 1572 et ses enseignements. Geneva: Droz,1969; 19–27.

Gardy, Frédéric. “Les Livres de Pierre Martyr Vermigli conserve à la Biblio-thèque de Genève.” Anzeiger für Schweizerische Geschichte 50 (1919): 1–6.

Garrett, C.H. The Marian Exiles: A Study in the Origins of Elizabethan Puritanism.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938.

Gerrish, Brian A. Reformatio perennis: essays on Calvin and the Reformation in honourof Ford Lewis Battles. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1981.

268 bibliography

Gordon, Bruce. The Swiss Reformation. Manchester and New York: ManchesterUniversity Press, 2002.

——— and Emidio Campi. Architect of Reformation: an introduction to Heinrich Bul-linger, 1504–1575. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004.

Hale, David George. The Body Politic: A Political Metaphor in Renaissance EnglishLiterature. The Hague: Mouton, 1971.

Hankey, Wayne J. “‘Dionysius dixit, lex divinitatis est ultima per media reduc-ere:’ Aquinas, Hierocracy and the ‘Augustinisme Politique’.” Medioevo XVIII(1992): 119–150.

———. “Augustinian Immediacy and Dionysian Mediation in John Colet, Ed-mund Spenser, Richard Hooker, and the cardinal de Bérulle,” 125–160.Augustinus in der Neuzeit, Colloque de la Herzog August Bibliothek de Wolfenbüttel,14–17 octobre, 1996, sous la direction de Kurt Flasch et Dominique de Courcelles, éd.Dominique de Courcelles. Turnhout: Editions Brepols, 1998.

Haugaard, William. Elizabeth and the English Reformation: The Struggle for a StableSettlement of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968.

Hillerbrand, Hans J., ed. Oxford Encyclopædia of the Reformation. Oxford: OUP,1996.

Hollweg, Walter. Heinrich Bullingers Hausbuch: eine Untersuchung über die Anfängeder reformierten Predigtliteratur. Neukirchen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Er-ziehunsverein, 1965.

Hudson, Winthrop S. The Cambridge Connection and the Elizabethan Settlement of1559. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1980.

Huelin, Gordon. “Peter Martyr and the English Reformation.” PhD diss. 2vols. University of London, 1955.

James, Frank A. III, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European reformations: semperreformanda. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions, vol. 115. Leiden:E.J. Brill, 2004.

James, Frank A. III. “Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562)” In Carter Lindberg,ed. The Reformation Theologians: an Introduction to Theology in the Early ModernPeriod. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002; 198–212

———. “Peter Martyr Vermigli: at the Crossroads of Late Medieval Scholas-ticism, Christian Humanism and Resurgent Augustinianism.” In Carl R.Trueman and R. Scott Clark. Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment.Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 1999; 62–78.

———. “Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562).” In Donald McKim, ed. HistoricalHandbook of Major Biblical Interpreters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,1998; 239–245.

Jenkin, Ann Trevenen. Notes on the Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549. Hayle: Noonva-res Press, 1999.

Jones, Martin D.W. The Counter Reformation: Religion and Society in Early ModernEurope. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Jones, Norman L. Faith by Statute: Parliament and the Settlement of Religion 1559.London: Swift Printers for the Royal Historical Society; Atlantic Highlands:Humanities Press, 1982.

Jones, William M. “Uses of foreigners in the Church of Edward VI.” Numen,Vol. 6, Fasc. 2. (April, 1959): 142–153.

bibliography 269

Kantorowicz, Ernst. The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology.Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957.

Keep, David J. “Bullinger’s Defence of Queen Elizabeth.” In Ulrich Gäblerund Erland Herkenrath, eds. Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575: gesammelte Aufsätzezum 400. Todestag. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975; 231–241.

———. “Bullinger’s Intervention in the Vestiarian Controversy of 1566.” TheEvangelical Quarterly 47 (1975): 223–230.

———. “Theology as a Basis for Policy in the Elizabethan Church.” In DerekBaker, ed. Studies in Church History, Vol. 11. Oxford: Blackwell, 1975; 263–268.

Kim, Jin Young. “The Exegetical Method and Message of Peter Martyr Ver-migli’s Commentary on Judges.” PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theolog-ical Seminary, 2002.

Kingdon, Robert M. “Althusius’ Use of Calvinist Sources in his Politica.”Rechtstheorie 16 (1997): 19–28.

———. “The function of law in the political thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli.”In B.A. Gerrish and Robert Benedetto, eds. Reformatio perennis: Essays onCalvin and the Reformation in Honour of Ford Lewis Battles. Pittsburgh: PickwickPr, 1981; 159–172.

———. “Introduction” to The Political Thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli: Selected Textsand Commentary. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1980.

———. “Peter Martyr Vermigli and the Marks of the True Church.” In F. For-rester Church and Timothy George, eds. Continuity and discontinuity in churchhistory: Essays presented to George Huntston Williams on the occasion on his 65th birth-day Leiden: Brill, 1979; 198–214.

———. “Peter Martyr Vermigli on Church Discipline.” In Emidio Campi,ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation. Geneva: Droz,2002.

———. “The political thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli.” In Joseph C. McLel-land, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform. Waterloo, ON: Sir WilfridLaurier University Press, 1980; 121–140.

Kirby, W.J. Torrance. “The Civil Magistrate and the ‘cura religionis’: Hein-rich Bullinger’s prophetical office and the English Reformation,” pp. 935–950. In Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575): Leben, Denken, Wirkung. InternationalerBullingerkongress 2004, ed. Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz. Zürcher Beiträgezur Reformationsgeschichte, Bd. 24. Zurich: Theologische Verlag Zurich,2007.

———. “Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575): Life–Thought–Influence.” Zwingliana32 (2005): 107–117.

———. “‘Relics of the Amorites’ or adiaphora? The authority of Peter MartyrVermigli in the Elizabethan Vestiarian Controversy of the 1560s.” Refor-mation and Renaissance Review: Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies 6.3(December, 2004): 313–326.

———. “‘The Charge of Religion Belongeth unto Princes:’ Peter Martyr Ver-migli on the Unity of Civil and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.” Archiv für Refor-mationsgeschichte 94 (2003): 161–175.

———. “Vermilius Absconditus? The Iconography of Peter Martyr Vermigli.” In

270 bibliography

Emidio Campi, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation.Geneva: Droz, 2002; 295–304.

———. “The Civil Magistrate: Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Commentary on Ro-mans 13.” In J.P. Donnelly, Frank James III and Joseph C. McLelland,eds. The Peter Martyr Reader. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press,1999; 221–237.

———. “Political Theology in the Reformation Period.” In Susan Harris, ed.,No Power but of God: Political Theology and the Christian’s Relation to the State.Proceedings of the 18th Atlantic Theological Conference. Charlottetown:St. Peter’s Publications, 1999; 61–68.

———. Richard Hooker’s Doctrine of the Royal Supremacy. Studies in the History ofChristian Thought, vol. XLIII. Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill, 1990.

———. “Supremum Caput: Richard Hooker’s Theology of Ecclesiastical Domin-ion.” Dionysius 12 (1988): 69–110.

Kressner, Helmut. Schweizer Ursprünge des anglikanischen Staatskirchentums. Güter-sloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1953.

Lake, Peter. Anglicans and Puritans? Presbyterianism and English Conformist Thoughtfrom Whitgift to Hooker. London: Unwin and Hyman, 1988.

Loades, D.M. The mid-Tudor crisis, 1545–1565. New York: St. Martin’s Press,1992.

———. Essays on the reign of Edward VI. Oxford: Davenant Press, 2004.Locher, Gottfried W. Zwingli’s thought: new perspectives. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981.Löwe, J. Andreas. “Peter Martyr Vermigli and Richard Smyth’s De Votis Monas-

ticis.” In Emidio Campi, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism,Reformation. Geneva: Droz, 2002; 143–172.

———. Richard Smyth and the language of orthodoxy: re-imagining Tudor Catholic polemi-cism. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003.

MacCulloch, Diarmaid. “Peter Martyr and Thomas Cranmer.” In EmidioCampi, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation. Gene-va: Droz, 2002; 173–202.

———. The Reformation: Europe’s House Divided, 1490–1700. London: Allan Lane,2003.

———. The Later Reformation in England, 1547–1603. Houndmills, Basingstoke,Hampshire; New York: Palgrave, 2001; first edn. New York: St. Martin’sPress, 1990.

———. Thomas Cranmer: a life. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.———. Tudor church militant: Edward VI and the Protestant Reformation. London:

Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 1999.MacMillan, Ken. “Zurich Reform and the Elizabethan Settlement of 1559.”

Anglican and Episcopal History 68 (1999): 285–311.McLelland, Joseph C. and G.E. Duffield, Eds. The Life, Early Letters and Eucharis-

tic Writings of Peter Martyr. Abingdon, Oxford: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1989.———. “Calvinism perfecting Thomism: Peter Martyr Vermigli’s question.”

Scottish Journal of Theology. 31/6 (1978): 571–578.———. “Editing the Peter Martyr Library.” In Erika Rummel, ed. Editing texts

from the age of Erasmus. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Pr., 1996; 71–79.———. “From Montreal to Zurich (1949–1999): Vermigli Studies Today.” In

bibliography 271

Emidio Campi, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation.Geneva: Droz, 2002; 9–16.

———. “Peter Martyr Vermigli: scholastic or humanist?” In Joseph C. McLel-land, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform. Waterloo, Ont.: Sir WilfridLaurier University Press, 1980; 141–152.

———. The Visible Words of God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of PeterMartyr Vermigli, AD 1500–1562. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.

McNair, Philip M.J. “Peter Martyr in England.” In Joseph C. McLelland, ed.Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform. Waterloo, Ont.: Sir Wilfrid LaurierUniversity Press, 1980; 85–105.

———. Peter Martyr in Italy: an anatomy of apostasy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.Mühling, Andreas. Heinrich Bullingers europäische Kirchenpolitik. Bern: New York:

Peter Lang, 2001.Oberman, Heiko A. “The Nicodemites: Courageous Alternative to the Refu-

gee.” In his: The Impact of the Reformation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994;187–194.

O’Donovan, Joan Lockwood. Theology of Law and Authority in the English Reforma-tion. Atlanta, GA: Scolar’s Press, 1991.

——— and Oliver O’Donovan. Bonds of imperfection: Christian politics, past andpresent. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing,2004.

Overell, M.A. “Peter Martyr in England 1547–1553: an alternative view.”Sixteenth Century Journal 15.1 (1984): 87–104.

Pauck, Wilhelm, ed. Melanchthon and Bucer. Library of Christian Classics, vol.19. London: SCM Press, 1969.

Pettegree, Andrew. Marian Protestantism: six studies. Aldershot, UK: Scolar, 1996.Phillips, Walter. “Heinrich Bullinger and the Elizabethan Vestiarian Contro-

versy: an Analysis of Influence.” Journal of Religious History 11.3 (June, 1981):363–384.

Primus, J.H. The Vestments Controversy: An Historical Study of the Earliest Tensionswithin the Church of England in the Reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth. Kampen:J.H. Kok, 1960.

Rivière, J. Le problème de l’église et de l’état au temps de Philippe le Bel: Étude de théologiepositive. Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, VIII, Paris: Librairie AncienneH. Champion, E. Champion, 1926.

Rorem, Paul. Pseudo-Dionysius: A Commentary on the Texts and an Introduction to theirInfluence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Rose-Troup, Frances James. The western rebellion of 1549: an account of the insurrec-tions in Devonshire and Cornwall against religious innovations in the reign of EdwardVI. London: Smith, Elder, 1913.

Schindler, Alfred. “Vermigli und die Kirchenväter.” In Emidio Campi, ed. PeterMartyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation. Geneva: Droz, 2002;37–44.

Shagan, Ethan. “Protector Somerset and the 1549 Rebellions: New Sourcesand New Perspectives.” English Historical Review 114.455 (Feb. 1999): 34–63.

Skinner, Quentin. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Vol. 2 “The Refor-mation.” Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978.

272 bibliography

Spijker, Willem van’t. Reformation and Scholasticism. Grand Rapids, Michigan:Baker, 2001; 79–98.

Stayer, James M. The German Peasants’ War and Anabaptist community of goods.Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1991.

Strype, John. Annals of the reformation and establishment of religion, and other variousoccurrences in the church of England, during Queen Elizabeth’s happy reign: togetherwith an appendix of original papers of state, records and letters. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1824.

———. Memorials of the Most Reverend Father in God Thomas Cranmer, sometime LordArchbishop of Canterbury: wherein the history of the church, and reformation of it …,are greatly illustrated. London: Richard Chiswell, 1694; new edn. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1812.

Sturt, John. Revolt in the west: the Western Rebellion of 1549. Exeter: Devon Books,1987.

Sutherland, N.M. “The Marian Exiles and the Establishment of the Eliza-bethan Regime.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte (1987): 253–286.

Taplin, Mark. The Italian reformers and the Zurich Church, c. 1540–1620. Burlington,VT: Ashgate, 2003.

———. “Pietro Martire Vemigli.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2004.

Tierney, Brian. The Crisis of Church and State, 1050–1300. Toronto: University ofToronto Press, 1988.

Ullmann, Walter. Law and Politics in the Middle Ages: An Introduction to the Sources ofMedieval Political Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.

Verkamp, Bernard J. The Indifferent Mean: Adiaphorism in the English Reformation to1554. Athens, Ohio: Ohio U. Press and Wayne State U. Press, 1977.

Vetter, Theodore. Relations between England and Zurich during the Reformation. Lon-don: E. Stock, 1904.

Vinay, Valdo. “Die Haltung Pier Martire Vermiglis gegenuber dem Bauer-naufstand in Cornwall und Devonshire zur zeit Eduards VI.” In Wort undWelt; Festgabe fur Erich Hertzsch anlasslich der Vollendung seines 65 Lebensjahres.Berlin Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1968; 277–288.

Walton, Robert C. “Henry Bullinger’s Answer to John Jewel’s call for help:Bullinger’s exposition of Matth. 16: 18–19 (1571).” In Ulrich Gäbler andErland Herkenrath, eds. Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum400. Todestag im Auftrag des Instituts für Schweizeriche Reformationsgeschichte. Zu-rich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975; 245–256.

Wenig, Scott. Straightening the Altars: The Ecclesiastical Vision and Pastoral Achieve-ments of the Progressive Bishops under Elizabeth I, 1559–1579. New York: PeterLang, 2000.

Wesel-Roth, Ruth. Thomas Erastus: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der reformierten Kircheund zur Lehre von der Staatssouveränität. Lahr/Baden: M. Schauenburg, 1954.

Wright, David Frederick. “Reformed Roots: Peter Martyr Vermigli.” Theologyin Scotland 7 (2000): 21–38.

INDEX

Aaron, 98Abiathar, 90Absalom, 153n15, 173accession to throne, of Elizabeth I,

185–186, 187–188, 194–196Achab, 163Achan, 204n4Act of Supremacy (Elizabeth I,

1559), 36n35, 189n28Act of Supremacy (Henry VIII,

1534), 21, 28, 36n35, 64Act of Uniformity (Edward VI,

1549), 122, 204, 246n3Act of Uniformity (Elizabeth I,

1559), 203–204, 208adiaphoristic principle, 230n39An Admonition to the Parliament (1572),

36–37, 40Adonias, 153n15Advertisements (Parker), 209, 226–

227n20Ahia (King), 56Alexander the Great (King of Mace-

donia), 114n171Alexander V (Pope), 104n135Ambrose, 87, 88, 89, 91, 115Amnon, 153n15Amorites, 204n4

see also ‘relics of the Amorites’Anderson, Marvin, 7, 64n22Anglicanism see Church of Englandanointed kingship, 100–101n116, 181

Vermigli on, 19, 47, 184–186,187–188, 194–196

Antiochus, 112Antiquities (Josephus), 92n77Antistes, 28n10Apelles of Colophon, 236n7Apology of Socrates (Plato), 117n185Apostles, 102, 111

and Christ, 94–95, 96, 113–114,246–247

Aquinas, Thomas, 109Arcadius, 89Aristotle

on community of virtue, 59–60influence on Vermigli, 72Nicomachean Ethics, 76–77n5

Artemesia (Queen of Caria), 191, 201Asamoneans, 92Aske, Robert, 165n58Asper, Hans, 20, 23, 235–236, 237,

239Augustine, Aurelius, 40 47, 116, 117–

118, 119The City of God against the Pagans,

183n5influence on Vermigli, 63, 66, 72,

143, 148, 151n8, 183Avignon, papacy at, 104n135

Baker, J. Wayne, 4n16, 7, 37n39Battle of Pinkie (Scotland, 1547),

158n30Bedford see Russell, Francis, Earl of

BedfordDe bello Gallico (Caesar), 110Benedict XI (Pope), 108–109Benedict XIII (Pope), 104n135Benedictus (song), 186

Vermigli’s adaptation of, 188‘benefit of clergy’, 106n138Benjamin, tribe of, 154Bernard of Clairvaux, 96–97Beza, Theodore, 4, 38n41, 243Bibliander, Theodore, 238biblical commentaries, by Vermigli,

14, 17, 20, 59, 61, 71, 75n2, 248n7biblical kings, 31–32, 44–47, 55–57,

232

274 index

biblical priests, 50–51see also Levites

Biel, Pamela, 30Body, William, 122Boniface VIII (pope), 65–66

on immunity of the clergy, 108on papal supremacy, 101–102, 104on tithes payment, 98–99on ‘two swords’ ecclesiology, 67,

68–69, 72, 83, 84–85, 95, 97–98

Book of Common Prayer see PrayerBook (First) and (Second)

A Brief examination for the tyme (Parker),214n41, 215

Bucer, Martin, 13, 14, 207n12Bullinger, Heinrich, 1, 25

on magisterial and religiousauthority, 21, 26–27, 28–29,30–36, 37, 38, 40, 43–57,232

publications, 3, 21, 29–30, 38–39n42, 43–57

and Reformation in England, 5,7, 8, 9, 11, 25–26, 37, 40

on royal supremacy of Church ofEngland, 27, 36, 38–39, 40–41

on Scripture, authority of, 27–28,34

and Vermigli, 14, 212–213on Vestiarian Controversy, 23,

209–211, 212, 214–215, 220,221–233

Burcher, John, 237Burnet, Gilbert, 126, 128

Cade, Jack, 165n58Caecilianus (bishop of Carthage),

118Caesar, Julius, 110Calvin, John, 15, 21, 71n44, 149n2,

153n13canon law

of England, revision of, 16–17Vermigli’s analysis of, 64–65

Cartwright, Thomas, 40

Cassander (King of Macedonia), 114Cassiodorus, Flavius Magnus Aure-

lius, 88Catiline (Lucius Sergius Catilina),

143Cato, Marcus Porcius (the younger),

143n90ceremonies, prescribed, 230–231Christ

and Apostles, 94–95, 96, 113–114,246–247

on obedience, 91, 156, 171poverty of, 161, 164priesthood of, 99on suffering, 250

Christendom, unity of, 34Christian humanist education, 13Christian Platonism, 66Christians, biblical kings seen as, 47Chronicle of England (Wriothesley), 125Chrysostom, John, 82, 89, 94–95,

110, 117, 229Church of England

middle way between RomanCatholicism and ReformedProtestantism, 5–6, 219

reform ofby Elizabeth I, 181of liturgy, 122

Vermigli’s influence on, 15,147, 195n8

royal headship of, 3–4, 8, 21Act of Supremacy (Elizabeth I,

1559), 203–204, 208Act of Supremacy (Henry

VIII, 1534), 21, 28, 36n35,64

Bullinger’s support of, 27, 36,38–39, 40–41

Vermigli’s support of, 71, 73,189–192, 200

unity of, 203, 205, 206–207, 208–211, 227–228, 231

church reform see religious reformCicero, Marcus Tullius, 248–249The City of God against the Pagans

(Augustine), 183n5

index 275

civil authority see magisterial author-ity

civil disorder, Vermigli on, 132–133,136–137, 151, 171–173see also rebellion

Civil Magistrate see magistratescivil obedience, Vermigli on, 138–

143, 147–148, 155–156, 159–167

Clement VII (Pope), 104n135clergy, immunity of, 106–110Codex Theodosianus, 34, 52n45Collinson, Patrick, 10Colloquy of Poissy, 19–20Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean

Ethics (Vermigli), 18Commentary on the book of Judges (Ver-

migli), 17, 75n2Commentary on Romans (Vermigli), 61Commentary on the Two Books of Samuel

(Vermigli), 59, 71common lands, enclosure opposed

by rebels, 142, 156–157, 163The Commonplaces of Peter Martyr

(Day), 20–21, 182Constantine I (Roman Emperor),

48, 107, 118, 119n192Constantius Chlorus (Roman Em-

peror), 112Constantius (Roman Emperor), 112continental Protestantism, 6–7Coverdale, Miles, 250n13covetousness, as cause of rebellion,

157–158Cox, Edmund, 127, 128Cox, Richard, 15, 18

and response to Regnans in excelsis(Pius V), 3, 39n42

Cranmer, Thomas, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22,75n1, 132, 245n3on magisterial authority, 61–62sermon on civil disorder, 121,

123–124authorship of, 125–130, 174n92

and Vermigli, 22, 124–125, 146on Vestiarian Controversy, 207n12

Crowley, Robert, 213–214

Cyprian, St. (Thascius Caecilius),229

Cyrus (King of Persia), 46

Dampmartin, Katherine (of Metz),14

Daniel, 136Darius (King of Persia)

Bullinger on, 46Vermigli on, 117

David (King), 100n116Bullinger on, 45–46Vermigli on, 153, 189, 196–197,

198Day, John, 20, 75n2De Consideratione (Bernard of Clair-

vaux), 96–97De Pallio (Tertullian), 229Deborah, role model for Elizabeth I,

191, 201Decades (Bullinger), 3, 21, 29–30, 43–

57Defensio (Bullinger), 38–39n42Demades, 114Deuteronomy, 45, 98devil, Vermigli on, 253–254Diocletian, 109, 111Dion, Nicholas, 75n1Dionysius, 83, 84n43Disciplinarians, 37divine kingship, 19, 47, 101, 181, 184–

185, 196–197see also ‘Godly Prince’

divine law, 30–31, 113, 114–115,116

divine magisterial authority, 61–62,78–80, 82

divine ordination, 68doctrines

of Eucharist, dispute over, 14–15,124

of predestination, 183–184of Reformation, 6

Donatists, 117, 118druids, 110Duffield, G.E., 128–129

276 index

ecclesiastical dress and ornamentssee Vestiarian Controversy

ecclesiastical jurisdictionBullinger on, 37, 38Vermigli on, 63, 70see also religious authority

ecclesiastical subjection, dual, 70–71,88–98

ecclesiology of the ‘two swords’, 67,68–69, 72, 83, 84–85Vermigli on, 93–98

Edward VI (King of England andIreland), 14, 188, 199, 200

Egyptian priests, 109elect, Vermigli on, 183–184Eliot, Nicholas, 27–28Elizabeth I (Queen of England and

Ireland)accession of, 185–186, 187–188,

194–196inviting Vermigli back to Oxford,

18–19speech to troops at Tilbury,

191n36on unity in Church of England,

208–209Vermigli’s advice/ tribute to, 20,

23, 181–183, 201–202on anointed kingship, 19, 184–

186, 187–188, 194–196on the king’s double service to

God, 188–189on royal headship of the

church, 189–192, 200Elizabethan Settlement (1559), 3,

203criticism of, 10, 36–37, 38interpretations of, 10, 219–220

Englandcanon law of, revision of, 16–17as ‘elect nation’, 19Reformation in, 1, 3, 6, 122

influence of Bullinger andVermigli on, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11,25–26, 37, 40, 130

Scottish and French attacks on,158–159

theology in, 3, 4English Church see Church of

EnglandEpistle to the Princess Elizabeth (Ver-

migli), 181, 187, 193–202on Elizabeth’s accession to the

throne, 184–188on the king’s double service of

God, 188–189on royal headship of the church,

189–190An Epistle vnto the right honorable and

Christian Prince, the Duke of Somerset(Vermigli), 245–258

Epistula ad Bonifacium (Augustine),116n182

equality of man, Vermigli on, 141–142

Erastian conception of society, 4,8n30

Erastus, Thomas (Thomas Lieber/Lüber), 4, 37–38

estates, confusion of, 144–145, 165–166

Eucharist doctrine, dispute over, 14–15, 124

Eugenius, 96, 97Eusebius of Caesaria, 89, 112, 188,

229Eustathius of Sebaste, 227excommunication disagreement

(Heidelberg, 1560s), 37–38Exeter, siege of, 123Extravagantes Decretales Communes

(Benedict XI), 108–109Ezechias (King), 55, 199Ezra (Old Testament book), 46

Field, John, 36Fletcher, Anthony, 168n69Forty-Two Articles of Religion (1553),

141, 147n101France, attacks on England, 158n30From Irenaeus to Grotius (O’Donovan

& O’Donovan), 8–9Froschauer, Christoph (the younger),

242

index 277

Gardiner, Stephen (Bishop of Win-chester), 247n6

Gelasius (pope), 101General Councils, 118Genesis, 94Geneva model of Reformation, 4,

38, 40Germany, rebellions in, 173–174Giles of Rome, 65, 67n31, 68Gloria in excelsis deo (hymn), 188,

195n8God

king’s double service to, 181, 188–189, 198

law of, 30–31, 113, 114–115, 116love of, 253obedience to, 113, 114–115, 116–

117‘Godly Prince’Bullinger on, 27, 55Vermigli on, 22, 59, 60–61, 69–

70, 73, 80–81, 184see also divine kingship

good governance, 141governors see rulersGreat Rising (1381), 165n58‘Great Schism’, 104n135Gregory XII (Pope), 104n135Grindal, Edmund, 211Gualter, Rudolph, 3, 214–215, 224,

237–238, 240

Hales, Christopher, 236–237, 238–239, 240

Hanani (Prophet), 56–57Heidelberg, excommunication

dispute in, 37–38Heli (the Prophet Eli), 153heretics, punishment of, 119Hilles, Richard, 237Historia ecclesiastica Tripartita (Cas-

siodorus), 88, 118–119n191Hobi, Urs, 235Holbeach, Henry, 15Holbein, Hans (the younger), 236Hollweg, Walter, 30Homer, 112

Hooker, Richard, 4, 5–6, 219n55Hooper, John, 207, 212–213, 216,

237Horne, Robert, 211, 212Hosea, 82Hostiensis (Henricus de Segusio),

101Hugelshofer, Walter, 235n1, 240–241Humphrey, Laurence, 204n4, 210,

223n7, 224n13

Icones (Beza), 243idolaters, punishment of, 119idolatry, portraits of reformers seen

as, 238, 241immunity of clergy, Vermigli on,

106–110Innocent I (pope), 89, 91Institution of the Christian Religion

(Calvin), 21Intercessory prayer, 134, 152n10Isaiah, prophecies of, 47–48

Jenkyns, Henry, 126, 127, 128,174n92

Jeremiah (Prophet), 102, 179Jeroboam (King), 56Jewel, John, 4, 18, 25, 204n4, 206

on Vestiarian Controversy, 208Joas (King of Judah), 200Job, Vermigli on example of, 130–

131, 135, 146, 149, 252John (the Baptist), 91, 176, 186,

229John XXIII (pope), 103, 104n135Josaphat (King), 55Josephus, Flavius, 92, 172n80Joshua, 160, 204n4Josiah, 31, 44, 45, 50, 54Josias (King), 199Judah (King), 44Jugge, Richard, 215Julian the Apostate (Roman Em-

peror), 112Justina (Roman Empress), 115n178Justinian (Byzantine Emperor), 52–

53, 90, 101, 107, 118–119

278 index

Kantorowicz, Ernst, 185n12Keep, David, 8, 26n4Kett, Robert, 167n67Kingdon, Robert M., 7, 75n2kings

biblical, 31–32, 44–47, 55–57, 232double service to God, 181, 188–

189, 198kingship, divine, 19, 47, 181, 184–

185, 196–197Kingston, John, 20Kressner, Helmut, 8

Latimer, Hugh, 138, 157n25Lavater, Ludwig, 216n47law

canon, 16–17, 64–65divine, 30–31, 113, 114–115, 116

Leo I (pope), 118Levites, 92, 99, 110, 198, 225–226Leviticus, 45lex divinitatis, 68, 72

Vermigli’s reinterpretation of, 73Liber Sexti Decretalium (Boniface VIII),

108Lieber/Lüber, Thomas (‘Erastus’),

4, 37–38liturgy of English Church

reform of, 122Vermigli’s influence on, 15, 147,

195n8Locher, Gottfried, 8Loci Communes (Vermigli), 3love of God, 253Luke (Apostle), Song of Zechariah, 186Luscombe, David, 67n31Luther, Martin, 66, 142Lynne, Walter, 250n13

Maccabees, 92n77MacCulloch, Diarmaid, 6, 7,

168n69, 219magisterial authority, 23

divine, 61–62, 78–80, 82and religious authority, 4, 21

Bullinger on, 21, 26–27, 28–29,30–35, 37, 40, 43–57, 232

Vermigli on, 60, 62–63, 70, 71,72–73, 75–77, 78–81, 83–98,102–103, 111–119

Zurich and Geneva models ofReformation, 38

magistratescontradicting word of God,

Vermigli on, 111–113, 114, 116–117

duties ofBullinger on, 43–44, 232n45Vermigli on, 119, 132–133, 146,

152–155slackness of, Vermigli on, 134–

135, 154Malachi (prophet), 50Manichees, 104Marcionites, 177n102‘Marian exiles’, 1, 18, 190

return of, 207theodicy of, 183–185

Marten, Anthony, 9Martin V (Pope), 104n135martyrs, 112McNair, Philip, 240n21mediation between man and God,

66Vermigli on, 70–71

Melchiades, 118Melchizedek, 99

Bullinger on, 32, 44ministers

and magistrates see religiousauthority and magisterialauthority

prophetic roles of, 30–31, 88n60Miriam, 173Morison, Sir Richard, 15, 139n74,

166n64Moses, 98

rebellions against, 150n7,173

Murer, Jos, 242–243Musculus, Wolfgang, 48n28

Naboth, 114–115, 163Naegeli, Marianne, 235

index 279

Nebuchadnezzar (King)Bullinger on, 46Vermigli on, 82, 112, 117, 178, 199

Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle), 76–77n5

obediencecivil, 138–143, 147–148, 155–156,

159–167to God, 113, 114–115, 116–117

Ochino, Bernardino, 13O’Donovan, Oliver and Joan Lock-

wood, 8–9Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie

(Hooker), 4Olevianus, Caspar, 37Oratio de vita en obitu clarissimi viri

et praestantissimi theologi D. PetriMartyrys (Simler), 242

Oration to the Emperor Constantine(Eusebius), 188

Origen, 105original sin, 136, 137, 141n84, 255ornaments, traditional ecclesiastical,

204, 206orthodoxy, Reformed, 7, 10, 219–220

Paget, Sir William, 133–134, 152n11,168n72

papacyand ecclesiastical dress, 226–227‘Great Schism’, 104n135supremacy of, 33n27, 67, 68–69

Vermigli on, 63–64, 65–66,68, 83–84, 85–86, 91–92,98, 101–102, 103, 104–106

pardon, offered to rebels, 167Parker Library (Corpus Christi

College, Cambridge), 125, 126,129

Parker, Matthew, 126–127, 128,149n1, 204n4, 209, 214n41, 215,226–227n20

Parkhurst, John, 36n35pater patriae (father of the homeland),

78

patres conscripti (Roman senators), 78Paul (Apostle), 47, 53, 81, 92, 95,

102, 113, 119, 157, 194charging the Jews, 169–170on civil /magisterial authority, 79,

82, 97, 101, 103, 105, 111on evil, 254on richness, 157on suffering, 250–251

Paul of Samosata, 81Pellikan, Conrad, 18Pepin III (the Short, King of

Franks), 101n123Peter (Apostle), 47, 91–92, 112, 246–

247ordered to put away his sword,

96poverty of, 161

Philip (Emperor?), 89Phillips, Walter, 215Pius V (Pope), 3, 33n27Plato, 117n185Platonism, Christian, 66Pliny the Elder, 110, 236–237n7Pole, Reginald, 64, 71political theology

early-modern, 8–9, 10–12in England, 4of Vermigli, 7, 136–137, 142, 143,

148, 151n8politics, high and low, 168n69Politics (Aristotle), 59–60, 62n14Pontius Diaconus, 229portraits

seen as idolatry, 238, 241of Vermigli, 235–236, 239–244

poverty, 164–165and civil disobedience, 161

Prayer Book (First) (Edward VI,1549), 16, 22, 179n111, 204n3,245–246n3rebellion resulting from, 121–123

Vermigli on, 131–133, 134–146,147–148, 150–180

Prayer Book (Second) (Edward VI,1552), 15, 61–62, 124, 203–204n2criticism of, 36

280 index

Vermigli’s contribution to, 130predestination doctrine, Vermigli’s

interpretation of, 183–184priesthood

of Christ, 99Levitical, 225–226

priestsbiblical, Bullinger on, 50–51Egyptian, 109Vermigli on, 197, 198see also Levites

princes, 78‘Godly’

Bullinger on, 27, 55Vermigli on, 22, 59, 60–61,

69–70, 73, 80–81, 184Privy Council, 133prophetic roles, of ministers, 30–31,

88n60prosperity, Vermigli on, 257Protestantism

continental, 6–7rift between Lutherans and

Reformed, 15Proverbs, 45Psalm, 118 184, 194Pseudo-Dionysian spirituality, 66, 67Pseudo-Dionysius, 97

rebellionin Germany, 173–174‘Prayer Book’, 121–123

Vermigli on, 131–133, 134–146,147–148, 150–180

repentance to resolve, 144, 145–146, 148, 154–155, 174, 175–180

sin of, 143–144, 151, 172see also civil disorder

reformin Church of England, 122, 181

Vermigli’s influence on, 15,147, 195n8

religiousBullinger on, 34–35Vermigli on, 181–183, 197

Reformationdoctrines of, 6

in England, 1, 3, 6, 122influence of Bullinger and

Vermigli on, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11,25–26, 37, 40, 130

Geneva and Zurich models of,3–4, 38, 40

Reformed orthodoxy, 7, 10, 219–220Regnans in excelsis (Pius V), 3, 33n27

Bullinger’s criticism of, 38–39‘relics of the Amorites’, 204, 206,

214, 223n7religious authority and magisterial

authority, 4, 21Bullinger on, 26–27, 28–29, 30–

35, 37, 40, 43–57, 232Vermigli on, 60, 62–63, 70, 71,

72–73, 75–77, 78–81, 83–98,102–103, 111–119

Zurich and Geneva models ofReformation on, 38

religious reformBullinger on, 34–35Vermigli on, 181–183, 197

‘The Remedie of al our plags isonely penance’ (sermon, Ver-migli), 175–180

repentance, to resolve rebellion, 144,145–146, 148, 154–155, 174, 175–180

Replie (Cartwright), 40resurrection, 193–194, 195Richard II (Shakespeare, play), 185Ridley, Nicholas, 207, 213Roman Emperors, 48–49Romans, 13, interpretations of, 61,

64, 66, 68by Vermigli, 72, 151–152n10

royal supremacy of Church ofEngland, 3–4, 8, 21Act of Supremacy (Elizabeth I,

1559), 203–204, 208Act of Supremacy (Henry VIII,

1534), 21, 28, 36n35, 64Bullinger’s support of, 27, 36, 38–

39, 40–41Vermigli’s support of, 71, 73, 189–

192, 200

index 281

Rüetschi, Kurt Jakob, 240n19rulers

anointed, 100–101n116, 181see also divine kingship

sins of, 134–136, 151–155, 255–256

Russell, Francis, Earl of Bedford, 212Rutley, John L., 235n2

salvation history, 184, 192Sampson, Thomas, 204n4, 205, 206,

207, 208, 209, 212Sanders, Nicholas, 44n3Sandys, Edwin, 36Scotland, battles against, 158n30Scripture’s authority

Bullinger on, 27–28, 34Vermigli on, 170

Second Book of Homilies, 150n6‘A Sermon concernynge the tyme of

rebellion’ (Vermigli, 1549), 16, 22,24, 124, 147–148argument of, 130–146authorship of, 125–130text, 149–175

Sermonum Decades see DecadesSettlement see Elizabethan Settle-

ment (1559)Seymour, Edward see Somerset,

Lord Protector (Edward Sey-mour, 1st Duke of Somerset)

Seymour, Thomas, 256n26Shagan, Ethan, 133, 152n11Shakespeare, William, 142n87,

156n19, 185silver medal commemorating death

of Vermigli, 241–242Simler, Josiah, 12, 14, 16, 17, 124, 129

Vermigli funeral oration, 242sinfulness, universal, 147sins

original, 136, 137, 141n84, 255of rebellion, 143–144, 151, 172of rulers, 134–136, 151–155, 255–

256Siverius (pope), 90Smith, Richard, 14–15

society, Erastian conception of, 4,8n30

Socrates, 117Socrates of Constantinople (Scholas-

ticus), 228Solomon (King)

anointing of, 100–101n116Bullinger on, 45, 50Vermigli on, 90

Somerset, Lord Protector (EdwardSeymour, 1st Duke of Somerset)criticism of, 24, 133–134, 147,

152n11, 158n30Vermigli’s letter to, 245–258

Song of Zechariah (Gospel of Luke),186–187

spirituali movement, 13Stampfer, Hans Ulrich (II), 242Statute of Six Articles (Henry VIII,

1539), 139Strawe, Jack, 165n58Strong, Roy, 235Strype, John, 126, 174n92, 207n14suffering, Vermigli on, 250–252

Tamar, 153n15Taylor, Rowland, 17Tertullian, 229theodicy, of ‘Marian exiles’, 183–185Theodora (Byzantine empress),

90n69Theodoret, 118, 228Theodosius (Roman emperor), 87,

89theology

in England, 3, 4political

early-modern, 8–9, 10–12in England, 4of Vermigli, 7, 136–137, 142,

143, 148, 151n8Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1562),

36n35Tiberius (Roman Emperor), 113tithes payment, 98–100Tractatio de sacramento Euchariste

(Vermigli), 15

282 index

Treatise on the Lord’s Supper (Cranmer),18

Troilus and Cressida (Shakespeare),142n87, 156n19

‘two swords’ ecclesiology, 67, 68–69,72, 83, 84–85Vermigli on, 93–98

tyrannyand obedience, 140Vermigli on, 77, 80, 82

Ullmann, Walter, 68n35Ulpian, 106, 107, 109Unam Sanctam (Boniface VIII, 1302),

65–66, 67, 68–69, 101Vermigli’s criticism of, 68, 83,

84–86The Unfolding of the Pope’s Attyre

(Crowley), 213–214unity

of Christendom, 34of Church of England, 203, 205,

206–207, 208–211, 227–228,231

universal sinfulness, 147Urban VI (Pope), 104n135Uzziah’s leprosy

Bullinger on, 31, 32–33, 49Vermigli on, 93

Valdes, Juan de, 13Valentinian I (Roman emperor), 88–

89, 115Vermigli, Peter Martyr, 1, 12–13, 14–

15, 20advice/ tribute to Elizabeth I, 20,

23, 181–183, 201–202on anointed kingship, 184–186,

187–188, 194–196on the king’s double service to

God, 188–189on royal headship of the

church, 189–192, 200Aristotle’s influence on, 59–60,

72Augustine’s influence on, 63, 66,

72, 143, 148, 151n8, 183

biblical commentaries by, 14, 17,20, 59, 61, 71, 75n2, 248n7

and Bullinger, 14, 212–213on canon law, 16–17, 64–65and Cranmer, 22, 124–125, 146on divine law, 113, 114–115, 116on dual ecclesiastical subjection,

70–71, 88–98Epistle to the Princess Elizabeth, 181,

184–190, 193–202An Epistle vnto the right honorable

and Christian Prince, the Duke ofSomerset (Vermigli), 245–258

exile in Zurich and Strasbourg, 1,2, 14, 17–20, 75n1

on ‘Godly Prince’, 22, 59, 60–61,69–70, 73, 80–81, 184

on immunity of clergy, 106–110and liturgy of English Church, 15,

147, 195n8on magisterial and religious

authority, 60, 62–63, 70, 71,72–73, 75–77, 78–81, 83–98,102–103, 111–119

on papal supremacy, 63–64, 65–66, 68, 83–84, 85–86, 91–92,98, 101–102, 103, 104–106

political theology of, 7, 136–137,142, 143, 148, 151n8

portraits of, 235–236, 239–244on ‘Prayer-Book Rebellion’

(1549), 16, 131–133, 134–146,147–148, 150–180

on predestination doctrine, 183–184

publications of, 3, 17–18, 20–21,22, 59, 61, 71, 75n2, 248n7

and Reformation in England, 5,7, 9, 11

on ‘relics of the Amorites’, 204n4‘The Remedie of al our plags is

onely penance’ (sermon), 175–180

‘A Sermon concernynge the tymeof rebellion’ (1549), 16, 22, 24,124, 147–148argument of, 130–146

index 283

authorship of, 125–130text, 149–175

on Vestiarian Controversy, 23,204–207, 213, 214, 215–219,220, 223n8

Vestiarian Controversy, 21, 23, 203Bullinger on, 23, 209–211, 212,

214–215, 220, 221–233Cranmer on, 207n12Horne on, 211–212Humphrey on, 223n7Jewel on, 208Sampson on, 204n4, 205, 206,

207, 208, 209Vermigli on, 23, 204–207, 213,

214, 215–219, 220, 223n8vestments, traditional ecclesiastical,

204, 207, 209Vigilius (pope), 90virtue, community of, 59–60

Walton, Robert, 8Wenig, Scott, 8, 25n2, 219Werdmüller, Otto, 250n13Western Rising see Prayer Book,

rebellion resulting fromWhether it be mortall sinne to transgresse

civil lawes, 215

Whitgift, John, 3–4, 40Wilcox, Thomas, 36women, strength of, 201–202Wriothesley, Charles, Earl of South-

ampton, 123–124n10, 125, 129,247n6

Xerxes (King of Persia), 191, 201

Zadok, 90, 100–101n116Zenobia (Queen of Palmyra), 191,

201Zeuxis of Heraclea, 237n7Zurich

and Elizabethan England, 2, 3,7–8, 183

exhibitionson art after the Reformation

(1981), 235–236, 237n11on Schola Tigurina, 244

‘Marian exiles’ in, 1–2, 18, 190model of Reformation, 3–4, 38,

40Vermigli’s exile in, 18–20

Zwingli, Huldrych (Ulrich)influence on England and Scot-

land, 8, 13portrait painted by Asper, 236

Studies in the Historyof Christian Traditions

(formerly Studies in the History of Christian Thought)

Edited by Robert J. Bast

1. McNeill, J. J. The Blondelian Synthesis. 1966. Out of print2. Goertz, H.-J. Innere und äussere Ordnung in der Theologie Thomas Müntzers. 19673. Bauman, Cl. Gewaltlosigkeit im Täufertum. 19684. Roldanus, J. Le Christ et l’Homme dans la Théologie d’Athanase d’Alexandrie. 2nd ed. 19775. Milner, Jr., B. Ch. Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church. 1970. Out of print6. Tierney, B. Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350. 2nd ed. 19887. Oldfield, J. J. Tolerance in the Writings of Félicité Lamennais 1809-1831. 19738. Oberman, H. A. (ed.). Luther and the Dawn of the Modern Era. 1974. Out of print9. Holeczek, H. Humanistische Bibelphilologie bei Erasmus, Thomas More und William Tyndale. 1975

10. Farr, W. John Wyclif as Legal Reformer. 197411. Purcell, M. Papal Crusading Policy 1244-1291. 197512. Ball, B. W. A Great Expectation. Eschatological Thought in English Protestantism. 197513. Stieber, J. W. Pope Eugenius IV, the Council of Basel, and the Empire. 1978. Out of print14. Partee, Ch. Calvin and Classical Philosophy. 197715. Misner, P. Papacy and Development. Newman and the Primacy of the Pope. 197616. Tavard, G. H. The Seventeenth-Century Tradition. A Study in Recusant Thought. 197817. Quinn, A. The Confidence of British Philosophers. An Essay in Historical Narrative. 197718. Beck, J. Le Concil de Basle (1434). 197919. Church, F. F. and George, T. (ed.). Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History. 197920. Gray, P. T. R. The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451-553). 197921. Nijenhuis, W. Adrianus Saravia (c. 1532-1613). Dutch Calvinist. 198022. Parker, T. H. L. (ed.). Iohannis Calvini Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. 198123. Ellis, I. Seven Against Christ. A Study of ‘Essays and Reviews’. 198024. Brann, N. L. The Abbot Trithemius (1462-1516). 198125. Locher, G. W. Zwingli’s Thought. New Perspectives. 198126. Gogan, B. The Common Corps of Christendom. Ecclesiological Themes in Thomas More. 198227. Stock, U. Die Bedeutung der Sakramente in Luthers Sermonen von 1519. 198228. Yardeni, M. (ed.). Modernité et nonconformisme en France à travers les âges. 198329. Platt, J. Reformed Thought and Scholasticism. 198230. Watts, P. M. Nicolaus Cusanus. A Fifteenth-Century Vision of Man. 198231. Sprunger, K. L. Dutch Puritanism. 198232. Meijering, E. P. Melanchthon and Patristic Thought. 198333. Stroup, J. The Struggle for Identity in the Clerical Estate. 198434. 35. Colish, M. L. The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. 1.2. 2nd ed. 199036. Guy, B. Domestic Correspondence of Dominique-Marie Varlet, Bishop of Babylon, 1678-1742. 198637. 38. Clark, F. The Pseudo-Gregorian Dialogues. I. II. 198739. Parente, Jr. J. A. Religious Drama and the Humanist Tradition. 198740. Posthumus Meyjes, G. H. M. Hugo Grotius, Meletius. 198841. Feld, H. Der Ikonoklasmus des Westens. 199042. Reeve, A. and Screech, M. A. (eds.). Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament. Acts — Romans — I

and II Corinthians. 199043. Kirby, W. J. T. Richard Hooker’s Doctrine of the Royal Supremacy. 199044. Gerstner, J. N. The Thousand Generation Covenant. Reformed Covenant Theology. 199045. Christianson, G. and Izbicki, T. M. (eds.). Nicholas of Cusa. 199146. Garstein, O. Rome and the Counter-Reformation in Scandinavia. 1553-1622. 199247. Garstein, O. Rome and the Counter-Reformation in Scandinavia. 1622-1656. 199248. Perrone Compagni, V. (ed.). Cornelius Agrippa, De occulta philosophia Libri tres. 1992

49. Martin, D. D. Fifteenth-Century Carthusian Reform. The World of Nicholas Kempf. 199250. Hoenen, M. J. F. M. Marsilius of Inghen. Divine Knowledge in Late Medieval Thought. 199351. O’Malley, J. W., Izbicki, T. M. and Christianson, G. (eds.). Humanity and Divinity in Renaissance and

Reformation. Essays in Honor of Charles Trinkaus. 199352. Reeve, A. (ed.) and Screech, M. A. (introd.). Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament. Galatians to

the Apocalypse. 199353. Stump, Ph. H. The Reforms of the Council of Constance (1414-1418). 199454. Giakalis, A. Images of the Divine. The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. With a

Foreword by Henry Chadwick. 199455. Nellen, H. J. M. and Rabbie, E. (eds.). Hugo Grotius – Theologian. Essays in Honour of G. H. M.

Posthumus Meyjes. 199456. Trigg, J. D. Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther. 199457. Janse, W. Albert Hardenberg als Theologe. Profil eines Bucer-Schülers. 199459. Schoor, R. J. M. van de. The Irenical Theology of Théophile Brachet de La Milletière (1588-1665). 199560. Strehle, S. The Catholic Roots of the Protestant Gospel. Encounter between the Middle Ages and the

Reformation. 199561. Brown, M. L. Donne and the Politics of Conscience in Early Modern England. 199562. Screech, M. A. (ed.). Richard Mocket, Warden of All Souls College, Oxford, Doctrina et Politia Ecclesiae

Anglicanae. An Anglican Summa. Facsimile with Variants of the Text of 1617. Edited with an Intro-duction. 1995

63. Snoek, G. J. C. Medieval Piety from Relics to the Eucharist. A Process of Mutual Interaction. 199564. Pixton, P. B. The German Episcopacy and the Implementation of the Decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council,

1216-1245. Watchmen on the Tower. 199565. Dolnikowski, E. W. Thomas Bradwardine: A View of Time and a Vision of Eternity in Fourteenth-Century

Thought. 199566. Rabbie, E. (ed.). Hugo Grotius, Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae Pietas (1613). Critical Edition with

Translation and Commentary. 199567. Hirsh, J. C. The Boundaries of Faith. The Development and Transmission of Medieval Spirituality.

199668. Burnett, S. G. From Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies. Johannes Buxtorf (1564-1629) and Hebrew

Learning in the Seventeenth Century. 199669. Boland O.P., V. Ideas in God according to Saint Thomas Aquinas. Sources and Synthesis. 199670. Lange, M.E. Telling Tears in the English Renaissance. 199671. Christianson, G. and Izbicki, T.M. (eds.). Nicholas of Cusa on Christ and the Church. Essays in Memory

of Chandler McCuskey Brooks for the American Cusanus Society. 199672. Mali, A. Mystic in the New World. Marie de l’Incarnation (1599-1672). 199673. Visser, D. Apocalypse as Utopian Expectation (800-1500). The Apocalypse Commentary of Beren-

gaudus of Ferrières and the Relationship between Exegesis, Liturgy and Iconography. 199674. O’Rourke Boyle, M. Divine Domesticity. Augustine of Thagaste to Teresa of Avila. 199775. Pfizenmaier, T. C. The Trinitarian Theology of Dr. Samuel Clarke (1675-1729). Context, Sources, and

Controversy. 199776. Berkvens-Stevelinck, C., Israel, J. and Posthumus Meyjes, G. H. M. (eds.). The Emergence of Tolerance

in the Dutch Republic. 199777. Haykin, M. A. G. (ed.). The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697-1771). A Tercentennial Appreciation.

199778. Kaiser, C. B. Creational Theology and the History of Physical Science. The Creationist Tradition from Basil

to Bohr. 199779. Lees, J. T. Anselm of Havelberg. Deeds into Words in the Twelfth Century. 199780. Winter, J. M. van. Sources Concerning the Hospitallers of St John in the Netherlands, 14th-18th Centuries. 199881. Tierney, B. Foundations of the Conciliar Theory. The Contribution of the Medieval Canonists from

Gratian to the Great Schism. Enlarged New Edition. 199882. Miernowski, J. Le Dieu Néant. Théologies négatives à l’aube des temps modernes. 199883. Halverson, J. L. Peter Aureol on Predestination.A Challenge to Late Medieval Thought. 1998.84. Houliston, V. (ed.). Robert Persons, S.J.: The Christian Directory (1582). The First Booke of the Christian

Exercise, appertayning to Resolution. 1998

85. Grell, O. P. (ed.). Paracelsus. The Man and His Reputation, His Ideas and Their Transformation.1998

86. Mazzola, E. The Pathology of the English Renaissance. Sacred Remains and Holy Ghosts. 1998.87. 88. Marsilius von Inghen. Quaestiones super quattuor libros sententiarum. Super Primum. Bearbeitet von

M. Santos Noya. 2 Bände. I. Quaestiones 1-7. II. Quaestiones 8-21. 200089. Faupel-Drevs, K. Vom rechten Gebrauch der Bilder im liturgischen Raum. Mittelalterliche Funktions-bes-

timmungen bildender Kunst im Rationale divinorum officiorum des Durandus von Mende (1230/1-1296). 1999

90. Krey, P. D. W. and Smith, L. (eds.). Nicholas of Lyra. the Senses of Scripture. 200092. Oakley, F. Politics and Eternity. Studies in the History of Medieval and Early-Modern Political

Thought. 199993. Pryds, D. The Politics of Preaching. Robert of Naples (1309-1343) and his Sermons. 200094. Posthumus Meyjes, G. H. M. Jean Gerson – Apostle of Unity. His Church Politics and Ecclesiology.

Translated by J. C. Grayson. 199995. Berg, J. van den. Religious Currents and Cross-Currents. Essays on Early Modern Protestantism and the

Protestant Enlightenment. Edited by J. de Bruijn, P. Holtrop, and E. van der Wall. 199996. Izbicki, T. M. and Bellitto, C. M. (eds.). Reform and Renewal in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

Studies in Honor of Louis Pascoe, S. J. 200097. Kelly, D. The Conspiracy of Allusion. Description, Rewriting, and Authorship from Macrobius to

Medieval Romance. 199998. Marrone, S. P. The Light of Thy Countenance. Science and Knowledge of God in the Thirteenth Cen-

tury. 2 volumes. 1. A Doctrine of Divine Illumination. 2. God at the Core of Cognition. 200199. Howson, B. H. Erroneous and Schismatical Opinions. The Question of Orthodoxy regarding the

Theology of Hanserd Knollys (c. 1599-169)). 2001100. Asselt, W. J. van. The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669). 2001101. Celenza, C.S. Piety and Pythagoras in Renaissance Florence the Symbolum Nesianum. 2001102. Dam, H.- J. van (ed.), Hugo Grotius, De imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra. Critical Edition with

Introduction, English translation and Commentary. 2 volumes. 2001103. Bagge, S. Kings, Politics, and the Right Order of the World in German Historiography c. 950-1150. 2002104. Steiger, J. A. Fünf Zentralthemen der Theologie Luthers und seiner Erben. Communicatio – Imago – Figura

– Maria – Exempla. Mit Edition zweier christologischer Frühschriften Johann Gerhards. 2002105. Izbicki, T. M. and Bellitto, C. M. (eds.). Nicholas of Cusa and his Age: Intellect and Spirituality. Essays

Dedicated to the Memory of F. Edward Cranz, Thomas P. McTighe and Charles Trinkaus. 2002106. Hascher-Burger, U. Gesungene Innigkeit. Studien zu einer Musikhandschrift der Devotio moderna

(Utrecht, Universiteitsbibliotheek, MS 16 H 94, olim B 113). Mit einer Edition der Gesänge. 2002107. Bolliger, D. Infiniti Contemplatio. Grundzüge der Scotus- und Scotismusrezeption im Werk Hul-

drych Zwinglis. 2003108. Clark, F. The ‘Gregorian’ Dialogues and the Origins of Benedictine Monasticism. 2002109. Elm, E. Die Macht der Weisheit. Das Bild des Bischofs in der Vita Augustini des Possidius und ande-

re spätantiken und frühmittelalterlichen Bischofsviten. 2003 110. Bast, R. J. (ed.). The Reformation of Faith in the Context of Late Medieval Theology and Piety. Essays by

Berndt Hamm. 2004.111. Heering, J. P. Hugo Grotius as Apologist for the Christian Religion. A Study of his Work De Veritate

Religionis Christianae (1640). Translated by J.C. Grayson. 2004.112. Lim, P. C.- H. In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty. Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in its

Seventeenth-Century Context. 2004. 113. Connors, R. and Gow, A. C. (eds.). Anglo-American Millennialism, from Milton to the Millerites. 2004. 114. Zinguer, I. and Yardeni, M. (eds.). Les Deux Réformes Chrétiennes. Propagation et Diffusion. 2004.115. James, F. A. III (ed.). Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations: Semper Reformanda. 2004.116. Stroll, M. Calixtus II (1119-1124). A Pope Born to Rule. 2004.117. Roest, B. Franciscan Literature of Religious Instruction before the Council of Trent. 2004.118. Wannenmacher, J. E. Hermeneutik der Heilsgeschichte. De septem sigillis und die sieben Siegel im Werk

Joachims von Fiore. 2004.119. Thompson, N. Eucharistic Sacrifice and Patristic Tradition in the Theology of Martin Bucer, 1534-1546.

2005.120. Van der KooI, C. As in a Mirror. John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God. A Diptych. 2005.121. Steiger, J. A. Medizinische Theologie. Christus medicus und theologia medicinalis bei Martin Luther

und im Luthertum der Barockzeit. 2005.

122. Giakalis, A. Images of the Divine. The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council –Revised Edition. With a Foreword by Henry Chadwick. 2005.

123. Heffernan, T. J. and Burman, T. E. (eds.). Scripture and Pluralism. Reading the Bible in theReligiously Plural Worlds of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Papers Presented at the FirstAnnual Symposium of the Marco Institute for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at the Uni-versity of Tennessee, Knoxville, February 21-22, 2002. 2005.

124. Litz, G., Munzert, H. and Liebenberg, R. (eds.). Frömmigkeit – Theologie – Frömmigkeitstheologie –Contributions to European Church History.

125. Ferreiro, A. Simon Magus in Patristic, Medieval and Early Modern Traditions. 2005.126. Goodwin, D. L. “Take Hold of the Robe of a Jew”. Herbert of Bosham’s Christian Hebraism. 2006.127. Holder, R. W. John Calvin and the Grounding of Interpretation. Calvin’s First Commentaries. 2006.128. Reilly, D. J. The Art of Reform in Eleventh-Century Flanders. Gerard of Cambrai, Richard of Saint-

Vanne and the Saint-Vaast Bible. 2006.129. Frassetto, M. (ed.). Heresy and the Persecuting Society in the Middle Ages. Essays on the Work of R.I.

Moore. 2006.130. Walters Adams, G. Visions in Late Medieval England. Lay Spirituality and Sacred Glimpses of the

Hidden Worlds of Faith. 2007.131. Kirby, T. The Zurich Connection and Tudor Political Theology. 2007.132. Mackay, C.S. Narrative of the Anabaptist Madness. The Overthrow of Münster, the Famous Metro-

polis of Westphalia (2 vols.). 2007.133. Leroux, N.R. Martin Luther as Comforter. Writings on Death. 2007.134. Tavuzzi, M. Renaissance Inquisitors. Dominican Inquisitors and Inquisitorial Districts in Northern

Italy, 1474-1527. 2007.135. Baschera, L. and C. Moser (eds.). Girolamo Zanchi, De religione christiana fides – Confession of

Christian Religion (2 vols.). 2007.

Prospectus available on request

BRILL — P.O.B. 9000 — 2300 PA LEIDEN — THE NETHERLANDS