Elizabethan Controversialists. Peter Milward
apparel, not only the use of surplice and cope for religious services, but all forms of distinct attire for the clergy. Such “baggage”, he declares with contempt, is but “the preaching signs of Popish priesthood and the garments of the idol, to which we should say, Avant and get thee hence”.
There is even a precise echo of Crowley’s arguments, where Field goes on to protest that these garments “serve not to edification, they have the show of evil (seeing the Popish priesthood is evil), they work discord, they hinder the preaching of the Gospel, they keep the memory of Egypt still amongst us, and put us in mind of that abomination whereunto they in past times have served, they bring the ministry into contempt”, and above all, “they offend the weak, they encourage the obstinate”. His concluding comment on the controversy of 1566 is of special interest, as it indicates the direction in which the Puritan dialectic is steadily moving. “Neither is the controversy betwixt them and us for trifles, as they would bear the world in hand, as for a cap, a tippet, or a surplice, but for great matters concerning a true ministry and regiment of the Church, according to the Word. Which things once established, the other melt away of themselves. And yet consider, I pray you, whether their own argument doth not choke themselves, for even the very name of trifles doth plainly declare that they ought not to be maintained in Christ’s Church. And what shall our bishops win by it? Forsooth, that they be maintainers of trifles, and trifling bishops, consuming the greatest part of their time in those trifles, whereas they should be better occupied.”
This direction is already demonstrated from the beginning of the Admonition, whose general tone is much stronger against the bishops than that of Crowley. On the very title-page are printed the words of Christ from Luke xix.40, “If these should hold their peace, the stones should cry.” Certainly, these young authors do not hold their peace, though in speaking out so strongly they incurred the disapproval of their own more prudent elders, including Crowley himself. Their adversaries are openly proclaimed in the Preface as “the lordly lords, archbishops, bishops, suffragans, deans, university doctors and bachelors of divinity, archdeacons, chancellors, and the rest of that proud generation, hold they never so hard, because their tyrannous lordship cannot stand with Christ’s kingdom”. In their view the authority of such prelates “is forbidden by Christ”, and their “childish articles” are “for the most part against the manifest truth of God”. These men, the authors lament, “were once of our mind, but since their consecration they be so transubstantiated, that they are become such as you see” in taking upon themselves “ungraciously, cruelly and Pope-like” to beat their fellow servants, the godly ministers.
In his opening treatise Wilcox develops a detailed contrast, point by point, between the ideal of the primitive Church and the present reality under the Elizabethan bishops. In those days, he recalls with nostalgia, “every pastor had his flock, and every flock had his shepherd, or else shepherds”, but now, he sorrowfully notes, “they do not only run frisking from place to place (a miserable disorder in God’s Church) but covetously join living to living, making shipwreck of their own consciences, and being but one shepherd (nay, would to God they were shepherds and not wolves) have many flocks”. In those days, he continues, the shepherds were “known by voice, learning and doctrine. Now they must be discerned from others by Popish and Antichristian apparel, as cap, gown, tippet, etc. Then as God gave utterance, they preached the word only. Now they read homilies, articles, injunctions, etc. Then it was painful, now gainful. Then poor and ignominious in the eyes of the world, now rich and glorious, and therefore titles, livings and offices (by Antichrist devised) are given to them, as metropolitan, archbishop, lord’s grace, lord bishop, suffragan, dean, archdeacon, prelate of the garter, earl, count palatine, honour, high commissioners, justices of the peace and quorum, etc. All which together with their offices, as they are strange and unheard of in Christ’s Church, nay plainly in God’s Word forbidden, so are they utterly with speed out of the same to be removed.”
These same abuses are dwelt on by Field at greater length, according to the title he has chosen for his treatise. He also objects to “the names of archbishops, archdeacons, lord bishops, chancellors, etc.” as being “drawn out of the Pope’s shop together with their offices”, and consequently, he declares, “the government which they use by the life of the Pope, which is the Canon Law, is Antichristian and devilish, and contrary to the Scriptures”. In his opinion the rule of bishops in the Anglican Church is little better than, and little different from, that of the Pope in the Roman Church, and so, he adds, “as safely may we by the warrant of God’s Word subscribe to allow the dominion of the Pope universally to reign over the Church of God, as of an archbishop over an whole province, or a lord bishop over a diocese, which containeth many shires and parishes”. Thus it seems that the work of the Reformation in England has all been for nothing.
Because of this corruption in high places, moreover, Field notes a general decline of religion throughout the land, as appears most lamentably in the reformed English services. What takes place on a typical Sunday in church he describes with almost as much relish as indignation. “In all their order of service there is no edification, according to the rule of the apostle, but confusion. They toss the Psalms in most places like tennis-balls, they pray that all men may be saved, and that they may be delivered from thundering and tempest when no danger is nigh, they sing Benedictus, Nunc Dimittis and Magnificat, we know not to what purpose, except some of them were ready to die, or except they would celebrate the memory of the Virgin and John the Baptist, etc. Thus they profane the holy Scriptures. The people, some standing, some walking, some talking, some reading, some praying by themselves, attend not to the minister. He again posteth it over as fast as he can gallop, for either he hath two places to serve, or else there are some games to be played in the afternoon, as lying for the whetstone, heathenish dancing for the ring, a bear or a bull to be baited, or else Jack-an-apes to ride on horseback, or an interlude to be played, and if no place else can be gotten this interlude must be played in the church, etc. Now the people sit, now they stand up. When the Old Testament is read, or the lessons, they make no reverence, but when the gospel cometh, then they all stand up. For why? They think that to be of greatest authority, and are ignorant that the Scriptures come from one Spirit. When Jesus is named, then off goeth the cap and down go the knees, with such a scraping on the ground that they cannot hear a good while after, so that the Word is hindered, but when any other names of God are mentioned, they make no curtsey at all, as though the names of God were not equal, or as though all reverence ought to be given to the syllables.”
On the other hand, the Admonition as a whole is by no means entirely negative in its criticisms of the Prayer-Book and episcopal government. Rather, the authors emphasize, more clearly than Crowley’s Discourse and Answer, a positive “platform of a Church reformed” in contrast to the existing form of “our English Church”, which, they affirm, has “scarce come to the outward face” of true Reformation. Their professed aim is that their readers, members of Parliament, may learn “with perfect hatred to detest the one, and with singular love to embrace and careful endeavour to plant the other”. What the authors have in mind is their ideal of a true Christian Church which is to be known by the three marks of “preaching of the Word purely, ministering of the Sacraments sincerely, and Ecclesiastical Discipline, which consisteth in admonition and correction of faults severely”. In speaking of the first two marks, they point out the defects of the English Church with its episcopal government, but in turning to the third mark, they lay a positive and notable emphasis on their ideal of “Discipline” with its accompanying “admonition”.
This is, above all, the chosen subject-matter of Wilcox in his opening treatise. After duly criticizing “the lordship, the loitering, the pomp, the idleness, the livings of bishops”, he turns to his ideal of “a lawful and godly signory”. In particular, he urges, “instead of an archbishop or lord bishop, you must make equality of ministers, instead of chancellors, archdeacons, officials, commissaries, proctors, summoners, church-wardens and suchlike, you have to plant in every congregation a lawful and godly signory”. He goes on to describe the third function of the deacon. “To these three jointly,” he continues, “that is, the ministers, seniors and deacons, is the whole regiment of the Church to be