Church of England 1570-1640,The

Andrew Foster

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317880608
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: European Renaissance History
• Index: History

Dr Foster traces the eventful history of the Church of England from shortly after its establishment in Elizabeth I's reign down to 1640, when it was on the verge of destruction. As well as analysing its principal features he considers the conflicting interpretations that this most controversial of periods has stimulated. He also provides a detailed chronological chart to help students with alternative readings of events and to prompt thoughts about how `facts shift according to different perspectives'.

Part One: The Background

1 An ‘Elizabethan Church Legacy’?

The use of all historical concepts entails simplification and distortion, but the concept of an ‘Elizabethan Church legacy’ has value and a long pedigree (68). In a sermon preached before members of Parliament in 1643, Thomas Fuller informed his congregation that Queen Elizabeth had ‘swept the Church of England, and left all the dust behind the door’ (17, p. 142). Nineteenth-century historians acknowledged that Elizabeth left unresolved problems, yet attached greater blame to James I and Charles I for handling their inheritance badly. Now the pendulum has swung again and historians are being more critical of Elizabeth (61, 64, 66, 91). Discussion of a ‘legacy’ focuses the mind on the state of religious affairs at a critical juncture in 1603, provokes analysis of important trends, and highlights themes deemed central to this book. It is wise to remember, however, that this approach may distort our sense of period, exaggerate the importance of 1603 as a ‘turning point’, and should be set against a ‘Jacobean legacy’ in 1625.

Any discussion of the history of the Church of England should start with consideration of the fragile compromise on which it was based in 1559. Historians now regard the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, which established the nature of the Church, as a hard-won compromise extracted by the Queen in the face of considerable pressure from conservative Catholic forces and Protestant extremists (63, 80). The Thirty-nine Articles of 1562–63 completed the makeshift settlement by providing the Church with a set of canons* governing its doctrine. These were only reluctantly ratified by Parliament in 1571, anxious to maintain its role in the making of this religious settlement. Yet it would be wise to remember that for many in those early years of the reign, this settlement was seen as merely the beginning of a Protestant reformation and not a final solution. Many of the returning Protestant exiles who took key positions in this Church did so very reluctantly, and had strong misgivings, particularly over the retention of episcopacy* and the apparatus of the old Church courts. Puritan patrons like the Earl of Leicester found themselves criticised when they dared to support bishops [doc. 6].

A Puritan threat to stability?

A body of clergy and laity swiftly emerged within the Elizabethan Church to whom the label ‘Puritan’* became attached because of their particular piety and concern for ‘further reformation’. It was a term of abuse which gathered more connotations, mostly seen as subversive, as the period in question progressed. These shifts in usage over time have led many historians to question the value of the concept of ‘Puritanism’, but the general consensus remains that this term had meaning for contemporaries and still has its uses today. They were ‘the hotter sort of Protestants’. Early disputes centred on the use of clerical vestments* (‘rags of Rome’), and the nature of Church services. Archbishop Parker was tough with dissidents, but the issues re-surfaced in the Millenary Petition of 1603 [doc. 5] (39, 45, 48, 52, 55, 57, 71, 78, 83, 84, 151, 159).

Puritans valued the Bible highly, and so worried greatly about the need for an educated ministry to preach the word. The late sixteenth century was marked by a tremendous expansion in the number of schools and university colleges, the like of which was not seen again in this country until the twentieth century. This was a tribute to the success of Protestantism with the ruling elite and was one way in which reformation was to be propagated. It did, however, create tensions when an increasingly educated laity noted weaknesses in the standards of their clergy. Attempts were made to remedy abuses – for example, in Canons* promulgated in 1576, and orders put before Convocation* in 1589 [doc. 18]. Gradually, thanks to the expansion of Oxford and Cambridge, the situation improved. The Queen and her archbishops were ambivalent about clerical self-help initiatives, such as ‘exercises’* and ‘prophesyings’*, and suppressed them as potentially subversive. Puritan surveys critical of clerical standards were a feature of the 1580s, and the tactic was repeated in 1603 prior to the Hampton Court Conference*.

Clashes with bishops in the Church hierarchy drove some intellectuals like Thomas Cartwright and William Travers into espousing Presbyterian beliefs concerning the best form of Church organisation (61). Presbyterianism* was based on Calvin's Geneva, and employed pastors, teachers, elders, and deacons. A growing disenchantment with bishops can be charted from the Admonition controversy* of the early 1570s, through the writings of Thomas Wood, to the notorious Martin Marprelate*tracts of the 1580s. Although many dallied with Presbyterian ideas in the 1570s and 80s, the war with Spain brought about the greater sense of Protestant unity sought by the authorities. Clerical subscription to three articles pertaining to the essential tenets of the Church of England – namely, belief in the royal supremacy, the Canons* and the prescribed liturgy* (the last two of which had aroused controversy in 1571) was more forcefully required by Whitgift after 1583 [doc. 7]. The device was enshrined in the Canons of 1604 and became the prime instrument used to secure uniformity amongst the clergy. Although there were those who ‘separated’ -whether as Brownists* or as Presbyterians* – the word ‘Puritan’ was applied to those who remained withinthe Church of England, and in 1603, at James I's accession, they were still an influential group.

At the root of many Puritan concerns for the Church lay doubts about its continued ‘Catholic’ traditions – that is, aspects of Church government like the retention of bishops and deans; the use of clerical vestments*; continued use of ceremonies like that of the sign of the cross in baptism; and the persistence of an apparatus of Church courts still operating within a system of canon law. All found expression in the clauses of the Millenary Petition [doc. 5]. And such doubts and fears were constantly fanned during this period by the continued presence of Catholic recusants* in England – those who refused to attend the Church of England. The activities of Catholic missionaries increased dramatically after 1568 with the establishment of an English seminary at Douai. The influx of Jesuits* after 1580 raised more anxieties, for they were seen as instruments of the devil who plotted the death of the Queen (40, 41, 56, 129, 156).

The strength of Puritanism* as a strictly clerical movement had faded by 1603, so much so that some historians used to talk of a late Elizabethan calm. Yet Puritanism was potentially far more subversive in so far as it had become a ‘social ethic’. Concern over vestments* and ceremonies remained, but issues like Sabbatarianism*, preaching and a godly lifestyle were now uppermost in the minds of a significant number of people and were used as a way of judging all things, including the royal Court. It is on these matters that Christopher Hill has made such a valuable contribution to our understanding of the concept of Puritanism, and upon which Lucy Hutchinson provides such strong testimony [doc. 12] (71,72).

A Catholic threat to stability?

It is vital to remember at all times the effect of the presence of Catholics in England upon Protestants. The Crescendos of complaints – closely linked with the passage of legislation against Catholics in Parliament – usually ebbed and flowed in tune with foreign policy; hence new laws in the 1580s and later Bills when England was at war in the 1620s. The feeling of being in a permanent battle against the Papal Antichrist was a powerful one and a hallmark of Puritanism* (72, 78, 84, 195). Yet there were paradoxes in the treatment of English Catholics. In one sense they represented a dangerous, sizeable minority – approximately 750,000 to 1 million people – including about about one-fifth of the aristocracy. Yet there was also a growing awareness amongst the ruling elite that these people were not really a major threat to the stability of the state. In the localities Protestant gentry happily continued to rub shoulders with their Catholic counterparts. In some regions, notably the north, Catholic gentry held important offices in local government well into the seventeenth century (59).

As splits emerged in the Catholic missionary ranks, Robert Cecil took advantage of the ‘Wisbech stirs’* and later Appellant controversy* to encourage talk of Catholics taking a limited form of Oath of Allegiance (137). Secular priests*, angered by the imperialistic designs of the Jesuits*, toyed with this idea. The Gunpowder Plot of 1605, which was once interpreted as evidence that Catholic unrest was an important ingredient of the Elizabethan legacy, is now regarded as marking a distinct end to one phase of the history of Catholics in England (129). The peace which Cecil negotiated with Spain in 1604 was much more significant, and a much more apt comment on the way events had been moving over the last years of Elizabeth's reign. Under the Stuarts, Catholic families like the Howards returned to court favour, and the fortunes of Catholics in general improved steadily over the seventeenth century.

Economic problems of the Church

The Protestant Reformation in England was associated with the removal of a vast amount of property from the hands of the Church. Elizabeth's reign only served to facilitate further asset-stripping and to weaken the economic foundations of the new Church of England. Under Henry VIII, six new dioceses had been formed, of which five survived, but they were all poorly endowed. Under the Act of Exchanges of 1559, Elizabeth gave herself the right to exchange property with her bishops, usually to their disadvantage. Worse still, in several notorious cases, she left dioceses without bishops for many years: Bristol for fourteen years, Ely for nineteen and Oxford for forty-one. Many of her favourites, particularly Leicester, were given Church offices as sinecures or benefited from gifts of Church property (66, 70). In A Treatise of Ecclesiasticall Disciplinepublished in 1590, Matthew Sutcliffe lamented that those who had ‘devoured the late lands of Abbeys, their stomachs are now so eager that they can digest not only tithes, but also glebe* and parish churches’ (37, p.2, Epistle).

The late sixteenth century witnessed a period of sustained inflation which hurt all those on fixed incomes. The Crown had recourse to the sale of land and crafty exploitation of the Church; the latter had few resources at its disposal. One result of the Reformation had been that almost half the better livings in England and Wales had passed into the hands of lay impropriators* (according to the contemporary historian Sir Henry Spelman, 3,849 out of 9,244), invariably providing them with the great tithes*, and thus the major part of any income attached to the living. Only one-third of all parishes were deemed capable of providing an adequate stipend at this period. To the embarrassment of many bishops, they were forced to exchange land for impropriations*, thus making them too part and parcel of a vicious circle (70).

Christopher Hill's bleak picture of this ‘plunder of the church’ has been softened by the work of Claire Cross and Felicity Heal (52, 65, 66, 70). Not all dioceses suffered badly and not all bishops saw a major reduction in their income, even if the sources of that income were changed in nature from land to spiritualities* (namely, impropriations*). In effect, as Hill pointed out, the bishops were still rich and powerful enough to be envied, but during the reign of Elizabeth their power base had been significantly eroded. Moreover, the source of much of their income brought bishops into conflict with the interests of their own clergy and rendered reform difficult, as was found at the very outset of James F s reign, when he idealistically suggested that the Crown, universities, and bishops should set an example by restoring Church property to the clergy. He was quickly warned of how much he stood to lose by that suggestion, and subsequently backed down.

Ordinary clergymen generally fared badly; hence the need for practices like the holding of several livings in ‘plurality’ resulting in ‘non-residence’, much despised by Puritans. Yet once again, a largely gloomy picture has been modified by recent research (65). Clergymen in town livings tended to suffer most, owing to loss of glebe* land and the difficulty of calculating and collecting tithes*, not to mention the poor salaries usually attached to such livings. Rectors* of rural parishes were in the best position: they not only retained their great tithes (those payable on large animals and crops), but also usually had access to reasonable glebe land which they could farm or lease for profit. Godly Puritans compensated for the poverty of urban livings by establishing lectureships* and market-day sermons to supplement the income of local clergy. This was one reason why towns became beacons of light for some, and centres of sedition in the eyes of others. Lay patronage of livings and lectureships raised perennial problems about who controlled the Church. These were to culminate in the 1630s with Archbishop Laud's attacks on the Feoffees for Impropriations*, a group which patronised Puritan ministers (66, 106, 130).

...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Introduction to the Series
• Preface
• Part One: The Background
• Part Two: Analysis
• Part Three: Assessment
• Part Four: Documents
• Chronology
• Glossary
• ‘Cast of Characters’
• Bibliography
• Index