Wr—-.—.—.—.—_—_—l RICHARD COX (14994581). BISHOP OF ELY: AN INTELLECTUAL BIOGRAPHY OF A RENAISSANCE AND REFORMATION ADMINISTRATOR Thesis for the Degree OI PA. 0‘ MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY RONALD IAY VANDERMOLEN 1969 Ihbatz LIBRARY MiChigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled RICHARD 00x (11199-1581), BISHOP OF ELY: AN INTEILEC‘IUAL BIOGRAPHY OF A ‘ RENAISSANCE AND REIDRI'ATION ADMIRISIRAIUR I presented by Ronald Jay VanderMolen has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M— degree in 111.81.523— ". ”I ‘ . / .. z /'2, III"? 1477/ / WJ/[LQA‘ // Major professor / Date June 27, 1969 0-169 ( /3 :5th 1.5312»— , I a - 23I3II§3 . A. -- too-y I'. 4'... .. ll'.Il .. .- ' A .-.9.-m . . C - I . y In... no \- .. «- u .PAV‘ur ' AVA-“n :': ' in- ‘II I 9...,v’ Dfio-ugol_r 2': .-...a.._. .A. Q “ 'I“ - ”-5: Q I. in‘..l " I ‘ I . :6 '5'? '0 5", b.‘ ‘ ‘ ”'1'!- J‘: -. on .“v . u :' A c .p: :‘ .o.v-. v..- 4 Q “2:. l.c:c 3‘ ..-o- g. "‘b J, u. I. ‘NC‘; A“: I ' I! i 5-- “ v ‘n J .‘1‘ ‘9 ‘o . . I. 1 v I ‘t: Pc."‘ ‘ .. s *‘5‘ v I A {.01‘.‘ ‘ I .au.:"'0 F..‘ ‘ .' “a a ‘l ‘p. ‘- -.v = -Q ‘arh‘ A. " a I Q . q '.‘ . est: “Pg "fi‘ ”a ‘;' ‘ ‘l. 0‘. “ m ”I. i U ~.- ”v _ w P. 1‘: s“ - ' '4. c” p ..'. o I- ‘ V ~ ' c.~ .":~ :C‘rn¥- v s >v- .'R.I .: A“. ‘v. A...‘ A d“ \- - _ ‘- \_ 5,. '-.:1‘. ‘I Qaflq" nv‘ .. “ ‘ I I‘- ‘ 't‘aa" ’ Vs; ABSTRACT RICHARD cox (1499—1581), BISHOP OF ELY: AN INTELLECTUAL BIOGRAPHY OF A RENAISSANCE AND REFORNATION AONINISTRATOR By Ronald Jay Vanderholen Though intellectual biographies of great thinkers are numerous, English leaders who did not build their reputation as creative intellectuals are usually ignored or simply treated as mechanical figures. It is true that of late many scholars have studied such "mechanics" and have in fact glorified them, but one cannot help but deplore the artificial dichotomy which results: men of great ideas are segregated from the politigues, and the two types are never allowed to meet. The practical result of such an approach in historical scholarship has been insight into both ideas and the mechanisms of society; but such scholarship has also created distinc- tions as tenuous as those produced by traditional moral- ists who divide historical events and characters into either the good or the evil. While Reformation studies have turned away from moralistic distinctions, they have instead generally developed along two distinct paths: theologians Specialize in belaboring doctrinal differ- ences; social scientists rely completely on material interests, class distinctions, and political motives. '£.I.l-»Ol no . 1. o-."'.v ’ O -;:'r:' -.U .‘_.‘.~. I: a C so. ‘ _ 'l"h-. -.It ~" 2' "’ 4.. u h . i l )u . '1 I D o‘ I.- '1. ‘nl ’ I ll. lo. I r ‘ -I A '1 ‘~ ‘ ‘3‘ p ( Al) ' J (I) Ronald Jay VanderMolen Though both approaches have shed much light on the Refor- mation as one of the most critical periods of Western Civilization, they also have ignored the significant ways in which the ideological and the practical come together. Richard Cox provides a case study of an im- portant English leader whose life and ideas combined both factors. As a man of ideas, Cox was no great innovator; however, an examination of his thought does reveal a significant reliance on the great thinkers of the Renais- sance and Reformation. Cox's ideals were first influ- enced by Renaissance humanists of Northern Europe, and as a result he became enamored of their humanistic scholarship and their social and religious criticisms as well. As a theologian, Cox found that his Christian humanism fit best into the religious ideas of the Swiss reformers: Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, Heinrich Bul- linger,'and most importantly, Martin Bucer. But more significant for the English Reformation was the way in which Cox adjusted both Erasmian humanism and Swiss Protestantism to conform to the needs of Englishmen. The result of combining these factors was an Anglican ideology. Richard Cox played an important practical role in formulating Anglicanism and in institutionaliz— ing it also. Tudor monarchs usually left the task of formulat- .‘Q‘F ‘3 9— 'A -1— " O'-- o- n b“ I'D . -:-,.:‘ C 3 "n-‘w. 4;!" tr “Pt :I 4 ‘ -.. i.. . - u .‘I .": a .I .- "vo. .. . I . ‘.. "*sv _-- a“; N.“ u - ‘o-lnl .V f" - 0"..O.... -‘ bl... -“.- l 0 _~ 0..-. _h . - __ .- o~ 1“ ‘ ‘ r C: A . ..-..‘_ -‘ - N}: I . ‘ ‘ . ‘3 ‘: .,. _......__"" . Q \Q'.. ‘ ‘ i v '2. Il" ~. " I .5” 2‘: ‘c‘ t - _-- | I I...‘~ ~f . ‘,:,q° ‘ ‘.5“-- .- - R“.' -‘_. .‘\‘ A '- IN‘ [‘5 hl_ .. , h r .. .. . Ronald Jay VanderMolen ing and enforcing the practical eXpressions of Anglican- ism to religious commissions, and Cox performed signifi- cant duties on many such commissions: Thomas Cranmer relied on him during the creation of Henry VIII's King's E233; he was included on the Edwardian Prayer Book and canon law committees; he served Queen Elizabeth as a member of the Court of High Commission as well as aiding in the formulation of a new Book of Common Prayer and Book of Homilies; and Archbishop Parker relied on Cox when Anglican ecclesiastical policies required revision. In addition to bringing his ideas to prac- tical eXpression in these ways, Cox also had many oppor- tunities to institutionalize them as an educational administrator and church official. As head of Eton School in the late 1520's, Cox used textbooks which espoused religious and social criticism as well as Renaissance ideals of scholarship. As Dean of Henry VIII's college at Oxford, Christ Church, and as the head tutor of Prince Edward, Cox was given unique opportunities to instill his Protestant ideals. As Chancellor of Oxford in the Edwardian period, he attempted to estab- lish Reformation ideals and at the same time tried to avoid either completely abolishing Catholicism or submit- ting to radical Protestant iconoclasm. The most significant phase of Cox's career, how- ever, was his role in leading Anglicans against Puritans. The struggle began during the Marian exile, and was ' ‘.u Pr .IAII' ‘ ‘ . " ‘Joo “ pl... . . o- .o‘ u...» .— ': I. -..'-o .. .... ‘- a . ‘ -|.- .A’ .v I U - a... ..- - lo. .'"I,.. , A 'v 1..-.A- --o OAOI‘I A: I‘, _~ -. .u..- -. .- \. g ‘ fl .' ‘ Q I -'.A “‘1‘, I u ' ‘~-- ., - A -.-p...‘ v. ' I . ‘ .f", --‘.‘.n l .U .- "-V.- v. ‘ I a-~ l..'- .h- c l . ‘ .5 " .o-ah‘ '- ' o ..I' ..lf-A‘fl .,‘ \ ‘ ‘ on .'A_ ‘ I .:‘:h :‘t “Hum" *¢L~. “'u‘A. ‘7. f :W‘AI", .... Mg-- ‘1 A ‘ ‘ . .I. .r" K.. “‘3‘, I” ‘o‘ .v . .‘ 1n 3 (D An ' f Ronald Jay Vanderholen basically an ideological clash. Anglicans, led by Cox, revered English religious traditions as being most suit- able for Englishmen; Puritans, led by John Knox and William Whittingham, demanded a return to Christian practices of the first century A.D. Though both parties shared a common background of humanistic scholarship and a theological reliance on the Swiss Reformers, they created different ideologies. Puritans emphasized the creation of compact systems of thought, the contents of which served to measure one's Christianity. By contrast, Anglicans emphasized formal religious eXpressions as the main standard of Judgement. Cox's role in developing and enforcing the Anglican approach was most pronounced after he became Bishop of Ely for he helped guide the English church against two types of aggression, that led by Puri- tans and that led by the queen's own courtiers. By relying on letters, pamphlets, and biographical evidence, this study of Richard Cox brings together his ideals and his pragmatism. The value of the results in Cox's case are left to the reader's judgement, but Cox himself demonstrates the close relationship between Renaissance and Reformation ideas and practical policies from the reign of Henry VII through the first two decades of Elizabeth I's rule. In practical policies, Cox's role was that of institutionalizing new ideas. On the ideolog- ical level his loyalties demonstrate the framework within which the Anglican form of Reformation thought developed. «cu—"' "q 0 . . -.¢"'- d... _..,.. '90.. a . .--¢" u..->'~ -‘. " RICHARD COX (1u99-1581), BISHOP OF ELY: AN INTELLECTUAL BIOGRAPHY OF A RENAISSANCE AND REFORRATION ADMINISTRATOR By Ronald Jay VanderHolen A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History 1969 :H ‘.1._. c, ..-._...'. ~‘- I 0 . - .\‘: f A'- O§.Adbh.'... I .na.."_* - ~ .- ~ bl .a ACKN- OW LEDGIVIEI‘JT S The preparation of this dissertation would have been impossible without the aid of several people. Material was made available by the staff of the Research Library of Michigan State University. Also, the exten- sive holdings of the Newberry Library, Chicago, Illinois, proved invaluable. Additional sources on microfilm were made available by the British Museum and by my advisor, Dr. Marjorie Gesner. Preparation of the manuscript was supervised by Dr. Gesner, whose criticisms often demonstrated the simplicity and awkwardness of my thinking and means of eXpression. Her guidance proved most useful by helping me discover my own weaknesses. The production of a polished manuscript would have been impossible without the aid of Dr. Thomas Bushell. His thorough criticism proved extremely helpful. This dissertation did not come to light as the result of momentary inSpiration. Rather, behind it are several years of graduate study guided by many people. My work at Michigan State University has been guided by Drs. Gesner, Bushell. and John B. Harrison. My interest in the Reformation in general and the English Tudors in particular was first stimulated by Dr. Paul L. Hughes. Without Dr. Hughes' encouragement, my Ph.D. work would never have begun. Lastly, I acknowledge the aid provided by my wife, Phyllis. The extra duties she performed as housewife, typist, and excellent proof-reader have had two results: the completion of my graduate work; the production of this dissertation. ii H I--. '.“ . I I .. 01- y. u-- u "'" A‘ -- an- o . ‘Oub-.'_-\_ hug... -. -l- ~o\ ._“ ... ‘.“..- "' -. ’7? Ix.“ “g. s..-‘- 5" -_ w. \,_~ ., . i ‘k “ "- u §~“ '. K. . -\ cl. . ." - i .‘. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF ABBREVIATIOI‘ES O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O V HITRODUCT IOI\‘T O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O O 1 CHAPTER I. THE RISE OF A CHRISTIAN HUHANIST . . 10 Biography, 1499-1540 Richard Cox and Renaissance Learning CHAPTER II. SPWHNAL OF A RADICAL IN A CONSERVA- 1'1. V'E REGII'AE o o o o o o o o o o o o o “'8 Biography, 1540-1547 Richard Cox as a Disciple of Zwinglian Theology CHAPTER III. KING'S ALRONER AND CHANCELLOR OF OXF‘ORI) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 9 5 Edwardian Administrator Application of Ideals as Head of Oxford CHAPTER IV. EDI‘JAEIAN RELIGIOUS LEADER o o o o o 143 Edwardian Religious Committees and Ecclesiastical Discipline The Adoption of Continental Reformation Ideas CHAPTER V. LEADERSHIP DURING THE MARIAN EXILE . 179 The Frankfurt Troubles The Ideological Basis of the Anglican-Puritan Division CHAPTER VI. THE FIRST DECADE OF THE ELIZABETHAN RELIGIOUS SETTLEMENT . . . . . . . . 220 Anti-Catholicism and Submission to the Crown Early Elizabethan Anglicanism The Application of Anglican Ideals in Ely iii ..‘.--. no, .I, -- o’.--u '00. ‘I no u.-._. " '-'~-'o . l .fi"“’lucoup - . . . ,— "'-.u v.-¢. " . Page Creation of a Unified Anti- Puritan Policy The BishOpric of Ely, 1571-1581 Anglican Idealist Against Puritan Ideals CO}! CLUS ION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 32 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 336 iv I: D:- "U Q léilfél Ital Ir IE .53 '° <1 0 ”.I: IN lb LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Acts and fignuments Acts 2§_the Priyy Council Calendar of Patent Rolls Calendar 23 State Papers Ecclesiastical Memorials Letters and Papers Original Letters State Papers State Papers Venetian Victoria County History Zurich Letters I“; L "I“ I H' v (.3 -" l-d ILTRODUCTION Though many words have been written to account for the careers of major leaders in sixteenth-century England, there is much room for studies of the lives of those who could be labelled "institutionalizers." These were men who actually carried out, or hindered, the broad policies of such well-known leaders as Cardinal Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell, the Duke of Somerset, Matthew Parker, and the successive Tudor monarchs from King Henry VIII to Queen Elizabeth I. Richard Cox was one such institutionalizer. After receiving a Renaissance education, he went on to become an educational leader, first as head of Eton school, then as tutor of Prince Edward, and subsequently he became dean of Henry VIII'S educational foundations at Osney, Westminster, and Christ Church College, Oxford. Ultimately he rose to the post of Chancellor of the University of Oxford. During the Marian exile Cox led the prayer-book party at Frankfurt-am-Hain against John Knox's followers, and was subsequently rewarded for his efforts when Queen Elizabeth appointed him to one of England's wealthiest bishOprics, Ely. As bishop, Cox continued his earlier participation on commission for liturgical changes and canon law reform. He also served on the committee which 1 x -.v.;- -‘--v-. u.- b" ‘ l 4. ‘ - I‘.» . ‘ ‘1 4., Q.‘. '-~ . Q n“ O .‘-.."" a... ‘ ‘- .....“ V- ‘ . .L‘. a a 7" A .f' ._ ‘ a. "L ‘.‘ . ' AP “‘- 1'. i '. ' — ~ :I‘ ‘ ”‘51 -.I":. ‘ § .-4 Pt- - n ‘ .‘fl'.‘ ‘ e . s.‘ “v { '§_~‘ . Kai: _,‘.‘- ‘v'v‘- s .“ o ‘ I 5 ~ ‘. ‘-"’ '1 :‘ . .. b u" I" i“ ‘F ‘ “‘ 1 ~. _‘ ‘O \: 'N ~:“ .‘ 3: :. “"v'~. 2 produced the Bishgp's Bible and subsequently on the notorious Court of High Commission. In these various ways Cox participated in virtually every phase of the religious and social changes which rocked England in the sixteenth century and have created an endless number of scholarly problems for students to examine and analyze. While copious details for Cox's life are to be found scattered throughout the volumes left by John Strype and BishOp Burnet and in the standard biographical dictionaries of British and Reformation leaders, no full biography exists. In 1954 a PhD dissertation was produced at Cambridge University by one George Blackman entitled The Life and Career 2: Richard Cox, but it is a study of administrative procedures in Ely rather than a biography. Only sixty- five of its more than three-hundred-fifty pages are con- cerned with Cox's first fifty-nine years, for Blackman's point of view is that of one cleric looking at another's ecclesiastical administration. Since no other full bio- graphical study exists, there is obviously a need for an intellectual biography of Cox. HOpefully, this work will supply what is lacking. Also, it is hOped that this work will in a broader way add to the understanding of two major sixteenth-century problems: first, the ideological relations between the Northern Continental Renaissance and Reformation and their counter-parts in England; and secondly, the unique intellectual character of the succes- lali gr Lam- ”fa -'._ ,._.. _.. A_,...m-_———— 3 sive steps of the English Renaissance and Reformation. In dealing with these broad problems Richard Cox is a valuable case study, for he lived long enough to Span almost the entire sixteenth century. As a result his career mirrored the successive stages of the English Reformation. In addition, he had a significant role in establishing relationships between Continental and English affairs during both the Renaissance and the Reformation. Lastly, his roles in sixteenth-century England were of enough importance in educational and ecclesiastical affairs to allow him to enforce his ideas and therefore to influence English life. This dissertation will not be a straight-forward, detailed account of Cox's life, for that has been pro- duced in encyclopedias. Nor will it be an examination of his administrative behavior as a bishOp, for that is done in Reverend Blackman's dissertation. Rather, this work will be an intellectual biography and hopefully will add to the understanding of sixteenth-century ideology. Each chapter discusses the aSpects of Cox's life which were important enough to influence his role in the estab— lishment of Renaissance and Reformation ideas and also devotes much Space to the discussion of those ideas. In this latter discussion an attempt will be made to describe the origins and roles of Cox's ideas and his means of institutionalizing them. r.- d...—. ' ‘ . ‘lvl‘...‘ D a .uq..4-..I n a...‘o..-l a” v.... u.... -| ' - ..,. . a, .- . s o.- ,‘_' a. '.‘V 0‘ u .- -"”. o-.- _ 9 ~ , ‘: ‘c F". a... .,-‘.-" O 'I‘ "r n... h.) ‘ l- -.-” ..,. .. I Q ‘. ‘vn ..._ "‘ a " p A . .“ -:-: H '-t z ..‘.’A: '0. . '.1---. I . v I .,r‘Q. ‘ -.- 4 .. r!- ."-~ ‘ .- ‘I l 0).. . ‘~V._ .A I " . IA" k.‘-"ho‘ -__‘;. ‘_‘ A! '~ I “c_.. ‘ d D ' Q '.‘-._ .‘- . ._ _ '- . ‘:—.- "o‘ l ‘I- § .a '-_ 51. ‘s. flv ‘- “‘ I . 2m - "‘0 :~ . “ .. K \ iv o v t. y.‘ ‘- n,‘ .\.g‘ '. ‘ N I~v . | A ‘ ‘ H A. fit "‘ . p ..‘n. ‘ ‘ s. s '. Pl ‘ r ,A “‘ ‘~.\ H- - ‘-.‘ I.- -‘~ '0 .u“ A ~‘v F- v ‘o;, -' ‘n s g‘ A 1 ‘1‘ I‘ ~ ‘- «V A ‘ ‘v -: Q . . ‘\ 5. ‘ u\.‘. s ' A r-,_~: ‘6' A ‘U ‘. PA nu N a A; . u l \ i s a ’ ‘ 'i ' . A \\ at. . ‘v " U‘K-t .\ 4 Chapter One examines Cox's role as a Renaissance edjaxaator. In the period from 1500 to 1532 he had the 3‘ . .' ‘-'- u -. I 0" ‘- -.' - b.4- ' 'n- “ .. I ha' ~ '..=“ A. o n...-.. .- '- ‘- ""‘”c . 1. .'.'- --.I.. “‘v '\- I. ~‘. A~_.~ . ._. u- . - 0’ . .l o m: ."":\n .. .... '- ... v o : j .l : .c . .._.'.' . .l "n.] fl . H“: ,J‘ . .__~ .. n a-“ &. '-..,_ ‘v.‘c. k,‘ :A‘“_‘ "Q'- A -,_. - ‘1 'I . ‘ . ."‘0 as. 0" :v u‘ ’1‘ ‘ ll ‘ ~A:" “'~ — u -“-1 ‘ ‘n V. .- 4" -_- s ..~ n~ . .. r . I -.. " ,1 “. ‘- C . 0'. ’ 0 .. :u. , \‘ A» . 'dtj. 3: .., ‘.‘_ ".‘P .,. H‘ " As A "‘~_ ~ .4“ . a. '91. _ “4.. :'I ., -!. Q. A . -., al.‘ a - V—Ia——3-Q - -_.——————# 6 Idexrexr unified again. The prayer-book issue divided them rather than uniting them. Chapters Six and.Seven account for Cox's role in establishing and enforcing the Elizabethan religious sertdslement. As an intellectual of high reputation and a nfianflber'of many religious commissions, he was necessarily innpcartant in creating a form of Protestantism acceptable tO ~the queen and to the people as well. As a bishop and mexnlaar of the Court of High Commission, Cox tried to erfifksrce Elizabethan policy, and thus was brought into ‘11]?eect conflict with both Catholics and Puritans. Though tYlei former were squelched, the latter proved more formid- able. As a bishop, Cox also had repeatedly to defend his reputation and his properties against contemporary cOurtiers of Queen Elizabeth. Since this study of Richard Cox is primarily an intellectual biography, it ignores some aSpects of his ljdfkh No attempt is made to ferret out all the details (Df‘ his daily life. Neither are the details of his admin- isybration re-told. Rather, this biography examines Cox's idJeas, their origins, and the means by which he passed themon in his various administrative and advisory roles. RIthard Cox was no great original thinker; but he was a fills humanist scholar, and this meant that he was keenly aware of how far the church had separated itself from its ancient origins. In Cox's case another result of humanist I: 5- 0....-. ‘ . -:.,.._ . ..;...', .. . I. of o . . 0‘ '- ‘- '. "" ‘U- -‘ ' - ’f , ‘. ._.‘I‘ '. .- ' | I .mv A.- d. .- . ‘.-, '- ‘ . u u o,--‘ --P -;_ h 1- ..._5' h ’ o‘. o.‘-‘ ..l~’ ‘ -. '. l . - u a. ‘- 'v~. ‘ Q. "P._ :I .. I - ~...’h . o- ’3 "'s.u . v.._ Iv... .A- L “ ‘ h . ‘. "C. .- '~.- \ ‘ \ ‘-: ..~A ‘ : ..-'~. . ‘ 1“. . 'blA. r "n,_ h. ,\'.- ‘«'-‘ ’y "s. a..A . i a §. ‘ ‘s. . .«‘ I ._I 4‘. ~ q-‘. “o .-- A. 1". '0 . g. ‘ ‘\. l‘ ‘ I ‘ . ‘ “.‘E R «V ‘5 A‘ ‘ ‘§- \ w..: ‘- . l I‘ ~- . p. ‘ ~ . ".' -'\‘: Q. ‘ “‘ . .‘3 .‘. an," s -., a A“ u .g ‘. ‘.,_.. A I '0 '\ \~ I\: . M " -r§ . “a; p. “— \-. . . ’. ‘. ‘0 7 sclicfilarship was that Cox was not sure about the exact foxmci the church should take in the future. He had defi- niisez opinions about what was wrong, but was wary regard- ing Protestant models for establishing: a reformed Chris- tiiariity. To provide the answers he was willing to turn tC> iihe Continent, and thus relied very heavily on Euro- Peéirl critics and reformers such as Erasmus of Rotterdam, U11T1xm12wingli, Martin Bucer. Heinrich Bullinger, John CaCLKrin, and Wolfgang Musculus. How he adOpted the ideas 0f 1:hese men and incorporated them into the English Reformation is a major concern of this study. Richard CCXXZ also used his humanistic understanding of the past to idfientify the form.of religion which was most suitable for EnEglishmen. As a member of all three prayer book commit- teaegs of the sixteenth-century British Reformation, Cox 'pILEAyed a unique role in establishing a religious system wklich was Christian, English, and reformed. It is the ideological basis upon which Cox rested 11113 educational and ecclesiastical roles which I should also like to examine, for little has been done in this ‘3lwea in studies of the English Reformation. Looking back at the English Reformation from the point of view of that rlation's seventeenth-century revolution, and by comparing tflle Continental idealists with English administrators, 311storians have generally overlooked or played down the role of ideas. Ideas have been simply written off as .'n,_. 5:... ¢ w ,.' h,; ;'-«.-J.- a '- o": .--_. v. . a..- I. .. ~"“ "‘-fl---.. . I. .-. Ann, - n u- ‘0 ---_‘:- .A. I h - i.‘°“‘-_ ’W I ‘ U ’.~ “ o- . n. . - ' v o ‘ u a... .‘:.- - v. .-..-- .'~' . I ' I“-.‘~‘ I I ~I.I.--.I . . o \:‘.F.l ‘- ‘Q‘v‘, .:_" - O .40. ‘ ' I "A . C. .“ i I ~. - ‘ -“ ‘:“AA I -. c ‘Q. ' .. ‘I\ a.- a ."v . :“-.‘Q ~ sv.. - .:..- Q “ .., _. Q oh . '- \\'\..‘ ‘~I — .r ‘U . ‘... :'~ ‘ '\. A‘ P A ‘v. w 1.1-. - t h“. - f g ‘ "§. - s. \ 0"‘:‘ ‘I I... A “v: . ,‘~' ‘- ~ ‘ ~ 4 l“- ‘ ‘ _,_ a," '1‘. l‘.. ~ H.-; a... ‘ a 1‘». v. f v_. A U‘: '5 u‘. .. .-‘ I v .-r ‘ ‘-‘ .. .“ q "A ‘ I iv -\r‘ s “ .. f s‘. i ‘1 ‘. 5‘ “. \ ‘.~1 o ..d 8 Izatxionalizations for political and economic interests. At: iihe Opposite extreme, Christian antiquarians and theologians have usually studied the development of the ruleunoes of church doctrines or liturgical practices, but snuzri examinations have ignored the intellectual framework of‘ eecclesiastical developments. An exception to both the materialist and purely theological outlooks is a recent WCXIszby Professor John New, Anglican and Puritan (Stanford, 196510. Dr. New does attempt to reduce doctrines to 1d-<3 3J.B. Clay, ed., The Visitation 2: Cambridge (London, ‘J237), 13. This refers to the marriage of Thomas Arkenstall Kingston to Joan Cox, "daughter of Richard Cox and sister I? . . . Cox bishOp of Ely."; also see Sir Wasey Sterry, Q3 Eton Collegg Rggister (Eton, 1943) , 89. 4See below, pp. 13, 14 for his role and influence. 5Sterry, Register, xxv. 6Sterry, Annals _g_f_' Eton (London, 1898), 8. Right- Wise was son-inlaw to William Lily and his successor as Inaster of St. Paul's school. 7Sterry, Register, xxv. ‘1). ' ’ 0"? av-.. n‘I-r I..- . .- npl' A. . I . '--.. 3.. - .'-UU. “- ' o :‘ "‘F. I. . "‘ ’nA.- -,, ‘ ‘ of. A l|. "’ "" -— ‘D II! '0 r 12 which established the New learning. Eton had been founded in 1440 as a free foundation of seventy-five men dedicated. to studying grammar and "to pray ,"8 and in 1446 it was granted a monOpoly as a grammar SChool for the area ten miles around Eton.9 In this lat- ter grant it was labelled "the king's general school, and - - . the lady and mistress of all other grammar schools."10 Cambridge experienced similar preferential treatment from English royalty, for it was endowed by no less important per sonages than King Henry VII and his mother, I'v'iargaret Beaufort Countess of Richmond and Derby. By her will the latter founded St. John's College, a school which would later become a center of Puritan activity and of constant ‘tInouble to Richard Cox as Bishop of E1y;11 and in 1503 and- 1505 she successively endowed. a readership, a preacher- Sh 1p, and Christ's College at Cambridge University.12 It was from Eton, with its monOpoly as a grammar E“3llool, that Richard Cox proceeded to King's College, \ 4 8"Foundation Charter," Leach, Educational Charters, 05; Eton's proximity to the court at Windsor probably aaccounts for its favored role. See R. Tigh and J. Davis, Ar1\1'1als 2_f_ Windsor (London, 1858), 358. .v 9"Chancery warrant." series 1. file 1439 (24 Henry I), Leach, Educational Charters, 413. 10Leach, . Charters, 413. ' 110. Cooper, Annals _c_>_f Cambridge (Cambridge, 1843), I. 289. 291. 292. 121bid.. I, 271-272. Yii- . , . -._-.nn-. 0 -~--o- u .- no..‘_- A '0 ~... _ _. ’0 '. 2"‘A-.- .‘ . o- .' ‘---u_-. I “' “9 - '-- by _ .'I--- 'I‘ ‘ I ‘ ~ ':.:'I 0,: _ o-.._ '.. _ Q at- _ :v .v'. - .. A : ':‘" \. .1,.~. v.' u ‘. ‘C A Oh . . O0 : ‘ “' ..__. c . . y ' ’- o g . .- 1 vh-‘ ‘u ‘ '5 ‘ v. _' i "n. A .' '- .‘R- ‘5 -'- “ ' c ' I. . §“ _ . a. ... Q ~‘ I "u .l U ~. '~<. ~ :- -- o.‘n ‘ . ._ — . A ."~ . w. v 5.. u “‘u.‘ . ’\ h- ’. '1 .v.~. .F V 13 Cambridge in 1519; and at King's there was little evidence of placidity. In 1520, Wolsey's visitation resulted in the public burning of Luther's works, and further inves— tigations of the new heresy's influence were conducted. As indicated in a proctor's report of 1520, there was correSpondence between Wolsey and the University: "Paid Peter the bedel sent to Lord Cardinal and the Chancellor with letters reSpecting Luther's works, 208."13 Further, Richard Croke, probably England's most widely known Renaissance scholar of that time, was made public orator of King's College for life in 1522.“L Obviously, King's was a center of Renaissance and Reformation activity, and it was from that college that Cardinal Wolsey recruited much of the talent for his new college, Cardinal's College, Oxford. Richard Cox was among the bright young scholars called to Oxford, and having received his B.A. in 1524 he proceeded to Wolsey's college as a junior canon in 1525, and obtained his M.A. in 1526.15 Of the sixteen imported 13Baker MS xxiv, 62, COOper, Annals, I, 303-304; Cooper indicates that "Peter the bedel" was the father of Sir John Cheke, Cox's fellow tutor in the education of Prince Edward, and Provost of King's College under King Edward VI. 1”Cooper, Annals, I, 305; further evidence of fiHew Learning" is summarized in Strype's Ecclesiastical memorials (Oxford, 1822), I. 74-75- 15Cambridge University, gpace Book Theta (Cambridge, 1908), 210. Two future leaders, Thomas Ridley and Matthew Parker received their degrees at the same time, though the latter refused an invitation to go to Oxford; Wood, Athenae, I, 465-466. Q In»! l“: _.“,-;-—' n ‘. ..._. 4"..- .- -.4 now-- - . .. . . . V o. a ‘l -‘. CD: ~ a v1--. . ‘:.‘.,.‘. P-- ""'0' ~- . 'a‘ a 'r. .. ! 'uA " q ,, .‘....fiA "a ..I-'.' '~ 9; :I- 'b‘,‘ ., n- '-o. . _ as B.. n a :‘s...: ‘ s. .".Q~‘ .. n' . \..-- . u A l ..~" Q-‘ ‘10: n “A A ~ 4. ~ to. ‘ . \ - ... .1. .Q h "~. ~“ ,. u -., y .' ‘P~ -l . .'I- ' 3. l5. ‘- ..' ~ u . n .. a 5 . ' ~. ‘--t_ 4-- I ‘ x. . , .'~ ' $5.. -‘_ A. - .is - '\; . a- " h. .- 4.“ A V ‘3 A~. '. P»- ‘ '._ ,- In \ ‘. 7 v.- fi‘u o “ ’ ‘ . '1‘ "A z . ‘o. . s ‘ ‘r s. r I ,' , s“v ‘- I v ‘s u ‘ s - 1*. K ' U -- NP a. A V v ‘ . .1 ‘p‘ . . r ‘ . ~' 0 1', h Q" 1L» scholars, labelled by Anthony Wood as "excellent," five 16 were from King's College, Cambridge; and their role in Wolsey's new college was hardly passive. Cardinal's College, Oxford, had been established on the basis of Wolsey's Renaissance idealism, for it was well endowed, well planned, staffed with fine scholars, and designed to recruit students from the Continent. Rudolph Gualter, for example, was a Swiss youth in residence,17 and the fine Spanish humanist, Juan Ludovicus Vives, was imported as Professor of Eloquence.18 From its inception the college was tinged with methods and problems which char- acterized the entire Reformation: the curriculum empha- sized a linguistic training resisted by the more conser- vative Oxford colleges, colleges which continued to study the older schoolmen; the college was endowed with money from the suppression of St. Fridesyde's Priory, a tactic to be perfected by reformers from all over the Continent; and the school imported Cambridge scholars who had been educated to be critics of all that was old in both educa- tion and theology. The story of the White Horse Tavern group and its heresy is well enough known to omit retell- ing. In short, they were college students enamored of 16Wood, Athenae, I, 72. 17J. Foxe, Acts and Monuments (London, 1841), V, 1+. Renceforth, 3.3. R 1VEdward Lord Herbert, Life of Henry VIII (London, 1693) , 147. '- ‘.U.-—‘ g“ “-- . J..- ...-. a ,. 0 a V I. .lbpl“ a, n _ ' u.o.«,~~‘ U... ‘ I K . " G'. on - .. "' n't-O .* . ’ II :- A~.. 9:- 1,. o- . .. . fi.._ - _ .. A ‘h... .' . ""--.g I,‘ In“. -.F-.F - ‘ .- 5—: ....v -~,-.___ A, ~ .A fi-‘b I..-‘. v. -. ' ’ Q . . 0::u ‘. “I A N". " . -u _ I‘A- .-'.. "g. ‘ L. . . ~ : - v.-. ‘- r-. ‘ - ..' A-.. u. n. ‘ *- fl"\ 0... . . ‘ A~-. ..‘_ ’ .G * -A._ ‘ A. p‘ ., .- " " “‘-a§.. .." ‘ .1 -_-—~'- V .‘ . :5. ‘ F. " D.- . ‘ .n 1 ”1": ~ C .' vu— Q “s,, .— M u‘~‘ - v “A I. h ‘r- .R .‘I’ 'v ~ ..' . 5 A “v ‘A h. . \_ . r § ’ v‘ . l . ' ‘ ‘I Q s “- A cu" ‘ Q '~ ‘ :‘x: E 5.: - “‘_ ~ \ .~‘ \.' § "I A! - .“\ A-. V'- ‘A "'§ I..." -V.. . §‘ '-. x, "1 s -- '._ ‘ P ' “ ~’. o x _‘ ..‘ T 1’ _ A /' ' \ .‘ v - ~ “\ I-a . ; 15 contemporary criticisms of the Catholic faith. For Richard Cox the Oxford group, called "Little Germany," proved troublesome. He was forced to flee Oxford, where he left many former companions, who suffered imprison- ment and even death. Where Cox went to wait out the troubles of 1526 is not known, though the martyrologist Foxe states that Cox "conveyed himself to the north," only to return later as chaplain to the Bishop of Ely and head of his alma mater, Eton.l9 From 1528 on the key word in Richard Cox's life would be elasticity, for in Spite of his radical ideology he was able not only to survive but also to advance. Though labelled a "Lutheran," he was installed at Eton as headmaster and allowed to revolutionize its curricu- lum and supervise the education of some of England's leading public officials of the sixteenth century. Richard Jugge, the famous Elizabethan printer, Walter Raddon, secretary to Queen Elizabeth, and Matthew Stokes, steward to Sir William Paget,20 were among the Eton alumni during Cox's administration; however, Thomas Ascham probably did most for Cox's reputation as a teacher. Ascham's work, 19Foxe,.§.fl., V, #. For an account of the "Lutherans" and their activities see J. Strype, Life g£_Cranmer (Oxford, 1812), I, 4 ff; also see Cooper, Annals, I, 311 ff. infivff 20T. Harwood, Alumni Etoneses (Birmingham, 1797), v r . '. 3A cog“, .,. I, ,. ‘ .. ' ' . U..-- - a..- -- __..o' bi... «0 v ~....u ‘ - - Cf ~A~-~ “Affl I. ‘ | -~.. - o u. -- -AA... I .-'n cu-'A=_APA‘ ‘-~~b—u~-~b.-’ F A:— ,4 H \- . ....:_,,_'I I... n. - ‘ d ‘ can-yd» “_~- 9. I-v.‘:::(‘ r--.-.- r ............ ”vs... ‘ . "“"‘ ' l . . A‘ v.‘ Fr .‘I“.‘ .v-5 -0; -0- . .0. 5A.. -. . T , .. 3 . 3‘-” I ‘-§-'b 5" v. bv ‘ v..- Q ' A u. .5 . ‘Ay.‘.‘ 'i‘«y\ ' d '."-""‘~l v § ., ‘ l - ‘Q- ' "Au. -1 ‘~' §. ’2 A... ~ . ~“’""v. .2, - ,- s .. \.,.. I . 2., U, . ‘ A~,—-.. ""“9 - . .4, I 3‘ ~. .~ " 1 Q-d-:_-\ c arfi“- U .~ ‘1' v- . '.. . ._ . I‘I‘: Q. . .\.. ~ ‘:-lfi* ‘ ..b ~.-A_‘» :‘ 0. H v ‘:~.~ . ..... f A‘ ‘L U f . ~ “v ~ A” .. UV... ‘1 C. 1 A ‘ “ §. a‘fir- - 'a§- ~v ” s.- .H ‘ ..‘~ ‘ v 3." A . “v‘ QA”¥;-: . ;;.‘1. 4“.“ fi _ ~s..'. ‘ e._ b ' ~ ~ “‘A‘ 4.. .4 A ‘ .. "-‘ .. l ' 16 The Schoolmaster, became a model for Renaissance education, and in this work Cox is referred to as ". . . the best schoolmaster of our time" and "the greatest beater."21 Though many scholars have attributed this reference to Cox's successor, Nicholas Udal, the author of Bucks County History makes a convincing case for Cox's right to the dubious label, "the greatest beater," as well as to the honorific, "best schoolmaster."22 Richard Cox's role, beyond forming character in this pugnacious way, was to educate students in the best Renaissance tradition. His revolutionary curriculum went far beyond other contempor- ary innovations,23 his use of plays was in the Renaissance tradition,”+ and his total effect as an inSpirer of students is favorably treated by both his advocates and detractors. Anthony Wood, harsh critic of Cox's later administration at Oxford, praises the schoolmaster's results at Eton, "where by his diligent instruction, the 21T. Ascham, Schoolmaster (Ithaca, 1967), 7; Cox practiced sound politics also, for Eton submitted to the king's supremacy in 1534 (Tigh, Annals, 513). 22Bucks Histor , II, 181; Arthur Leach traces the error to the 15 1 edition oancham's Works by J. Bennett (Bucks, II, 142); Lawrence V. Ryan editor of the 1967 edition of the Schoolmaster confirms Leach's discovery. 23Below, p. 28 ff. There is no evidence that any school used texts as radical as those produced by Rosellanus and used by Cox. 24Eton Audit Book, 21 and 22 Henry VIII, Bucks, II, 182. ‘ 4'1. . ~un “0-: «vu- :A v- .1 I'D - . I "" “- Fr- 9-. O _ . .0 A h - C‘ --Q a...»’ ‘. v..— . A :--'.‘ ‘” “A DA. . b "' .l ‘ m... ~uv..—. v-.. -v“- - .h ' no. ‘hu-am- ‘- - - -' I.” _ an ."""“" . 9..- 17 boys profited much."25 A similar judgement is passed by Eton's historians, Sir Wasey Sterry and R. C. Eaxwell Lyte;26 and, within this context of being a well-known teacher Cox rose to prominence and went on to further his learning. The Boleyn faction furnished advancement; Cambridge provided additional education. As an intellectual seeking an audience and advance- ment, the head of Eton composed verses in praise of Anne Boleyn's coronation;27 as a returning scholar and chaplain to the Bishop of Ely, Cox received his B.D. and D.D. in theology from King's College, Cambridge in 1535 and 1537 reSpectively.28 As a coronation poet Cox has stood in the shadow of Udall and John Leland, whose poems have been Judged as "very much superior to Cox's effusion on the same occasion."29 When Cox moved on for advanced work in theology, probably with the support of the Boleyn- Cranmer faction, Udall succeeded him at Eton. Their friendship evidently continued, for when the author of Ralph Roister Doister was expelled from his Eton position, Cox was generous enough to pay off some 60s of Udall's 251r.(ood, Athenae, I, 466. 27Harleian us. 6148, fol. 117. 28Cambridge University, Grace Book, Theta, 296-320; Sterry, Register, 89. 29Bucks, II, 183; A. Wood, however praises Cox's merits as a poet in his Ristory and Antiquities (Oxford, . 0" . /~ or. “.133 .,.-n — 1 ' . _ ' ..‘o .---v .-.. . _ PA' a ,2. gzmzdv '-r v _._2 ..-..«-. --- g . *-‘ .o.--ly~ p;¢ F"‘F o ,.-_. ..,' ..-~ he .d. a “fit: rut: v0.~v:‘:_~-:’~— -O~---O¢-' ".._A-- . - "‘£: .*:‘:3 A, 4“! I: . ‘0-v ravv u'. ¢¢ - - . ."‘ A.--!I'¢ 8... i , . '“0 V-——.‘.-g I . 5 ' f.ll;-=v A‘,’ '.’_ v- v. _ u a. ...’ d... In ‘~ ‘ .; o . 'A .' _ . ‘C .r ‘ -‘ .- .-.| ¢.. ‘ J ' - t I .. ~“A:. . D x 0-. ..‘ ‘ ".-u c .‘I‘ ‘ F k, *.- - . 4 I ‘ ~.-"-- S Y. r u.- -g. “ ~ - u o l.““” " W‘ t? ”i -.-.‘ - r -4 -.A ._ _- _ . "Q-'- a o .‘M-‘t‘l s. ' _ A --_-'- - .._ . r-~ ‘~"_1~._ ‘~ a.-- 'u--- ~‘A. ‘- .- ~ w. ’ . I .Q " I“-.-.‘ \ “-. 2,, F ~ "~‘ Cu-“ "A I H .. ‘ Inel‘: t... ‘ .Q . ‘. ~ . ~ ~ ‘;..“ fi'.- . .. .‘v. v q :\, ‘ - In ‘.. _p 1 s-“ ._ «3:- ~n . , ‘- _ II A. 0“ . n.‘-“‘ 1“ V... _ A "a (3“ ~ .. -v.‘: ~ - - .l a I. 4‘ A -‘. n¥ . A "I? u; ‘. f»..~.. F \ h u I A u -. '..— g .L '. n " n .' "\ A.»._ N . ‘a' v ._ ‘ . n ' \ A. ‘ . L § 'O - ‘d .‘ ‘_ I ~ ‘1 ‘C .R '/ N ' a A v A‘- u - N“ .‘v‘ 18 debts.30 His generosity was repeated many times during his career, however, and is perhaps another key to under- standing his survival: he saw it his duty to support scholars, whatever their position, and thus developed a wide base of friendship and support within the intellec- tual community. Aside from these personal connections, however, Cox was returning to Cambridge at a critical time. In 1535, Thomas Cromwell became head of the uni- versity, and this meant reform would become imperative. Cromwell's injunctions of 1535 reformed the university curriculum in much the same way that Cox had modernized Eton's: traditional study of schoolmen such as Scotus was forbidden; the study of ancients (in this case Aristotle) and moderns such as Rudolph Agricola and Philip Helanchthon was demanded.31 In other words, the "New Learning" was set up. Secondly, the typically Tudor attempt at centralization was carried out: public, university—wide lectures were established, thus attacking the uniqueness maintained by the separate colleges.32 This problem of university centralization would return to plague Cox when he became Chancellor of Oxford. u 39Proc. Privy Council, viii, 152,Eucks History, II, 18 . 3lcooper, Annals, I, 375; Baker HS xxi, 195 indi- cates that "tongues" and "liberal arts" are to comprise the curriculum. 32Cooper, Annals, I, 380; see 27 Henry VIII 0. 42. ‘J- 0.. r—nV-AV h Q I - n'A-A- I -.;--. fi". \ “ p “H. .. A- J... u» . - - tn- ..I at «A , O V _ I AV' ' da-~.- u, dv- ’ . q u o I ',“ A. ’3‘»- f... 19 Thirdly, the monarchy assumed a protective economic and legal stance regarding England's major schools: Oxford, Cambridge, Eton, and Winchester were absolved from pay- ment of first-fruits and tenths:33 and a Special committee was set up to hear university suits which formerly were based on liberties claimed through papal grants.34 Cox again eXperienced many of these same problems within twelve years, but he emerged from Cambridge in 1537 as a reformer in full bloom. Given Richard Cox's position as a Protestant and the contemporary power of the Boleyns, Cromwell, and Cranmer, there was little danger of his being demoted. Though little is known of his actions from 1535 to 1540, Cox does appear to have played a role in the rise of the Protestant establishment. John Strype, for example, credits him with a 1536 plan for diSposing of confiscated church prOperties.35 As a defender of royal sUpremacy Cox had also, according to one source, been used in the royal visitation of Oriel College in 1535,36but beyond this the only role that can be documented is his service 33Baker ES xxi, 195; COOper, Annals, I, 379. 343aker RS xxi, 196. 35Strype, Ecclesiastical hemorialg, I, 417. 363.w. Rannie, Oriel College (London, 1900), 81. ' .. 'P" :o‘. .fl .- ‘4 I ;: 'lo’v-’-. v.4 -. “u- 0 .n- ' .9 l / .“.:"‘ 4. .1. O -“’-‘ o' ' ‘ : . A Q I P,_ ff”?- _ r o... h..0“.-- o ' ' Q A I ’_ “Af‘ :PA“ I L. Agv.--_,.dh ’ - .. : I... .O-5-vv- . ' I] - h— p. u.-. ...._ ,_ ..." ~ . c ':v. I. ‘— "é--..v-' -"_'_ 5 cv" , 1.. f. "A a “VA ‘,,' .... rigs ‘ u " i U I ’O 1 ~ , 2- Av. - ._.- ‘c- -.. b i Q... . - - ’l ~- . P- u "" “2‘ “Yo I" A.-. ;»v --o— U. ‘__ I I. .' "*1 -‘i a. A ... S ”‘15- r-“ -l. . v- c "A \ m... A ‘9 ' ‘ . V-.. C 0- h ! 5. ,_€- - .. ’ . . : “.2“. up ~“ 3 ‘crAh-_n - -- a u -0 - ‘C‘;o‘-‘. -. C .-.U A. ... a. ”a ‘- b. . 1.- ._-: ,. - ~,, ‘74 'A. ‘ fig?“ . .. A ..4 5..“ ’. 1"“! \ ‘ 1" l- ‘5 “A " §-"“.-'.‘ ~ ~ N ~O ‘ Q I .~' : . p . ' b "“' “in. c-.. 5“. v as A ‘ v 3"- If: .“ q "c . ‘.“_V‘. fi-v ’6’“. 20 as chaplain to Thomas Goodrich, the pro-Protestant BishOp of Ely.37 Writers have confused Richard Cox with another Cox, the chaplain to Cranmer who later testified against the archbishop, but recent scholars have corrected this error.38 Whatever his exact activities were, Richard Cox was evidently regarded as a leading theologian, for in 1536 he was one of the forty-one English clerics who signed a statement regarding holy orders,39 and in the next year he was one of seventeen professors who accepted the Convo- 40 cation's plan for a compromise religious settlement. This work, better known as the Bishop's Book, was sent to the Swiss reformer kartin Bucer by Edward Foxe, Bishop of Hereford. Out of the friendly relations between Bucer, Foxe, and Cranmer develOped a close tie between Swiss and English ideas. Though Richard Cox was evidently attracted to the ideology of Zwingli's successors, his chance for significant advancement came in the events surrounding the marriage and subsequent annulment between Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves in 1540. Cox supported the annulment in the Convocation of 1540.4Ll and subsequently was drawn 37Grachook Theta, 296, 297; J. Bentham, Ely Cathedral (Norwich, 1912), 189 ff. 38L.B. Smith, "Henry VIII and the Protestant Triumph," AHR Ixxx (1966), 1247. 39Letters and Papers, XI, no. 60. “01bid., XII, pt. 11, no. 402. 41L§J XV, no. 861; §3, Henry VIII, I, 629-639; F-O- white. £132§ 2£ the Elizabethan Bishops (London, 1393), A“ - .‘r a -A v'a a ‘2’. ‘ 1."'- P-‘ ,,5-- d.- ... a..- “. -‘~ «.5 u.-..~. » n m .r.- fi ”Awh -o-h -A K.‘ x. “n~ "tu 21 closer to the orbit of power around King Henry VIII. In the same Convocation Cox participated in doctrinal dis— cussions and eXpressed ideas which were much more radical than contemporary Lutheran concepts. Cox was clearly a “2 but in Spite of the control exercised by Zwinglian, BishOp Gardiner's Catholic party until the king's death, he was able to rise within both the king's court and the English church. Though Cromwell's power disintegrated, Cox survived, and proved useful to the king in the 1540's. Because of his religious position as a radical in the context of Hartin Bucer's Zwinglianism’+3 and the fact that he was still acceptable to the king, Cox was used in attempts at unity. In February of 1540, the Lutheran, Robert Barnes, was charged by BishOp Gardiner with being a heretic. After scolding Barnes, the king appointed a committee of "indifferent hearers," including Cox, to try to smooth over the differences.)~pr In the and Barnes submitted, but Cox's role is significant: he was obviously a person reSpected as a compromiser. The problem with this position was of course that he would tread a precarious path to 42§E. XV. no. 826; Lambeth RS 1108. f- 1153 below, p. 66 ff, 43Below, p. 74. ”4J.A. Muller, Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction (London, 1926), 85-87. ' -a-o 31 I-AIV“ f: H ‘ P... b o “_n-. ;,'_‘ 5—-..- . . , n'F rA K 3. Up: "'9‘ -, ‘-- - '.c- ‘ 'A A.‘~.:A:-QO ‘ c ' " . o .., ., '“C'--- ' ' 3.1.». .. ..1--:. pp:- ’ -.-_-- .v~-~-u.. . C "‘ ""‘ "a we. 1 z..- -.-‘ t..- - _-_ .... . ... :4 op: 1:--5“ -.--.' ..._ -.‘" - . . ' Q: In. -."‘ 'v‘ .—‘-v.n-’ ~'.-_‘. -'- I q cwml..cq ’F‘: '1- . ’ u... -|~_ '- ' ‘. 0 PA . ‘ o', A 7";‘v- 5'» a‘u--' V -- - - . fix‘ I J ’ " L v‘n I .a ‘ ‘~ " o ~.I _“ ~ . a 2-. ~-.o ,_ ‘ ~, 5' ‘V’ ‘3‘\ U ‘- ' . a a. / . a" "‘- 4.4] s. ‘_ ‘ ' “ 2‘ I -~' —'- ‘. v‘ ‘ ‘ a ll ‘ \ h u U .:. 5 F. v Q D ‘U Q * "' \ . \_ ‘v- ‘ R _~[ ‘ \ ‘. ‘n A. >‘vfl- \ q \ ~‘n \‘5 22 avoid being hated by both parties.45 The key to survival in the 15h0's, however, was twofold: Erastianism and elasticity. As a humanist and "commonwealth man" the former position was agreeable to Cox; and, as a scholar applying the relativities of humanist scholarship to the Bible, the latter attitude was easily adOpted. Though a radical, both in social and religious ideology, Richard Cox survived and even prOSpered amid an officially pro- Catholic government. u5J.A. Muller, The Letters 23 Stephen Gardiner (Cambridge, 1933), 325, 360. Gardiner later attacked Cox and the latter testified against Gardiner, who was upset by Cox's role in writing the King's Book even though he was a radicalerotestant. ’—~——-c - . two.» '\ v 0“ ’3'- d- A. 2. Ad A~ 0v 2. _.n a. .. a. 3 a. o a. ‘. ... .3 .. .. Z .L g. 2. I. A... .o b.-., .- cvv‘ - PART II: Richard Cox and Renaissance Learning In tracing the rise of Renaissance ideology, it is commonplace to consider England in two ways, late and secular. These labels may imply to some a backwardness or mundane character about English life, for the pOpular theme, "the nation of shOpkeepers," is easily read into English history. Thus it has been possible for some to view even the most religious of movements as the products of materialistic drives in cpen conflict: gentry versus aristocracy: proletariat versus gentry.1 Such antitheti- cal conflicts are created by a materialistic perSpective and its application to cultural and ideological movements; however, from a different perSpective the English Renais- sance and Reformation can hardly be considered the result of naked material interests. Those reSponsible for institutionalizing the Renaissance in England were not representative of any unitary, socially determined elite. Thomas more was part of the ruling elite, but he hardly represented a view which advanced his class at the expense of others; rather, his message rested in a negation of heartless rule by force. Thomas Wolsey, Cardinal a latere, similarly cannot 1J.H. Hexter, Reappraisals in History (New York, 1963). This work discusses the ideas of Christopher Hill, Hugh Trevor-Roper, and Lawrence Stone. 23 ‘9’! ' I n~ -.-I a .1 ' ' pAA"‘__ d. - -; ‘ iv-“- a-rv .. ‘ ' ‘ “1-, I ...,..-.. ' . . . p .- '- v. “ .' -v‘ .- 0.4. "g. r n . v‘flp- ‘5'3~:A-.c ,A .h:‘ . 5:.0VOi-‘H oo- ‘ . " —v-A$|I--9n A ’ In) R 4 . ~ -a- -‘ u u. .- _ ’ . 0"--. o ' A-‘oo cue-1? -_ ‘ .--‘ ....-. ”v__-‘ n6-..._ 9. 4..--.2“: . a _ u.. --a--‘ ._~ _ - . !»‘pp:: ..'-.C .r *. -~..._. ~‘- U..v - Q Ann Aug-“‘2 - ‘ n u, ‘ A f '.'-"-*‘\---V - ~b , 27“” ~~11::.... .. ,4‘. D-UVQI 'A--'- v . V ‘:-\:C‘;.-L:~ Fv-I c .-,.-~.. II.M :1.- - ‘\ ‘ 3‘ -.‘A- A Ea. ~..—“'S 9A 6,. . ‘a._- . .1...'. N: ”a“ - _ .A ._'- ‘ .. O '1 . ":-' o . ~ .1: -.," P -r t h -V.-‘.o U..-\ u I». ’h‘: ‘ 5""; ' 2"- I- 1 Y “ A -v . 'I . Q “ I .H‘.’ In ‘ ..“. - 1' b... , “.1 ‘r: VA. ‘N. ~ . ‘ .‘v' fl“-.. ¥_‘v s. FA a. .“: “‘\A‘_ §_N‘ ‘ "\.: v§c“ ‘..d"' CH‘.«I- “~'U 24 be accused of advancing clerical interests at the eXpense of others. His own college at Oxford and school at Ipswich were founded with money garnered from the dissolution of 2 In addition, his college became a center religious houses. of contemporary criticism of religious and secular injus— tices. Henry VIII, king and supreme head of the church, similarly fostered and maintained schools and men whose purpose was the reforming of both commonwealth and ecclesiastical structures. A perSpective which therefore has much validity is that the English Renaissance was represented and encouraged by men who were not simply products of society or hacks of a singular social view- point. Rather, they were free, critical, and creative. It is within this aura that the Renaissance Spread into England; and it is within this context that Richard Cox, B.A., M.A., B.D., D.D., played a role in institutionaliz— ing the new critique and religion. The first significant notice taken of Cox as a young intellectual came from Cardinal Wolsey, for Cox was among the several degree-holding scholars whom the Cardinal transferred from Cambridge to his new college at Oxford.3 This act today would be of little signifi- 2 , H.C. Maxwell Lyte, é History of the University of Oxford (London, 1886), 441. _-' .— 3c.w. Boase, ed., Register pf the University 23 Oxford (Oxford, 1885), 140. Involved in this transfer in 1323 were 1 D.D., 3 M.A.'s, and 5 B.A.'s. ,_.,.. s- o ’p’ r‘ :""“-.."J 0...- v .-0»‘. ’ 0. -‘AV' .- -...-'C :4; .. ‘ ~" 5‘ ’ud.. 4..-.. ‘ .: 1,-3 .' F-.—~ . . 4": \p—n‘ -‘ -.~ vo—-.A- ---- 1‘ ‘ ’ ~v- r- “=:' -: ‘ -- - ‘-'-"’ -Av- a. ‘ U A. I. -‘-f ’5‘ '- " ;; ~-..., --- . . u . ‘. WgoN- ‘P- ’3 ...-..Q flu" ‘ - ‘ v ‘Q .r ,. p ‘4. ~A - ;. .-o3,y pr; Or "";--“.l~ a.“ '. -':"""” v- 151,. ~ v.“'-‘ .w--' -., y .. ': ‘--A tCA‘A ‘_“ "' - b... "y A--- ‘.-¥- ‘ ( ‘ \Gitl . fi.‘a*‘l an .a».-' U' ““i d ‘ . .;..“Q—1A' Q.- - ~. ' . ‘- -.. "v..‘ 5“» g’ ‘ .v.""~ -\.“A“ . .--.. “.4- J c .‘H _ l“‘ on‘ v..'_ A.“ “ ‘ . an A ~. ...‘ I. .7 - '1‘:'\‘,I. vi.-. - ~ A” ': _ .‘\" F‘s . C.‘ ‘O “V H... . U .::--1‘ . l‘.‘.‘ .‘ ‘A‘ G t g N ‘cy U ‘V: :‘F‘n - ‘ .. I F ‘ ~ . - - ._ P. \l . ~~J.-;‘.XR‘Q ‘ .l v " r. t; r\ "‘V'~ "3 m- V. A0 ‘ § V “r \ . v“: 25 canoe, but in a country with only two universities it was important, for one represented the ""ew Learning" (Cambridge). Wolsey' 8 action proved to be hig Dhly significant. The Car- dinal seemed intent on either presenting himself as the great patron of learning or as a reforming church leader, or as both, for his ambitions for the papacy were well known. What better way to present himself as the repre- sentative of all the best in the Renaissance (classical education) and the Reformation (concern for making sixteeenth- century religious life more meaningful)?l‘L The fact that the two were intimately connected in the sixteenth century is easily overlooked in studying either the Renaissance or Reformation; but they were obviously joined together in Northern Europe generally and in England Specifically. The context of the Few Learning is generally well known, eSpecially as demonstrated in the works of Erasmus and the teaching role of John Colet.5 These men demanded purity of scholarship, as did all humanist scholars, but they also applied their concept of purity to contemporary institutions. Such demands and critical attitudes are usually approached #At the time, Charles V, the power behind the papacy, clearly favored religious reform; Wolsey's protectiveness was demonstrated in 1529, when he stopped an ecclesiastical visitation of the University (Cooper, Annals, I, 329). 5Colet is best known as founder of St. Paul's school, with its grammar-oriented curriculum; Erasmus' Praise of Folly has become a classic example of Renaissance mockery of contemporary religious institutions. '9' n A " - .-q' "_, " .‘fl— UA" J -“ . . o . o . .. . . i . . . . . *w n. 2 . .. I ... c. .... ... L. t T ... a. 2 Z T. I. T n . 3 . .2 C a. E m T . e. 2 E C E 9: —-. w“ w 9 - .1 .. Q . Z w‘ 4‘ ‘. . . .c ... . ~ g. z. .. v” a; ..... h. ‘v . A; . . . S r. .1 3 Z. w. .2 .Q a. 3 3 2 E ‘ ‘ . . . .u a. 3 a. .1 t. C .. .t i s. .t. T. r. a. “ . . 1. e” a. ”J t. u. ..n 5. .~ .. Ni . . 2. a . n. C. .— m .n‘ a; u: i. I. :. A: .o _._ . 3: A. .n. Qty A.‘ nu, .6 . Au. \. §u A.» Q. \ .u H i». 3’ .9... 3. .un n: u . A; . . .. .0“ t‘ a; s u g a, .- . . A . x .. .. a. t V w. u. T. H H _ .‘h .... u... ~ .. 1. ... .0. I‘ ‘u g.- .. h .s «\v. .3 ... :. .1 .2 Z. .ru . . z. \. ~‘ 4 . .f. a; ‘ r t. . 26 from the point of view of a discussion of the great liter- ary works produced by Renaissance leaders, such as Erasmus' Praise 2£.EElll or More's Utopia; however, yeoman's work in establishing this critique was provided by countless tutors and schoolmasters throughout England. Richard Cox was one such schoolmaster. By the time he had become head of Eton, Cox had already demonstrated his ability to survive trouble, for he had outlived the difficulties into which the "Germans" had fallen at Oxford. Kany of his fellow radicals had 6 less pleasant eXperiences. For Cox the sequel to his exile was more important than his troubles, for he was rewarded with advancement to the headship of England's most important grammar school; and to Eton he took his devotion to the New Learning and developed a model school with a new curriculum. This curriculum was based on strict classicism, training in proper manners, and sur- prisingly Open eXposure to the critical works of the Northern Renaissance. Strict, pure classicism was the first feature of Renaissance humanism, and this is no less true in Cox's Eton than in the better known Continental Renaissance. In England the great leaders of linguistic studies are well known, and their works have been widely discussed: 6Foxe, é. fl,, V, 4 ff; Strype, Cranmer, I, h ff. nvnfiV‘c --- . --...--- — I . ‘- _-- {-vfn “-, v v ' - L-,,. -b. ‘ . ‘ r __ .og-A‘A's '- . - I -A‘.‘ ’L---.—.--- ’ -- . '~A"’»- 4.: - .°_--‘:-. -‘. O ,_ -V:A":‘ f“ --doc4¢v- . v .. . "“ a-w"-- fl" .,\ ‘ '- “‘ ‘0--- .‘ u , - h' v-" ‘Q {~- c-. .v.-- ~ ,. V 1 .‘-u" F‘.‘A‘-*- ‘ . . , - V'v o. \—_-"--‘ ' Q .. ~1 ~A'Ané, Q... ‘-~-_“; 9..- 5“: P.“ h“p- A--- ‘ y . ‘ -v - ~._._ 2 In»... v- \- “‘\—- 5 \v :5 A -‘ . -V .' U”. ~ .l. ‘V ~ 0 ‘ " ., ‘ _ .- ‘. ~I.~ _' .‘-~~.. .“ ‘. x . ‘i . .. M ’.V ' "‘ A -".—A ‘ u- -— V . .1‘ ‘~ ~ ‘ ‘ .- ~‘I: VA . -- --‘ h.‘ ‘ ‘ . ‘.' . ¥~- - a ”v dy- ‘ ‘Q U . v o - .. ““u: ". '- ,‘ ‘ \ ‘. “‘5‘ - “~ .- 9. A a. ‘~._ 6‘ 'a‘fi “- K ‘ H g . \ fl. :. . r.< U _~_ ..‘—__‘ “ ~ ‘5‘ A -\ ..‘u - ‘\ c - P. ‘ \’ ao’q ‘ "‘\ .- ‘~. Ak~ y .- vv. .\ . 27 Linacre, Lily.7 Also, leading Continental scholars had a great impact on England. Erasmus became a symbol for such leadership, and Juan Vives' educational theories became well known and evidently were widely practiced in England.8 Moreover, the institutionalization of classical learning was carried out by such men as Colet in his foundation at St. Paul's and Wolsey in his school at Ipswich;9 but, though scholars have not gone much beyond these examples in discussing the nature and impact of English scholarship, there are other relevant facts. First, English classicism did play a creative and not simply a reactive role, for important Continental scholars were clearly indebted to the English. One example of English influence is the work of Richard Croke, a graduate of Eton and Cambridge. After being trained in classical languages, Croke became the first man to hold a Greek Chair at the University of Leipzig. Kore important for this study, however, is one of Croke's students, Petrus Hosellanus, alias "Peter Schade." hosellanus was of the same generation as Richard Cox, and both represent second-generation institutional- izers rather than early innovaters: Hosellanus as a text- 7D. Bush, The Renaissance and English Humanism (Toronto, 1939); F. CaSpari, Humanism and the Social Order ianudor England (Chicago, 1953). 8K. Charlton, Education in Renaissance England (London, 1965), 108, 133. Also see, J. Simon, Education and Society in Tudor England (Cambridge, 1966), 91-128. 1+ 9A.F. Leach, Educational Charters and Documents 4813f." 'I A ‘OAA‘ ' P. 4.. -..' ' v.--’ *1! . -.... Q .I-- . 0“ I‘fl-‘ -- ‘- U..- l : J~—‘ ac- - - I ‘ "" - -¢-\n- . o,. _ . - » .— — ~ - I 31v . ‘ .— - .\ ‘P'Au-A (a .- . '-;v out v.--.-—u —. A - "3 a o..- v, . .o .O..- ~4.~:*In "‘ - a- -v‘_‘ ‘o -- - > Q a. - p“ A": . ._ A ~ ' ' .- ‘ -~ .0... “- . - 0 fl . . ‘ A‘~Q.-‘: _ ‘U H.-v-~‘~‘-. v . - u. .v.,.____.- | -""‘....~' C.-- o . ‘ . V\ n.. A _. ‘-:A ‘ ‘4-” ‘.‘ "-\-. ‘—- v o-‘~. . . L. r— :v‘ M “fp— -‘ *‘-~« m“... a. .y-‘ ‘ fl -- .—.u ‘AAF . -. an...‘ \ ~. _ ‘ ‘0; § - "F- 5‘. _ . \ A ‘ '- -...._. .. ‘ V's- \ ‘ ¢ ‘ Ve.:.‘ N L-‘-- . M2- ‘ “‘ ~ "—«_‘ -._. ...-' -_ s .Ry‘h‘.‘ -‘-~‘v "’ r I ‘- N "‘-.. - ‘ ._‘ -._ _ ‘ A0. ‘ -\ ~ '- :R -“ *9- \—~ .. ‘ .' .r v ' '4 .) 0-, ‘V; book author, Cox as a schoolmaster. As head of Eton the latter used the most modern teaching materials and enforced the New Learning with as strict a zeal as he was later to enforce the English version of the Reformation. The Continental and English textbooks used by Cox at Eton were products of Renaissance classicism, but there is also evidence in them of the importation of religious 10 Classicism was invoked in the texts written criticism. by Erasmus, Lily, and Stanbridge as well as by heavy read— ing in classical works ranging from Cicero's difficult style and deep content to AeSOp'S lighter Fables. In the first and second forms the basic texts of William Lily and John Stanbridge were examples of English attempts to purify grammar instruction, and the works of neither were objectionable in the 1520's. Cox's use of Erasmus' work was not objected to either, for his textbook on correct letter writing was used. It did little but provide advice regarding correct forms of address and methods of argumen- tatlon.11 Similarly, his work used in the seventh form, Cogia Verborem.§t Rerum, provided little else than instruc- tion in writing in general, and cited several classical 1OA.F. Leach, Educational Charters and Documents 448 ff. , 119. Erasmus, Iibellus g3 Conscribendis Epistolis (1521). ‘I ‘ r;- -c -A .-..-o.. _, " _ - - ._~-'.. ....... “a ., - - .:Pv-.Q n - _. ‘C ’ v -- ~ I-.. 0"- 0 . 0- --~. ’ ' v" i- -';.f g - .g4'- '--‘-’ .o.. - . .- 1,.....,.,. I Av- :.- . -.—--—--'-.a-. _ . .— - .V 0.. uVAv-zw —‘ . — . A "" 4--.v- _ _ . n c'. : ‘ ‘ ‘QA‘F . ,— C J. ““~v'- a- _ . §‘ ”‘0‘ —- . :‘~f‘ M "‘ _.s§.. __ ‘ c' ‘ _ FA“-.." V fir . .-_.. .. 5.- ‘ . ‘ D 3- ‘t-I- ‘ v -I ‘ V" 1 m. J 'lb. -‘. -k-V ‘ . . - Aug ~-_.‘ F‘. .7“ .‘ -:_‘- z '- ‘A . ~ ‘ - :- A ”an‘ .'--5 at :‘ ‘ “ '~' .“-- L ‘ . fin - -" {- ~' 5 ‘. 0.. . ' A " d... - "“ A - ‘ -.-. 'J ‘- - .--' ‘ -‘. h A ‘ s..‘_‘ y ‘N‘: .l .. V ‘ ‘iv.: a «- "“ &-, Q ‘_ - ~ ~ . As -. . .' '— § ‘ ‘ - ~¢ «a ' ~vv’ .§‘ ao- ." §s .. 'u», .1. V5,. ‘ ~‘ ’ u A. -\~ . . ‘ w ‘ H .- .. i ““s ‘ . ' ~ A . x. .‘ "- ‘§, ‘ V‘ a. a.» \ -V — - -.¥ a ‘.Q 5‘ .- A ..\ A‘. I“- . v. __‘ ~ . ‘_v. ‘Q ’ ‘4’ y. ”e ”I “M“ ‘. ‘~‘3‘ ' ~‘ _. ~“ F ‘ q "‘ C “5 \, A.‘ . ‘ ‘ h. ~Aq ‘ v,‘ ‘ - ‘ a ' ‘g‘Q s ’ \- “’ I u; -‘ ’ A I '\ S v A.- ~\_.- Ag \ U ”V.~ a» ' Q V "\‘ A u ‘ -v-K -‘_ -‘ .u .I s“. r: “ . . ’ . - \ ‘ \‘ J “ ‘ J‘ \V\ \O ’ 1’ n \ sJ ‘~__ I A V -. ‘ . ‘0 s. ‘4‘“ . I. x. \. ‘1“ ..§ “ - \ Q ‘ " “‘ ‘- (x. ,‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ H \. '- ‘ -*-: - - . .x‘ A “s a. . ‘A: ‘ I. : ‘ v- - u—n— “ h “‘ --3., . . ‘q‘l A ‘ .— ‘ . . ‘ 29 examples to bolster the author's instructions.12 Of course, reliance on Erasmus does infer sympathy with his critical views, and there is evidence that Cox patterned his moral instruction after Erasmian ideals. Renaissance ideals of the prOper behavior of gentlemen and of the correctness of liberal education were designed to educate young men in good manners and morals, and Erasmus presented a thorough plan for this approach in a pamphlet published in 1530.13 In that work he idealized both liberal educa- tion and dedication to Christ's life principles,“+ and relied almost entirely on Aristotle's instructions for aristocrats: the man with vere nobilitas should act according to definite standards, and his actions will Speak clearly to point out his nobility.15 To inculcate Renaissance ideals, Cox adopted a thorough system of con- trol at Eton.16 12D. Erasmus, geyDuplici Cgpia'Verborum.g§ Rerum (1512). This work exemplified English connections with the Northern Renaissance, for Erasmus dedicated it to John Colet. 13D. Erasmus, Qe Civilitate Morum Pueri (1530). As seen below, pp.ffi3. moral training was eSpecially stressed by Cox as tutor of Prince Edward, the future king of England. 1L’Ihid. , Du. 15Ib1d., A3, 34. 163. Cox, "Eton School Curriculum," Leach, Chapters, 448 ff. The subsequent paragraph is based on Eton's cur- riculum and daily schedule as suggested to the founders of the Saffron-Waldon school. b #‘r "a". A. V-‘ .‘( ‘ a J" I F" ..r A V. w;“:’ "f 0-0“" . 3 '.5, "v I." :‘H‘H ".f :r,92“3 v.4”. - :‘lov‘:s "C. Ir: 01.1.... nA-O‘-‘- | ‘ - ".1 Q"Af‘1 " b" d..v yuooiv-. - 9Q ‘ :: ”pH-n Io" ' 0‘. sun-9‘ V-.- ‘ Ir. :3? 9“. ~".- in" ‘L‘ D o-.- "" 0A, ‘CK‘V'. 1'“ ..| J. -«A-.‘.“ U "‘ r. .4 ,4. .. f“ u *- Or:- Aflv‘“~‘"fi“" “.1: uv..¥-¢cAG-§‘J IAI‘. .. AV: ‘ ‘ Pr“ .......5 J 5:..." “Y; I .. , h n~‘+. . .- «‘ ‘0‘ a“-¥‘:r . . ,I p0 N ‘ ‘ ‘ s. u ' I ' “' .ge-.. hra‘h it ‘:,Q ,. ...:3° " fl ‘ “9.8 gal ‘e~ “‘ 5 "‘r.‘ ‘H-« " Ogn' s“ V‘v.‘ V‘QI’T - yk .a"> Q t n" - n-¢ ‘ ‘U NBC-.9“ c. .‘qgc ‘- h. - O .V‘Ver C‘s F “\ Q.‘ I i ‘p \ u‘ . F a u C. \‘S"‘ 1 R, V‘U ‘ ‘ . “‘u ‘\g. e v I er‘h‘r tkr \g‘v. ., “c ' “'\::1 “ «Au- :3.“ I «v ‘I - in N ha . b A} “V‘ES‘EQ‘O ‘ . k d‘ 9-. 's ~¢ v~ ‘ " «e:a\‘p1 ~‘\g =T‘A ‘A. C ‘V ‘2‘ h '- \ \Q q ‘u ~OV", ‘h r‘EQ‘h‘, \- L- ”‘E m,‘ ‘ "-4 A... "" V i“. . u‘:;:3*‘ ‘ygfisfi ‘ at: 30 At the head of the system of discipline stood the master, who had full control over admissions and eXpul- sion: "If there be any dullard the Master giveth his friends warning and putteth him away that he slander not the school." But discipline among the boys themselves was controlled by "Prepositors," or prefects, who were chosen from the student body and given the reSponsibil- ity of making sure the boys' behavior was proper and that they continually Spoke Latin. There were two such pre- positors in each form, two in church, two in the choir, and in addition they were to be found in the houses and in the field where the students played, "for fighting, rent clothes, blue eyes, and the such like." Lastly, the medieval practice of having internal Spies was maintained. These were called "privy monitors," and they were to be found in each residence. They also were to make sure Latin was Spoken in the house and as the boys marched by twos between classes and from school back home. With such a disciplined educational system as a model, it is little wonder that England could easily adapt to Tudor political thoroughness. It is also to be noted that later ecclesiastical discipline systems bore a strikingly close resemblance to Eton's type of internal control sys- tem. Both.Presbyterian "elders" and the Elizabethan "church wardens" have their prototypes in the schools' "prepositors” and "privy monitors." as,“ 5.1 -- \ ‘ . pg Am“ n9“ ‘- «L 3 4 s. 2‘ r .q. A: . \ ést .\.\\.\ s. 31 In addition to instilling correct grammar and good morals in a disciplined environment, Cox used the works of men who were more radical than any others in contempor- ary usage: John DeSpauterius17 and Petrus Iuosellanus.18 The former was a Dutch schoolmaster at Bergen-Op-Zoom, and his work on versification was used in Eton's fifth form. The work consists of rules plus classical examples. kore important was Losellanus, who had produced two text- books, Paedologia and Figurae. The former presented a new method of teaching Latin forms, the Renaissance dialogue, replete with humanist assumptions and judgements. The *1 bigurae was a textbook for letter-writing instruction, generally used along with Erasmus' Cgpia. While one need not go so far as A.F. Leach in claiming that these authors exemplified a re-importation of Lollardy,19 Cox's use of them does demonstrate an important and hitherto ignored importation of the Northern Renaissance's desire for a Philosophia Christi. Since Cox used hosellanus' texts in 17John DeSpauter Ninivitae, Ars Epistolica (1512) and Artis Versificationiae Comendium (n.d.7. 18Mosellanus was born in ifl93 or 1u94 in Germany and was educated at Cologne. In 1515 he studied under Richard Croke at Leipzig and succeeded him as professor of Creek at Leipzig. See R.F. Seybolt, Renaissance Student Life (Urbana, 1927), xiv ff. 19Leach, "Eton College," Bucks History, II, 192. l»"‘f'— s ‘b-‘M' 4.2,. ‘-'—-c- .-.A p d . r' C o--' .. O"! .... .mu —.H .4 _. . F..‘ O. as A.. .r ~ ‘.. P.\ e. e. a. : .. ~.C .fu ... . a. A. 4. Ac 2. a. u. ... f‘ C. ... A.;w~‘n_........ 2... .. v. .._ a. .s. . . t. .... m. 3 a. p.. t. .. . s ‘ n: a. ... cc .3 C .r...» ... ... Sta : «R a. »s .C S .3 3 a . a . T .... .C ..J .u .9 v. 63 2. c. at k v ~-. 2 v . Q. t“ Cw ; x A: a: v.. s; x . 2 a: a . a: .. \ a; 3. v” . . . . 2 . s u ..4 a. 1 . a... .1 a: 3. a . v u x .m . . ~ I.. I ”1‘. e. “a“ ‘H ‘ .. -..-. fin. v. ‘A~.¢ “~‘w I I‘d K I - +u§ .1 a .O.. n- .a. . a An. N I v .z\ .n. A: A. a a 91 A. .U.. s. s.. .... ..- u § 0 I O o . 32 his administration at Eton and in the education of Prince Edward,20 a brief examination of the more Opinionated of the two books, the Paedologia, is in order. First, hosellanus maintains that much of what passed as Christian in the early sixteenth century was actually an accretion of pagan rites and social customs. In Dialogue XXXI, for example, Burbanius and Kilianus discuss the cleansing rites preceding Corpus Christi day as being similar to pagan cleansing rites;21 and in dis- cussing the feast of St. Urban, Servatus asks Raphael why Christians from Raphael's home town get drunk, thus acting as pagans did at the feast of Bacchus. The dialogue pro- ceeds as follows: Raphael: They think that when the saint is thus prOpitiated (by drunkeness), grapes grow more abundantly. Servatus: O stupid men, who think them- selves deserving of the saints by drink- ing-bouts and intoxication, when they may please God the ruler by abstinence and sobriety.22 Such an exclamation is not isolated, for another vieWpoint revealed by Nosellanus is his insistence on the search for true piety and learning. In Dialogue XXIV, for example, 20Nichols, Literary Remains of King Edwrd VI (London, 1867), 3951 cited below as Literagy Remains from one-volume edition. P. Mosellanus, Paedologia (Seybolt, trans, Urbana, 1927), 76 ff. 221bid., 82 ff. nc—n"' ---—1. “J “O. 9‘ —‘ a- "‘ ” .nv- -~--'-- U o .. x t. T T C 2 NC. . . .. . . . .7 s. a. a; ‘. 2. :— . ... .. .2 AV 4 a :. .~. —. \ \\ \‘ :. V :4 L» AC .4 5% d: - k“ .‘.I 33 after bemoaning long services, through which students evi- dently slept, Franciscus states, God will put an end to these things also, so that I may be able at leisure to retire from these labor? of onus into the cultivation of true piety. 3 In dialogue XIX, hartinus catches Valerius violating a fast of St. Catherine, the patron of learning: Valerius: . . . to Speak frankly with you, I have always thought that Christ was the true patron of learning, since he is frequently celebrated in the name of wis- dom in church services. Eartinus: Yo? are trying to introduce some novelties. ” With this cynical reply about "novelties" hosellanus is clearly critical of traditional religion and willing to search for new piety and new learning; in short, for Christian humanism.25 A third theme presented by Rosel- lanus, and later by Cox, is dissatisfaction with the social and economic status of students. Losellanus, Speaking through his dialogues, bemoans the poverty of students, and one can appreciate the popularity this must have had among contemporary readers. In a broader sense the dialogues are comprised of social criticisms. In Dialogue XXIII Conradus 23F. hosellanus, Paedologia (Seybolt, trans, Urbana, 1927), 60 ff. 241b1d., 51 ff. 25Ibid., 28 ff. He suggests that pagan rites and authors be replaced by Erasmus' Enchiridion. a. a... .0 I. _. a“ a. .... C. “.x .. .. ... u. ‘ ‘ ms 1‘ A» T. .r.. .... v.‘ .f y. o _; o : 12.....twus _....... :1 339:... aez.“..4.. a. 2 T T : 1...:T.....3......CC..:ts.r?.;...ar.. CUT... .. .. T o 4.. .. “.2153...“ ......... a. .p...»..w...:attlsaufff. 5.3.32.2 :. .. .. .c v .7 .11.?“ ..n z .c a» L; a: a. C we...“ ..u. .. a. r. 1s ...-.»~ c__ .. H a. L E .. C — _ a v. . . . C» P; o; . OI 00 O. I. O. 3. up .. a: A. :— ~. ...... ... .. ..-.... ..I .r“ I. .d . ‘. ”A 1‘ u ‘. Paw .. :v d. ~. 2. _. .L m. ._ u :- A. 1. .- 7. u. u. 0 . o i. v. i. 2. o. a; s». A.A .v _. - .\' “. :u 0 I. O 3b Speaks out against the many required fasts, and Aedidius replies that the church fathers created them "for people like themselves who are rich and voluptuous." 26 On answering Conradus' inquiry as to the source of his nega- tive attitude, Aedidius cites a scholar who had read St. Jerome's works; and Conradus replies, "I am grateful to St. Jerome . . . ."27 Similarly, the dialogue between Valerius and Eicholas at a feast to the Blessed Virgin epitomizes hosellanus' critique: Valerius: Why haven't you a candle, kick? Nicholas: How Should I have any? I LIZ-<1 haven't even money to buy food? If I were at home among my own people, my mother would prepare some trifles of this sort for me. Do you dare to call these sacred things trifles? Why not? Nor should I immediately become a heretic even if I do not carry a candle, eSpecially since I haven't the means with which to buy one; for I should think it would be much more pleasing to Christ if the expense which were incurred in the purchase of candles were diverted to the use of the poor. But this is a praiseworthy custom. It is, to be sure, but not to the extent that on account of it better and greater Christian obligations ought to be neglected. You are right, for I myself have often laughed at the simple piety of little women who, by placing thirty-six candles before the cross every day, are satisfied 26Mosellanus, Paedologia, 58 ff. 271b1d... 58 ff. J. .I- .. A - ‘ ., - -4 .. ‘ uA ,.-_.. __ .- “A‘- .-" flfi-_,fl : . ‘ ~v ’- -- ‘-u.. Ugo. l 5...,. ”H‘L’f. v..- —’ .s. - 'c-‘J'— ‘— ‘P' ~‘f"flq‘ ,3," ~..: '-~..-.A- H ,.. ‘ ' O l‘-"":"-\-~ o-_. _ .— -..'.J‘A'-* an. n. a.-. a A.. -- ~..--~' U,__ . b .w“. A“ ‘~-r A0 u~.-v“--- '. f--~:-- 2": --.~- .A, -~. -.~. «‘ , . a , I Q .I- :Y \qf"- .. ---.. v»..v--. ‘ l "9-. - o- ‘- .~-‘ .3 c ‘ ‘ -‘I u..v ‘ VJ , ‘.‘ ‘A g... I, , ‘ F" ,. '5.-_ V. s. A -‘ ‘ - v— . ..- J". ‘ «.. : a ‘ §~.. ~..~\ ‘ .-_.I ~. u§~~-\‘.~ _ . g.”- 9-,. . -_ ‘ 1“: “l:‘° ‘ . "" ' r.- ‘V y C ‘ ‘ . ~.-: -.. “-u ‘. \V‘.-— . l A ‘ — v..‘c n6 . ‘ ra .‘ ~ ‘5 I“~ “‘3 ~v‘ U P’. w a-.-‘ ..V -' I “’ ‘C .:-_~: ‘s “1“ K." '“c..: v‘.~ ‘ ' \ “‘ . s ‘ s C. ‘ . :. -. "‘ ci‘a . ‘ *‘~- .5.‘ V 5 \_. I c“- s! . “ I"! v “\.v C». s. a. ‘ -. 'A / k _ ‘.:5Q“ V' . I... \‘. ’- ’. \u‘ / ‘A. 35 that they are thus deserving of heaven, no matter how much thezpoor suffer hunger in the streets. 0 With Cox's adoption of hosellanus' text came the first clear institutionalization of the Philosophia Christi in the grammar schools; for while many intellectuals had introduced this new Renaissance philoSOphy on an individ- ual basis, Cox was able officially to establish it in the curriculum of England's most important grammar school and suggest its use to at least one other school, Saffron- Walden School.29 Further, hosellanus' works were later used in the education of England's next king, Edward VI. The works of DeSpauterius and hosellanus, therefore, must stand with those of Vives and Erasmus as examples of the Renaissance-Reformation desire for pure classicism, for a return to pure and truly pious Christianity (in hoselanus' case there is even criticism of early church fathers for not doing this thoroughly), and for a correction of some of the more obvious contemporary social injustices, eSpecially poverty. As a schoolmaster Richard Cox clearly was involved in institutionalizing very radical ideologies at the same time the government was eSpousing conservative Catholicism. Another phase of Cox's role as a teacher appears in 28Mosellanus, Paedologia, 65 ff. 29VCH, Bucks, II, 85. ‘ Ago”... 0,.“ ’.c- . ' c..- _~.~-.‘ ' o C — .. .nA A 'Ic l".-— 1‘ .5 -a-b ' .. ‘ I. Q ' .Q- ‘ ”v- A- “ 5:-.. L.‘ n... " -- ' ‘ _..o 'F‘Qh‘f [9,. v4' 'nm-A a; -.L .n u I. A ‘ ‘ "o... u ‘ 1 . ““ nan”- _ ’ '- . “C .JP u'..¢.~s.~..uu -- . _ "‘ :25‘ -. a .. ,~ Vi: c. F at -.~A--.'._.‘.-- ' 7 C. . 'wv ' ‘ "'--, q . Q- -"r— o - I ‘~I“ ‘ . o I. _" . Q i‘ - ' -» ‘v‘- 'n._ .d- ..- .‘5. Q “aa‘. .."~ ll< *. P“A-- A .¢._-' I I. -‘Q. .: I §,' - ‘ . u. ”A." ..‘~ ~.. _. .. I “ ‘A‘ ._ t w- ‘ MI .c ‘.‘ -0 v -. VA q w... - .. ,p 9., ‘. ‘~ c. 1"- “. 43“ 1‘ . f‘.‘ p. '4 ; AA. ‘ I'-.h I“: Av- a... .12.. V‘ 0! ‘ \ 'HV‘ , I ‘ " ’u l ‘ n ,. - » "~ - . ~. ‘o . fi§ N « a! ~V 36 his poetry, for it reflects many cultural ideas as well as his ideals as a Christian moralist. In the poem "Say- Well and Do-Well," for example, each characteristic is put through its paces to prove good works out-value good talk.30 Similarly, in the poem "will and wit" the Renaissance lessons of strict political obedience as well as traditional Christian submission are cleverly taught: I wyll, said Wyll, clyme hye alought: Such folle, said Nytte, fall muche onsought. I wyll, said Wyll, noowyse he towght: Well than, said Wytte, all will be nowght. For he that by wyll dothe rule his wytte, Doth oftymes loose, whan he shuld knytte. This wylfull Wyll Wytte dothe leade, Thorough follysshe fansyes in the headde. But if Witte were ones in Wylles stead, han Wyll by Mytte myght well be leade. For wheras wytte dothe lead the wyll, The knot half knitte is fasten styll. If wylfull wyll wold ruled be After Witts counsell, folye to flee; Gods commundments kepe shuld we, And obey our kynge in eche degree. ‘ For wheras wytte dothe rule the will, The knot half knytt is fasten styll; And wheras wyll dothe rule the witte, 31 Oftymes dothe loose, when he shuld knyte. As a teacher-poet Cox relied on personification of ideals and strict adherence to the theme of obedience, but his ‘ 3OR. Cox, "Six Ballads with Burdens," J. Goodwin, ed., Early English Poetry, Ballads, anginpular Literature 23 the Middle Ages (London, 18335, XIII. The only author Who had attempted to date Cox's poetry places this poem in the period of the Marian exile; however, its contents reflect Cox the teacher and moralizer, thus its inclusion here. See A.P. Stanley, Historical Memorials 2£_Westmins- ,223.Abbey (London, 1886), 399. 311bid., 6 ff. 4. 4L. . A. . . .. A a. ..p. ‘- . z. .. ... ... ~. _. .. .. ... a. .H . ... I . .. a. i. .. i ... .. .L ..l ‘. ~ ... ..x A—. ‘. n- A. . . “a ... ‘4 _.~ .. "H ‘u A. A» V.. . n. n. ... 9 ... P .. ... a. a. .. ... _; a. .... .... ... .. as ...U .. ... ... r. ..l u: a» n: .. c. a» ... X... 2‘ - .._.. .3 1“ r2. —. C. «I I .v «a a v ... f. ... I 2. C. ... .s. ». ... .l 2. .. .. ..n - ... ... .. .... .. ... .. .. 2. y. p. .. .... ... c. z. ‘. ... c. "M : t .; 1 ... .. ...\ ... ... .... .. ... a. .. ... .. ... ... C. .; .. Z .. .. T. .t ... - C. u . m. A. ... ..s -. 5v :. y. A. ... \ . 1. .. ... .u .. ..u .. s. ... .. .. ... at 9. ‘ .. ... o ..v n d o u c o P; 0.5 naa - v A. c v s . \ . n.‘ a v I g u . O a 4 n x 37 ballads reflect a pietistic tinge also. He could write, for example, Lourde, wounde my fleashe witngeare, For I feare they iudgementes. Beyond these eXpressions of a schoolmaster and devout Christian, Cox's poetry was also used as a sharp critical tool against contemporary social and religious evils. In the poem "The Black Sheep" he relies on these problems as a basis for an attack on the mendicant friars and their social effects. It is possible to interpret this poem as a critique of the enclosure system, which already had created problems of crisis prOportions in the sixteenth century. But such an interpretation is made doubtful by two facts: the last line indicates that Cox is referring to men; and Cox later produced a paper which indicated that he was not averse to the changes in farming methods in the century's agrarian revolution.33 Also, as Bishop of Ely Cox later encouraged enclosures rather than impeded them. Regardless of its precise meaning, whether an attack on enclosures or on mendicant friars, Cox's poem is a nicely done piece of social criticism: This shepe he is a wycked wyght, Han, woman, and chylde he devouwreth quite, Ko hold, no howse can him wythstande: He swaloweth up both see and lande. 323. Cox, "Ballads," 11 ff. 33Eelow, pp. 43—46. -.fl . - k' ~‘ . . .. -n-n -. _, _. “-.- v _- . r. f‘ .. .. -... n A’.‘ r. ., J4 s -. q n _o - I! — _, -.--- - l w “ -..-4 h- .. --- .— . - o . Ah- - _ --- ’ I a- . w-~ --. c... - p ‘ ... "' F- A. .... . -. "w .., . w ‘Iuan v _ '-' _. ~ ‘~. ‘. ‘ " ~ - .2--."~ . .‘I>A-: \. ’ “a - - M _ _ .‘ "~- : . .. “Ah ._ ... --. _ ---- .- . v. - ‘. Va. . ‘ 'Af. Q . ,, .d.‘-~.L s.L_- , h “ I ‘ .- D). . ‘ . -..“ '1- .‘. v '¢--_ ‘ \. -.. 3 .‘ u . -r-.. ‘ In". “ist‘ ; .~.., .‘ ~ ... a. . -\ ‘~ 2 E\:-. . 4 V --V a A. Q“, “ ..“ - ._ 'u. ‘v‘ “ a.-. I ‘. -‘ F- - “ ‘3‘. . in Q‘ ‘ . " QA‘ ‘ 5.. ,- _ ‘~~‘ _\s- ' ‘-- - ‘ ‘ g § A . ‘..“ -“ - - ‘. "\3 p -. ~‘g '-.'. z..- ‘\ 5,- “\. \ ‘Q ‘n ‘- ab ‘- 3‘ \., ‘ .. L. K - ‘ v OJ 3 hen were wont ones off shepe to fede, Shepe now eate men on dowtfull dede. This willwysshe shepe, this rampying beast, Consumeth all thorow west and est. Halfe England ys nowght now but schepe, In everye corner they playe boe pepe; Lorde, them confownde by twentye and tega And fyll their places with Cristen men. The above poems cannot be dated with precision because they were submitted for publication by Cox's son after his father's death. John Jegon, Bishop of Norwich received them from the younger Cox, and the poems were not actually published until 1844.35 The internal evidence does indi- cate that they were probably written early in Cox's career, for they reflect his position as a teacher of morals and as a critic of both religion and society in the sixteenth century. His Renaissance scholarship and Reformation zeal were inseparable. Though the only positive view asserted by such writers as Hosellanus and DeSpauterius was an encourage- ment of pure Christian living, Richard Cox's Christian humanism was characterized by positive social remedies. Similar remedies have been identified by scholars in the works of humanists close to Henry VIII;36 however, few have 3MB. Cox, "Ballads," 5, 6. 35J. Goodwin, "Preface,"'Bix Ballads," vii. 36w.c. Zeeveld, Foundations of Tudor Polic (Cam- bridge, 1948). Zeeveld relies eSpeETally on he works of Thomas Starkey and Richard Morison. Also see F. CaSpari, IHgmanism.and.£h§ Social Order, 22. ..- -; -, w a v...’ pd“ .- A , ~n~ g ,c ' v I " 9. OUD ‘ ‘ ;- (\HAF fr: A U "”h :i-.. .. .-~. -. v .' 32,. 3....:.. C ..-- .;-... ... " X . . ‘ A fi‘. -.. ‘3 . ~ - r v- v..- -v..- " u - - " rH—“. _ . ’-.h- - '.—I .0. .1 - - 7" A"'(‘ ...-- ’ U ‘4 -*' ~ . -‘ ' ‘ '..: ' 0.5., . F a . _ ‘ ...-‘- 1--.-- ‘Q . .l ... ...‘,~ *. _ no 'n...~..- .. - v‘- ‘.. .- . ' ~( ‘T‘gu ._ .44” ~aq_ v.1 ‘ . ‘ v ‘ § ‘ Aft": _ _- .. voo‘-.’ K.~ '- ze‘ ‘1 l ' ‘2 " A'-.— ~d.. -_-‘ -v ‘h -‘ ‘FV ‘- .. . . Q \pna_ .. ." .. " "c l -. -vv‘ ..V --, ‘.‘: b i.- ‘ .. .- .A ..a 5‘ --‘~v ‘v 9‘ b4 ..‘ - n. . ‘ : ‘QA‘; - ‘ I . ‘fl ' U- l I u- .. u.. - ;\.,s _ '. — ~" . ......‘Q Q vi Q. nm3_-_ -h ‘. u ‘9‘ . . H " ‘.. - ~ . v .J k . "~._ - “§: ~" A...“ \s" ‘. ‘ . v._~. v .- v -‘ ‘~ ‘ “q a- ‘ 1 E " ‘-\- ‘ « V“-~ .- ‘- ': ~‘\: ‘ ... ‘2“ ‘ ‘ VJ ‘- .. N ‘- '.d- ‘. ' ‘ q - ...‘5 ~ s1 v .‘v‘ a 4", ’\ J ‘ns -‘. A.' .: \. \ " ..- a ‘ F ‘ , ~V \§. “ ’ 55., i" v, '\ \A‘.. V P.‘ -‘v ‘ ‘ v,- A A "I “ U ... A‘- U a ‘ ‘ ‘~ \A . \ ...“ ‘ "_ . ‘V ..h-.£ 1““V‘ fl‘.‘ ”\ . A I. }. h..' a“ A \I .- l- ‘ J. A “. A‘ 3'9 credited the radical religious establishment with blue- prints for a new society. W. Gordon Zeeveld, for example, traces such social criticism to Henry's advisers Thomas Starkey and Sir Richard Horison, but Cox was clearly part of the religious establishment. He had proceeded 3.9. and D.D. at Cambridge and served as chaplain to one of England's most important bishops, Goodrich of Ely; and as a social critic his plans went far beyond those of the well-known religious social critic, Hugh Latimer. Cox's 1536 paper on social problems has been preserved by John Strype, and demonstrates the close ties between Reforma- tion religious thought and social radicalism within the established power structure; and though Zeeveld has traced the "liberal" political leanings of the Henrician regime to the radicals in residence in Wolsey's college at Oxford, Richard Cox had clearly gone beyond political paternalism to a vision of a new Europe and a universal Christianity.37 Cox's paper is based on two historical assumptions: that church lands were about to be suppressed; that the Turks would soon be defeated and should therefore be enticed to become Christians by Henry VIII and Charles V.38 This enticement would occur only after ‘ 37R. Cox, "Paper," British Museum, Cotton Cleo- .péitra, E4, Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, I, i, 418. -B€ickground to Cox's plan may lie in the Cambridge diSpu- Ettions regarding papal power. See COOper, Annals, I, 366-367. Cox's work is cited- below as "Paper." 383. Cox, "Paper," 418. - -. - Y- ' -fiF‘ "‘ .- ..,v~* --- . F I ‘ ' rpwo —-.o .- _ _ ...‘n a b - _ .- . 6"" Us. ,o U- _. ..c *0‘ e-r.“ ” '° ‘ 3-.v.-' " .'. o “flaflfihat a _d~._--b-- . . y.» .. ~‘- d i N :AA‘f . a“ .4. ---.o- c -4— , v .nfiay-nnn' W P‘ ‘ - nun-....-s !-~—¢ , . .. ... D)“‘l\f s-y- 2‘ -'W Eng-4.. d... a- v..- I 'I . . -!-~n--v~ .. ”a . ‘osv-.‘-l“ y" ..- FHA... . " .- ._- ‘u b-v- _-- - --. a. . . ”s. H" of... Q '. '- A -.‘n—A «- '0‘» g. ‘ v... i. v. -_ Q I - I .;t‘g * Q .\—I ~ ~ A I .... “ “as“. *" ‘wvv - ‘- ‘FA‘... ‘ I a..-';\ “C A: .y.. .-. . J; - u _, . n ‘ 03‘.“ ~ .'\‘\.., C C: s_ O... v" V .4 '~. § \‘A ' v.‘ iv; ~-” by: " . “Mu-I ‘ A L K._ V! ‘ d. II. F", Q avd' T h ,- .. ~ V‘. n' ‘.A-. . 5 \ 5 Q. i “-.. C -t‘” a _-\‘. j \n- “.< . - 'I -~-.. -"‘I\ v-.‘~-: CA».A ‘ V. ‘5 A..- .-v -.‘ _ . .I. \.. “| -' -§ U. 'C n! V..- v- .' o.-~‘._ a .“~H n . ‘ "N. A Ah ‘ v ”-55 ,. Q s..- a “. F .I ~' . .... 40 good reformation be had of such things as have been brought in against the purity and truth of Christian religion. And among other things, the abundance of the possessions, and riches of the clergy, would be reformed. Cox's ideal for the clergy is repetitious of most Christian reformers' visions, a return to the idyllic status of the church under Christ and the apostles, a status, which, according to him, had been corrupted by the clergy's being swept up by Roman political power.40 From such a perSpec- tive Cox prOposed that the church voluntarily reform its life and doctrine, the net result of the former being an accruance of great wealth by the king.41 And here Cox's plans shifted to eXpand upon the commonwealth ideals of Starkey and Morison.42 Cox's plan was that the king should use the posses— sions gained from property surrendered by the church to "cause some notable acts to be done for the commonwealth, and for the ministration of justice.“F3 These "notable acts" clearly lay within the realm of economic improve- 39R. Cox, "Paper," 418. 40ibid., 418. 411bid., 418. ugZeeveld, 36. Both of these humanists produced tkNEir economic theories in the context of the Pilgrimage Of‘ Grace of 1536, and were more interested in providing ecionomic redress to stimulate political unity than in ful- ffiiJLling their idealism. Zeeveld does stress the common ODCItord education which Cox shared with the others: "For iii 'was out of this small group of enthusiasts that jus- IT'ication of the new Tudor program was to Spring." 43R. Cox, "Paper," 419. Fauna” out: w. .. . ‘ c ”“ ‘:I\r nv.- .- ...: .-... " can...” A- " .". -.A—nu v . "‘ 90"-.,. P“- v-.-d , .__J :A. .. . ‘ u .“'F"A‘ “R F- _ _ ‘ I. u. -|,.’ ..-v -‘ “I ".9. ll?» '.."V|w Uh..- ‘uh..-. .--" . u. ‘ i - ...-‘C L“ r, ~... '-.v V9 . ' _ r : - ‘ \P. ‘M‘A‘A . i . I .._..g -“d-- a. “‘ "I., I A M. 1-5, 6|“? .-‘ «\‘.U-V-., . - . ..' . n"~. :: . “" ' ‘2‘ . g A I.“ :'.0.‘: l-c“ I—n“‘ 4“- ' Q Mm. .: 9“ . ' : ,‘ v.“ : A P‘V- “\J|| ‘ “. Mac. ..‘I_ n.~ - v \v “‘S“A‘- - J . ~ v- ' v__ q ‘0‘ _ . :‘ ‘. " 'ct, . .. V... ’:»-7 4 “y‘d - 2(4‘ ‘ . Al. \‘ ‘ ‘ g Q""‘; “‘A‘ - u. . ‘a '- . “a fir .. '0‘. . A“. ‘H " o’c. . .. “v 41 ment and included the following: to set vagrant vagabonds to labor . . . to relieve such as be poor and impotent . . . to build new towns and villages ifigayzgli : z to make highways through Though Starkey and Horison hOped for a society in which the rich and the poor would come together simply by under— standing each other, Cox envisioned a future of full employment and bliss, a Protestant version of UtOpia. However, his appeal was not simply to the idealism of King Henry VIII, for he added the provision that if the king were to follow this advice, he would "get to himself a right gracious name through all Christian realms."45 In addition, further practical appeals were made to the king: first, taking church property would enable him to provide military supplies; secondly, such annexations would allow him to fulfill an obligation which all rulers have "to prevent all dangers that might come to the people after their death, even to the end of the world."46 Such ambitious prOposals for eternal welfare are not evident even among the most enthusiastic commonwealth men. The remainder of Cox's plan reveals two important devices: the use of prOphecy and a delineation of secular ~‘ huR. Cox, "Paper," 418. 451bid., 419. 46Ibid., 419-420. :““'.’.C -u -.'.-~ 1 ‘ ' on Y a 7..“ ' I. h f A ‘0 ii... 4I 42 success as coming to the king who works at being success— ful in a worldly way. Reforming clergymen as well as medieval thinkers were fond of applying religious prOphecy to their rulers, and Cox did the same in encouraging Henry VIII, as son of a famous mother, Elizabeth of York, to make England great. Contemporary Catholics evidently were using the same argument but they encouraged the use of peaceful and lenient means.47 They used an old proverb which indicated that the son of a famous mother would become more famous by avoiding stringent action. By using the same prOphecy, but with differen goals and means, Cox both appealed to the king and put down defenders of the 4 J3 ( religious establishment. Perhaps of more importance, however, are the values maintained by this young radical, values which reveal a turning away from an other-worldly orientation. First, Cox significantly denigrated the use- fulness of the religious establishment. He maintained that the honor of God was not to be found in prolonging the life of existing religious institutions, but in the creation of the good life on earth: the building again of such a town, or such, or laying to tillage of such a park, is more to the honor of God and to the more profit and more surety of the realm, than the standing of an house of religion wag, when it was in his highest prOSperity. ”7R. Cox, "Paper," 421. 481b1d., @21. 49Ibid., uzo. our Lu'c :‘O’ A" by: voJ-¢Vo.. ‘ l .0 A... .v -vw' - - J .... ..‘v H, .. :Dul‘. ‘:.- .;. v... '_~_‘ .1. Q'.‘ ‘ D. t....-; I ...”- 5- v - ' u ' "c 2’ _. .. g. “.5 "' . .‘ O. I.’ r l A Ar F tic--..-.A. a. . .. Q I :4 ‘V ‘“ h' . a ‘ I..'-." V“.- C A I" 1-.” A. A» I ... ,‘ U. «- 1.. ,A‘ijs ..p? --""-‘~y H; .. c. ... ‘ a x'fln.-r .. n... - ....‘ -.- ‘- Q 3... , " Y "Vt-,- . -lo 'V'l p1 B‘H‘L'nsJ ..‘ .- A» ‘- ..V v ._ v C “ :hx’u‘ . - P ”‘3 ."‘s ‘ fl ‘~V‘ I‘. . c f. ‘ . I ‘ .N: 0;. r~.' g" ‘ v 3: ._.: . .._ ~ ~ . 0‘. .v‘.: IV A . ' v I ‘- ‘I- A ov',~-?:.‘ ". f " ~_‘ ~ . . .\. 'I \- ‘. ‘ ~ ‘ .. ‘A‘ .' u": I- "U Pa . “i “n.- A I ~ svf‘: p. ‘ "a .fip. ‘- V- I‘ ‘ N" I 43 The traditional Christian motive of "the honor of God" is not lost in such a statement, but its focus shifts away from the contemplative life of preparation for eternity toward the creation of a just existence on earth. Secondly, Cox seemed to accept the teaching that worldly success gives evidence of the blessing of God. In his attempt to convince Henry VIII to carry out the abolition of religious houses and to re-orient social welfare, Cox envisioned an England and Ireland with "plenty of corn" and "increase of people."50 But such increase was not to be an accident: good government would increase the people; this would please God; God would in turn cause King Henry to prOSper: "filius inclytae matris feliciter sublimabitur."51 Upon close examination this is an obvious adaptation of a rather materialistic ethic, though based on Christian motivation. "If the king's Grace will increase his peOple, whereby the delight of God and the Glory also of himself shall be increased."52 It is apparent that Cox was willing to ignore traditional satisfaction with eternal rewards, for he viewed God's values and blessings as being material, not just Spiritual. Cox's Renaissance God thus takes on ‘_ 503. Cox, "Paper," 421. 511b1d., 421. 52Ibid., 421. n ‘ A we ""fi‘au .... Una-O. ‘..'|::.‘: .--‘U V- A . . _. .a‘rw: -.. vein-Av ‘2..~‘fihl "O°"cv.« “V at: A “In-'1‘... rm" ..gi.;. . . :\ WA... -, .. ...‘ .'3 Von. ... “v“ 1 Q (h ‘ i . D. (n wt“ “‘3 HA4-\1 . 0°C .V‘D I'db V..— ‘P ‘Waf . .. Av... .::. SCCT . H“. 6". i-‘AU . C" :5", A'U ~VII ‘H n‘.‘. VU V“ "v-IA C' U‘.‘v ~ ‘0 44 the characteristic of one who is concerned with earthly life and who measures success in terms of fame and num- bers; and this phase of Richard Cox's thought clearly illustrates the secular character of the Renaissance and Reformation upheaval. In adjusting to new social and religious conditions, strong appeals were made to divine justice, but the realities of the good material life could not be overlooked. Cox's views as eXpressed in the mid-1530's thus provide an example of the so-called "Protestant Ethic," an ethic in Cox's view which was designed to cultivate economic success among all the citizenry-~an ethic rooted more in material realities than in biblical directives. In Cox's case at least, the new ethic seems more a Renaissance Ethic than a Protestant one. As Cox proceeded B.D. and D.D. at Cambridge, he was clearly on the side of the Renaissance critique of contemporary religion and society. He soon reiterated his Protestant feelings within the Cromwellian establish- ment, but at the same time avoided both old-fashioned Iollard heresies and more recent Luthern pitfalls. To give a definite label to his views is hardly possible, INJt he was definitely both humanistic and religious, and this identified him with either Phillip helenchthon's brand of Lutheranism or the Swiss brand of Reformation Protestantism. Though his ideological rejection of A- "r'" ‘0‘}A.znz _ I I- as 4;...4--»—~— s o A I. . ,,.. ‘Q’O A’H , ' d. 5.. . .....-» . i O 0 ““"":V‘ A :v-;-... u .V v‘g - ' I . u a p ' " - r“ C " ..C C "“ *h 0-1-. - - . . .. I. . .""“-~ ’2’. A . In..___l -1“ ’ ' y .- ‘. f..- ... -.. - ‘ i- ‘I ...... . '.. . tiny- .. ‘: ‘ H - a p f O a. ‘U.- "““ 0-.t. -..V‘.--‘d-fl . l-‘=..“ L‘xc -.r _ ......" on“' V, u ‘bn ' ‘ ”A‘- Iv. C ... h. .v- .0. ‘ 0-. .Q ‘ ‘- .. ..FV‘A4 ya..-. ._ n. y 'o .A_ 'v‘ . l \r‘ ‘ ... p VC~A"1 ‘ ' dv v.“_ ‘I F‘. -‘ flu It..." hcu‘.. .‘ ’..»“-' n . Q‘l C. Y Pr .. - ... ‘..' '1.' .‘ ’- ‘ o ~ -‘~ . a. ‘-l c‘frl‘ .- -~“‘b’. "F . . ‘- h, 'A . A ‘ \.__ _y-s“" A v'v,‘ a ‘~*~ | . "In I. ‘ .“ ... ."'-.~ v H ‘.‘ V I a \- Q ~‘. ‘-; -“Fu.‘ "'4: 'e i 5". - 45 Catholicism was initiated during contact with Cambridge and Oxford Lutherans, Cox did develop a strong ideological attachment to the Swiss reformers, that is, to Zwinglians such as Heinrich Bullinger and kartin Eucer and to the budding ideology of John Calvin. These thinkers were more at home with the humanist scholarly tradition and there- fore would have had much in common with Cox's background and intellectual orientation.53 Cox's Erastian leanings directed his thinking away from rather than toward Luther- anism, for in Spite of his break with Rome Henry VIII surely wanted no preference shown to Luther. Though will- ing to negotiate with Lutherans for the sake of foreign policy, Henry VIII was not amenable to Lutheran ideology or in any way willing to accept Luther's ecclesiastical leadership. However, the Swiss Reformation was not unacceptable, for it was politically harmless and from the point of view of Renaissance scholarship it was more respectable. Thus, though Cox's thinking was oriented toward Swiss radicalism, his peculiar- brand of Protestant radicalism seemed to aid him at the same time Lutheran Protestants were being persecuted by the king's government. —-—~ 53Q. Breen, John Calvin: é Study in French Humanism (Grand Rapids, 1938); J. Rillet, Ulrich Zwingli: Third Inan £52 the Reformation (Philadelphia, 1§6H7; also, it has been dfrmonstrated that Cox's thinking was not at all alien to eport a contention for an earlier and perhaps greater -r3-35‘luence by the Genevan leader. A '7...» A;~ ’ ‘ .J‘ A “" Av- ~ I .r- . v - -. U . ‘ -v.‘_. 'f"l'\ "'n {,._.v 'ouv l A .- "r- .Cw:l?\'- I ..v .J-~L aun—A:-:Y. a p :i a...” -.. _ v 'Irrw ... y. ..z'fis‘ 5. ‘._ c 'U'vi' "boy ‘..A Q . . ' " ‘HA ‘c §~~A‘c.c' .. . ..‘A- .4 1 a Q -‘ ‘Ac ‘ -- ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘5 A ...-.8. U."- - z n n h. - ‘\:V‘Aa 2" ~ ""“~“‘ov- -.. . “u— . ‘ ‘ ‘r._‘fi ‘ ' - b As.“ Pia“ u” _ s. >‘ ~~ '. I~. . :i-‘ ...:s A” I. 1" ..‘AV .1. k I ~ v_ P".. ‘h ..A I“ ~ ~ “A 8‘ d..-.__‘ .“ ~ - I. - u ‘ b A..“‘. M , _ ‘fifikg‘.. ' ".- _ ‘o- n g ‘ A -‘. 0““ .I“\. . '- “‘-1‘ .‘Al . 5.. cu I.‘ ... a -v “\.'. . “. Q . ._ '\. ‘1‘ ' vc.‘.» A... ‘. §“' .- “h‘. t ‘u.\” . ~ “ ..--‘. .J-‘KA‘ h .‘ - - ‘ - \ 51‘. , . s ~A~. ‘ . ‘ V. . .-.g “:— "'.. , . s u'. . n ‘ w ~‘5r2‘1‘ h ‘C “ 0“! ' '3 z I‘ ~ \ .. g: *c .4 . ~ a -‘ ~ ‘. ."0 d .U. .—:~‘ \ “. _'.IA- . ‘ A" .‘E'. ‘ ‘w \- ~. _ ‘ ‘ i A \_ ’ A‘- “p s \ ‘.‘ If . ~' '- ‘\ |. 44 - A... “.4“ v A ) J‘ o 46 Traced to 1540, Cox's intellectual and theological development does have interpretive connotations. First, the view which would have the English Reformation suSpend- ing Renaissance learning is unacceptable.54 Henry VIII, Cromwell, and Cranmer were all obviously dedicated to the advancement of New Learning, not its destruction: and they were willing to reform universities and establish religious-educational foundations to accomplish their goals. Secondly, from the perSpective of Cox's life the Renaissance and Reformation are closely linked together. The Renaissance critique obviously inferred religious change and social reform. It should be pointed out, how— ever, that on both scores the ideas of Renaissance-oriented thinkers were rather nebulous. They could point out errors in contemporary practice but they had no carefully formu- lated plan for change. Only their Erastianism provided a usable policy for the Tudors, for their idealistic dreams of Christian justice were, for the sixteenth century, entirely unrealistic. Thirdly, English-Swiss relations were deveIOped earlier than is usually recognized.55 Richard Cox's ideas clearly were much like those of k. 54R.w. Chambers, Thomas hore (London, 1935). :{-S. Phillmore, "Blessed Thomas More and the Arrest of m«IIIlanism in England," Dublin Review (1931), 1-26. 55Above, ’9. 21 ff. - --A-- a . . A“ I’- F“ UAR A C, _ " “ —“-‘ - 'av it. .~.. - -..- - ~ _ 1‘. .",. “A‘.-_|‘.‘ - — -~ 1... ..., '-'_.‘ - a ”1“" --.-A-“\ .. .... J ' —--v v A -. .. ‘1- n.‘ :Y" .,:‘-: .14' A. ._ _- v . . r ‘- ‘ A '5 V‘ A.— A c Olcv ‘-~‘ -. A I ' ~ Av- £.. '0 ”‘r--.. I ‘ \ ,¢ v4. v.._.‘~ v-“ - ‘ivflol '- “'3 o v... .'.-,_ ~ I .— _ .. '7. H‘X‘1~‘ « ...U' ’ “ "l ' . fins: . «a, .1. .- 9"a-. ..- ' ~ ~ A».: ‘ 4 ~ "‘ ‘ K. A ‘R ._“ - 47 Zwinglians and John Calvin, though the unity of the Swiss was clearer in the 1530's than after 1541. Fourthly, the English religious critique was institutionalized early in the century in Spite of Henry VIII's apparent alliance with Catholic thinking. Cox's education, troubles, and role as an institutionalizer all were Operative before 1530 and were characterized by Christian humanism, not the rise of a definable class or "new elite." Richard Cox thus stands as a prOponent of the northern Renaissance critique, a prOponent who was able to institutionalize that critique at a basic and important level--in an edu- cational system which would produce the century's political and religious leaders. CI‘IAP'I‘E? II SURVIVAL OF A RADICAL I}? A CONSERVATIVE REGI1"'lE PART I: Biography, 1540-1547 Though an obvious devotee of Renaissance and Refor- mation radicalism, Richard Cox rose within the court and the church. Church preferment was granted in both the See of Ely and in Henry VIII's new collegiate establishments; and. in addition Cox was made a court chaplain. Also, he advanced to the high position of Prince Edward's tutor and Was the king's nominee for advancement at Oxford- University. After the downfall of Cromwell in 1540, Cox was soon ele- Vated, on November 16, 1540 he was presented Archdeacon of Elyl and First Prebend of King Henry's educational foundation at Ely.2 In the time-honored role of Arch- deacon, Cox had. legal jurisdiction on the Isle of Ely,3 and in his capacity as Archdeacon he also was a leader in the Convocation of 1542. He delivered the Opening sermon, \ 1&1, x1, no. 305; Rymer, Foedera, XIV, 705. 2Q, XVI, no. 305. Q 3J. Bentham, The History and Antiquities i the e”thedral W 93 Ely Worwich, 18127, 267-?70. 4:- Co '1-.. N- 9“::flf I 6 Ag! 5‘ Dov-O ‘r r .....-2" _ -. I. u . ‘a-J-d-.. .... . , r I - A-A\‘~ : l h- .. . _, a: *0- -... .— _ Ah‘g.,-‘,:“ ~ ~ u ... - '..v.. ~ I‘p A: .v.. tl" v. v- . .AODA c 9"Fuv. \ U..."-~ ~ ‘ § ‘ ‘ .- r~ .._,_~ d .’ ...-.-h , ... ‘ ~ -: " ‘.l__ D .P v... ”c U.---V Vi-v -.“- ..1.- . - . ‘ ‘ “ ..jv-u .. .1. "--.. .4 . . «:21 C“r‘- ‘“ «.4... _. ..U ‘ . . 4“ ‘ 1 -5 ‘A or... R'- ...... v v.._ 5 .‘Ia n :- t‘w‘p" “'e- ~- as. ~.'I‘. “ fl: - ICIGMA o .. _-. -.é“! ‘c A. ‘ Q... Q 5.4- .: : .c’ N, ""- a i O 'l. ‘ .0“. ~:*“. v \- ' ‘— ‘b - \ i ' A§~.‘ ."-‘ 1“ A 3 -\.-‘ * I‘ ... U‘ ‘. . . I ‘P...‘ ‘ ‘ .. ~ A V .I' --‘ -:-h .m- ..-- ‘ Q ~ .1 Q ‘ p k ‘- J \‘_ c 1' “. _" ‘ -. . _ .‘ V“ A. ~ ‘I‘ Q . 1““ 2“: - - . ' ,. I .._ ~s‘ _ w‘ v‘ - 1". A¥h‘ I “I H“\ ..r_ . , ‘ ... A. fit U 4‘. . , \ sy‘ '- fie ‘ 4.. ‘ U. f- V...- V / p ‘. _Cn'.-\‘- w- . ‘- o 1 . U.(' I, 5. ‘ i-‘ ‘ w v 49 preaching on the text, Vos estis sal terris; and he is credited with forcing his colleagues either to attend Convocation regularly or be suSpended from membership.4 AS a Prebend Cox became part of the king's plans to strengthen English education, for the king was in the process of trying to create colleges to replace the schools suppressed during the confiscation of monastic fualdings.5 For the advancement of education in Cambridge- skrire the king founded a new school at Ely and stocked it ‘w11:h_learned men, the most important of whom were the deuarl, eight prebends, and eight canons.6 Statutes were :gfifivwen.to the school in 1544, but the appointments are HN31?EB significant: the new appointees, including Cox, Were generally radical reformers. The dean, Robert Steward, was a known Protestant; Cox, the First Prebend, Ileld. clearly and publically pr0pounded Zwingli's brand of PI‘Otestant Opinion; the Second and Third Prebends were Ilat'thew Parker and William Ray, both known supporters of \ 8 “Dixon, History, II, 282; strype. 1.1. 573; atrype records that Cox "suSpended all the Prelates not tppearing or not licensed to be absent from the celebra- cDinof divine things, and from entrance into the church." (Eli 5Though often attacked as a greedy annexer of €3c1ttr°h prOperties, Henry VIII did attempt to replace the x) Lleational foundations which were destroyed in the sup- ‘ ession of the monasteries. 6Bentham, Ely, 225 ff; Letters Patent, September 1 O . 1541. A. O ”r "V‘ Two-f. ’ I.."._“'-U.q .. . . .f' .. I . Av .,. t M” "' 1.- .. ‘ ..- boon-- Uh. A c. I: v. ‘ n w .v . A “‘4'. -4 i. R . JA- ..- ..- .A.-_ l... ' «- :‘A‘:n.:v Va... . - 1 .""'*'-.v . .3 -Q‘CAV >c‘ k“ \ _ .— ' - ' Ii" 'A- . - “ nannyfix\.~ -“ ’ — ‘ - l - ' ‘. K V”. . ~ -4. ‘ ‘Ahv’.:l‘ ‘ R ..“‘ -‘-. -..‘v .. ‘ ‘ a: n-zu A.“ f“ «A. a- v. 9-... a ‘0 14:2. *3 U. g§.'. - ‘ ' . ‘ ‘ ‘V~ a ‘ . -Q J, r:., . ... ‘H -6 ‘_.“ ~ ‘ a ‘ . fl ”,2 A 3‘lmv .- ‘ .... .1- d v-. ‘ I“ ‘ ‘ .1 1 “v- "n _.¢ . .~v-..- _ H‘ “ . “a.” -‘.'v_ .. fi.‘ ‘ - ‘ ‘ 1‘:; “3‘9." Au. --‘_" " . . 2" .‘A‘ ‘3 . -“' ‘ V fi'- A V. -“.v “c. , .I.- .‘ s \ 3“... \ E‘.“ :“D R“ ‘ ‘*v‘ U .- .5.‘ .h g ' “‘2'; , " . A. b “y C C‘v: 9 ‘-- ‘ .... ‘ n at - x -, ... A ‘ ... Nb?” v- ‘ ‘v\\:B- H V- H F‘. I‘. g “ ~Q‘P ‘1‘ ‘ \v‘ .-c ‘u.‘ “’ \ I. ‘ ‘ .N‘. - - x . ‘ . Ra: In- ~ “ :- '\. \ ... ‘. V \‘PQ . “ ... L "v its. .- 5‘ “- V ‘ . ‘ ‘5! NA '. “‘5. “ - " '. ~ Q ~ .‘ ‘1 .' ‘~ ‘ ‘V ‘. . ..\ ’tx..\ “ “ — " .“ .. l“ ‘a . 50 The former was a Cambridge Reformation principles. scholar and the latter was Chancellor to Goodrich, BishOp The remaining prebends were either products of 7 of Ely. radical Cambridge or were monks of suppressed priories. Thus, at the same time that Henry VIII destroyed the Protestant Cromwell and turned to the strongly Catholic Stephen Gardiner as his chief advisor, he was also euivancing Protestants who were more radical than Thomas This suggests that Henry VIII was in fact a Cromwell. trivrorer of the kind of Reformation already epitomized in reform based on the ideas of humanist learn— Cox' 5 life: 1118: sas it had been advanced in Renaissance thinking; not a Re formation based on medieval Lollardy or Lutheran- Q A-Ugu stinian piety. U Though the king's real motives will be continually gllfiistflrmed by Tudor historians, his actions were impor- 1380313 for Richard Cox, for he prOSpered and was called on In two minor events, the trial of ‘t‘3 serve the king. Lord. Dacre and the reported birth of a son to Anne of OleWres, he evidently served the Privy Council and the king 8. E; E1 message bearer and informant;9 and in the same year, \ 7Bentham, Ely, 225-65; Letters Patent, September 1. O » 1541. 8Traditional Protestant historians such as Burnet They 1C1 Strype generally advance this latter view. ct Henry VIII as a Lutheran at heart even though his $9131 (2 t1-<:>nS hardly revealed any form of Lutheranism. 533953 922” XVI, no. 932, no. 1414; State Papers, I, “€599- A" r k "'"i ‘: ‘ "-G title ' ./-.’ a.» -n u 0" -. - .‘..: ‘rc _ . ...‘v V..v ..-.. I . AV‘ A: -rc u ‘ IM-7 A v.nv .- l *_ ~:-:' f - G ‘ é'v ..-- .5 , .. .A F: ""l,.-_' t. I V» a~ ..-‘ u b ‘ I “5.:‘V‘f‘a fin .-_ ...-...- .‘ ..- - " ”’3 (~- .-V ._ ‘-~- g ’ J I- unffi“ ‘ I I. .- o." v- a v-__-. .. a ‘ ‘n'CCfiffl «k p,. ‘ Vv~Vb ~-~.. L'.‘ ‘ In I - ~2»,c p.. _ ... - v _._ ~.. ~ ‘ 'o . .. _ ‘ ......)- -“’. “ '~._.," 4 ’ ~‘L' «v “flk: a h n. “A. ‘.‘ . cvi_-.:‘ F.‘ -v _ - .g .. A... .f'. f ..a‘ v : 3“ a. .- Ii ‘V-. ‘A In ‘ "‘: ‘c‘lnn‘ cs ‘““v’_;' r“— - . . . i~"\’ ‘ \,l ' "0 “Ma “ .. v._, m. .: . “2 ‘4‘ _ . or “"J__ 9." r- ~A "’ x ‘ I ATI‘:‘* '» ‘v -, §V., '5‘? ~" .4.» ‘ ! :‘u. . ‘c-e: .' A 7nd... ‘Q‘~: A!- v ‘d-. V ‘ sv ‘- 'A x, ‘4 ‘7 . U 2‘- h 2"“. v» 1!- L “ A A .-‘ §. - '- \\ . x, I v1 vi _\ ‘.' - .‘§.,. a. 14 I i ~ ‘cL"A ‘ I. H q ’._‘. .~ _ ... “‘\n‘\’ .‘. ‘ _.~-“ ‘ .. ' \— g-N “\‘ ~_. h(‘- A» _ . e. p ‘ '4‘ a“! ‘ I \.- ‘ ’A K .9 “‘v ‘I" ¢<~p I‘! ‘-."" \O, n . 4‘ ..‘V J! \ o ‘ ‘ v . N . \Q ‘ . ‘ _ ’) I,\ .. - . s ‘i ”a, I J- I O 51 15u1, he was generously relieved from the first-fruits due the king.10 At the same time he appears to have been one of the king's chaplains, for in a grant of 15Q2 which gave him a prebendary in Lincoln Cathedral, Cox is referred to as "King's chaplain."ll Earlier grants had simply referred to him as "clerk." In the n xt year, however, he did lose some prOperty, for the king granted a lease of‘ a tenement in Uoodstrete, property which was in Cox's ;posssession and had previously belonged to Cardinal Wolsey. 1316: means by which Cox had acquired the property are not krustrn, but it would be interesting to know whether he had received it directly from Wolsey or from the king. If ifIYDnl the former, the relations between the Cardinal and 'tkler radical Protestants were more cordial than previously Banxovnn. More important for Richard Cox's career and repu- 't51tlion was his elevation to the deanery of the king's fCrundation at Osney on January 8, 1544.13 Perhaps this E30Sition was granted because Henry VIII's projected 1?e”3rganization of bishoprics had never been carried out. 133 ‘that plan Cox was designated for a new bishopric, \ 3,53 lqgg, XVI, no. 1226; Pat. 33 Henry VIII, p. 2, ‘ 8 40-43. 1: lllg, XVII, no. 362; the prebend is described as If E? "prebend of Sutton and Buckingham with Horley and c>1‘ton, in Lincoln Cathedral . . . ." 121bid., XXIII, no. 24. 1_§3 13J. Lefieve, Fasti Ecolesiae Anwlicanae (Oxford, ‘ 54). III. 567. ‘ -' ,. II n a , u . s" f Jv-~--- v-..’ .n- "F: Ave '4“"I”Fx ..n J- v-v 0.... c Q Luv . (I, ¢ ) O 1 x 1 0 .v.-.v - a. - ': rc m- . . a..- , ~ n ...VC‘W I.n~-:- ~a A""'- -..»v. _. .. . ...-1. _ M.“ r, s , ‘ .-. w __v‘ ‘ ‘ . . v D. _ C ... CC 2 P‘ " “.“ ""' u x _ 1 “ Q A ‘C A_.‘A-“ Iv-.. .’ ... A . 1 “--I S .. I!" . -‘ .....H‘-‘ .4 . A V“ ' ¢ 0 .- 5!» , n- . . . 5.. Ag . ~~"~- d Mn tlv . ‘- .- - . ,r. C“.‘ ‘ . . a _ “‘ Vs,_“ .... us-._.. .ilvh » " 5,- u....~ .E' ::.. - ~ V A‘ ‘ 3 :‘:\a- ‘1‘ .‘ A- ‘fi‘ A U -. ‘ 1 .. A”. . O '> i A‘n‘ . ..«J. S r“ a I -u, 4,‘- x . n' .A ‘ a iv A ...! C. ._- A." :‘ s: . u. ‘- \. “.‘ . s. . ‘\I -' s , I. Q ‘\ ~_ .- ‘ '-g° A0 4 _ .V .\ r v. Q ‘0' ‘I r I .“‘~ . ?. ~J V‘.“ n V ‘. ‘ '- ‘ct , ‘ n A =~.‘ 'v- ~A. ‘:F . “ . -_\ - » ’/ r . ¢ 5 .. C .h'n‘. ~v 2‘.” ' "V. v,—. .‘_. ~ .. .‘ ~ \’ 1 .‘ ~ a \’ ‘ 1'! «I‘- "A ‘ N A. . “u 52 Southwell, in Nottinghamshire, the projected value of which was one thousand three pounds. Three hundred thirty-six pounds of that amount were designated for the new bishOpric.14 The new see was never created, and Cox settled for a deanery instead. Osney was another foundation in the king's plans for supporting learning. Originally desig- Inated as a bishOpric, it was changed to King Henry's Ccflllege, Oxford. It was then united with Cardinal's Ccfillege, and subsequently became Christ Church, Oxford.15 Bilenard Cox moved from his position as Dean of Osney to become the first Dean of Christ Church College as endowed arni. established on December 11, 1546.16 The close rela- ‘tixaris between the religious-educational foundations is apparent from Cox's actions as early as 1543. According 'tCD (bxford's historian, Anthony Wood, Cox had asked in IHSLtB to be admitted to the university as one of its doctors CDf‘ divinity, but he was denied that position;17 however, 111- June of 1545, some six months before the king made him \ Est: 1”Strype, EH, I, ii, 407. The previous document in :Seibype's collection also contains a list of intended bishOp's Eits. 4313 l5LeNeve, II, 511; w. Combe, The History 2£_the be Church 2; §.E- Peter's Westminster (London, 1812), ~ 37; Letters patent, December 17, 1540. Be 16LeNeve, II, 503; Pat. p. 3, 38 Henry VIII; rItham, Ely, 193. 17Wood. History and Antiquities. 919- --—A-‘ ma, 0 I t‘ ",.,.: A- ".-Y A -4 . J. v..- -_ 18*. . of. A: cu-qqqcu. ”» ..., a... . J. 5..-... ‘— .. r- "'.P 2‘: — — "" v‘ov .... " "9v- '.P 4 .‘.. —- I‘ ‘N ""'.‘ ’A.. . . rV z‘ ~“‘AM“U ... ‘ "1‘ 1‘ 4 .- "TI‘IA~-§ ’2- - ..----,..,_ .v' v I l ‘ ..p .vc g A” ‘ l — .--.-‘..~ ‘-‘ v ‘ c A! ‘Av a "C-‘. . .,‘ ...” .. 0.-.. ..~ c' . ‘ v ’- fla-u‘fi'- - ‘. u «.1-2- ‘0», k 4 I ‘ ‘ | ,r. -A., .q A. ' r- A, by-s '.-\ .i o b,‘ ‘ ‘ ,‘: -A’- “~_ ~‘ . -..-.. ".1, ..- . I "\,.. ' s “n. ‘;'»- ...., I. '0¢_ - .. “V n _‘ p ‘ ,\.~._\Av+ ‘ q ~ g ‘RCA . K ‘\- . D ~3h‘n . - ' ‘..-.. 2 ~,...~;:. P 1" V‘ “‘u ‘ I C “‘ P ._ . :- ~r: : I -».'_ be u Fr ‘.‘ ~ . I A I I J.‘ _ A 6: ~- '3 ’o .._, ‘_ y ’ g b- . ‘ . 1‘. ~, ; V:~P*:‘ k ‘d" “A “ "“‘ ‘ . I... ‘ AA “2.- ‘1»? . u v ‘~~': an “A - ‘-"'v ~- “‘.. . . . ’q . 1‘ a . .“' “8““ 7 ‘ ~ 1 ‘ vv ’ p ... I- \_ . . 'lfifin ‘ V» r f a fi , 53 Dean of Christ Church College, Cox was admitted a doctor of sacred theology.18 Though the court-university poli- tics are muddled at this point, it is again apparent that Henry VIII was deeply involved in re-organizing his church, run. in supporting Renaissance education, and in granting prime positions to theological radicals. The latter two general- (f‘ *‘fi izations also apply to the king's care for his son's edu- cation. King Henry VIII not only promoted Protestants within thee church, but he also appointed two such men, Richard Cox anti .Iohn Cheke, to tutor Prince Edward. A case can be Inariez that Cheke's religious preferences at the time of his appointment were not clearly Protestant, but the same aJTENJIQent does not hold true for Cox;19 for he had publically eX‘pre ssed his radical ideas in 1540 and had survived and prospered in Spite of them. In addition, he was reputed ‘tC3 TDe a fine teacher, eSpecially as an instructor of young IDCNYIS regarding morals and grammar; in short, he educated I2 m enaissance men. basic grammar instruction seems to have I: eaefil his forte, for scholars, including the editors of the \— IBWOod, History and Antiquities, 922. 19J. K. LlcConica, English Humanists and Reformation Jordan, ed., Chronicle P01 “‘9\§3:212§ (Oxford, 1965), 228; N. K. ‘&‘-~. IPolitical Papers, Edward VI, (Ithaca, 1966), xii; Nichols .eiczchIichols, Literary Remains of Edward VI, xiv; 33130 OIlnts for Cox's promotion by citing Cranmer' s influence. an a.1étk€h IuB. Smith (American Historical Review, LXXX, 1966) r11:ains that Cox was not a known Protestant, his conten- 1:10 is wrong° , —‘—-.- " ~vu-y.r- ..‘ no~ . ‘F ‘u- .a.. A- I Q "HA V‘ v'v u ‘ - r:- L. V -.':.',-£,.,_ "Il ‘ H "‘-.. . .'.‘.. ‘ . -‘_'~b “‘A‘."y‘ --.. ‘ v. :v- ”Mr. ‘V _ “F "' ' M . -... - ~ -.-... y . h‘. ' ." xix-i- "' A.'. ‘-f "v.. . . . ‘V ‘“ Q .. ~.'. ‘ra. . " k 'f “v; ‘- fl.' -'~ g m. c I, 0 s; h .- c,‘ ‘flr Av u. Q ho" ...; 3“ .. s ‘1 N‘ . 0‘ " C -. "c‘, .c': “‘- “‘~ '14 ~‘Q I" ‘ ‘--:‘~' u. c ‘~.- ~ U ... ‘- ‘ a U- AA L .— Q 4.: I V‘ A-, ‘ i w . f. - \‘3‘ it ~. ,. I ..-C n ,1 5“ "A ‘ .‘P‘ 4 . I- ’A / ~C ‘1 ‘. ::‘A ‘. ' ~ " 1‘ A. C... ‘ ‘ A .. \‘--.‘ .I A .. (“\. J r! ‘ «V IN 54 British Kuseum Catalogue, have credited Cox with compil- ing the well-known "Lily's Grammar," a textbook of long standing for the inculcation of classical learning. 20 The grammar which Cox produced, however, is better labelled "Royal Grammar," for it was set up by a royal proclamation,21 was edited by a royal commission which 'was probably headed by Richard Cox,22 and was in no sense 21 grammar book by William Lily. Rather, a royal committee crweated the work on the basis of the grammars of many well- k31CHMn Renaissance writers23 and thus in reality the com- Inirbizee produced a Latin and English version of a govern- Inell13 grammar text:24'§ Shorte Introduction to Grammar and .Eiréetlissima institution grammatices cognioscendae. Whether Cox was the actual editor cannot be decisively IDIwared, though he does seem the most likely candidate, ‘auflél is in fact the only man ever personally alluded to in histories of the work's publication.25 If he was the edi- 'tcxr. he was quickly rewarded, for by 1543 he was Prince Edward' s tutor. \ 20Simon, 191; c. G. Allen, "The Sources of Lily's GIWimmar," The Libra_y, fifth series, X (1954), 35- 103. 21Royal Proclamation, 1543, Hughes and Larkin, 317. 22Allen, 100. Ev 23The works of Erasmus, Lily, Vives, and hosellanus She used. 2”Allen, 100. 25Ibid., 89. I ...-... 1:53-... IV:-T\“H.‘,\“ :‘f ...~I.V.V.-v.. .... . n" ’h‘sh t ._ ‘.|...‘- -_‘-_“,‘ .. -.« C ."tn~- Cvn 0-,. “"' Au“ ...__ -. . Pitt. 4“":~a~ 0 or... _ ".4. _. . in. ‘:.r:_‘% VF“, "‘ 0“ :- a..¢- ..v..- ‘uh Ara '1. o’r _ v.» 5 ivy AAV»! \vu. ‘ . w . ’I v '-3 "r-~ F_ -- ..-... “z; J .. m\ I . “In“ “0.2, f 0A» 5 "" ~v- . - I i 5: ~31. A “' ‘- ""2.‘ .... ... ~ O ,. . 5‘ K . ‘\.,;n . ‘ Q vi ..- h-‘A‘ I‘l- ‘2‘»: -, I u ‘ p ‘iw‘ '.l "c V buy “A 55 As tutor Cox's role was probably to give moral instruction and basic drilling in grammar, for the young prince was no older than seven. Strype credits Cox with giving Edward "Christian manners, as well as other learn- ing;"26 and the tutor apparently had a great deal of suc- cess: Edward turned out to be a learned, conscientious, and rather narrow Protestant. As stated by Gilbert Burnet, tkua tutors "who were about the young king, were also very caJreful to infuse right principles of religion into him."27 iniiile Cox continued as Edward's close companion, John (fidelierwas added as tutor in 1544 "as a suppliment to Lr. (303C, both for the bettere instrucsion of the Prince, and tile! Ciiligent teaching of suche children as be appointed to attends uppon him."28 At the same time, Cox was ele- Vated to the position of Almoner, a post which he would. ihr>141 throughout King Edward VI's reign. The supplementary ‘tlltkar, John Cheke, was also a proponent of the New Learn- in%; and, while a professor of Greek at Cambridge, he had (ezlgflaged in a controversy with Bishop Gardiner over pure 133?Culunciation of the Greek. Though Gardiner was nominally T: 11e’ power in the king's council, his influence seems to \ 26Strype, EL“: II, 13 ff. crllllxs 27G. Burnet, The Historyn2§ the Reformation 2: the N 2_f_ W (New York. 18 3 , III, 32; 11.3. Dickens, “‘£2§3 g§mglish Reformation (London, 1964), 194. QTIIZL 28SP, I, 764; this is taken from council minutes of 5’ 5. 1344; also Nichols, Literary Remains, 4. 'pn—cl-fl XI.“ ,1 'lu 1'.me . . » x I l»- r:": " 'W" ~‘ __,.., “-..—..-h- I" A’,‘ o".,‘.. I. ...,» J.-v-.~’ U.-— ' -‘ .. ,. 1‘ o... F‘v 5» H ‘y 1.7% do a..- n . .‘ . pv-A' can 0-.4- ‘1 ~ '9.— -JVJoov- I’... a. . . ""‘I 1“! i I t ( 0 O 5 ‘. v 1" ,a 56 have diminished when the king married Katherine Parr; thus Cheke, though Gardiner's enemy, could be promoted to being one of the prince's tutors. James K. McConica has nicely labelled the outlook of the new queen's faction at court as "Erasmian and pietistic," and traces its origins back to the household of Katherine Parr's former husband, Lord .Latimer. He had protected such reformers as Coverdale, fiugh Latimer. and_Park urst,29 and evidently their influ- eiice had not failed to leave its mark. The prince's edu- caztion, however, probably was not revolutionized, for Cox Plixnself was enamored of Renaissance educational methods alldi used both Erasmus' and Vives' works.30 In fact, l'1C3Cl'onica credits Cox with influencing Henry's decision to 13IP1113 in Cheke as a supplement by working through Dr. EEmitts, King Henry's personal physician.31 Butts was IlSually amenable to Protestantism, and thonica's account 153 not at all improbable. Though Cheke became the more important scholar of tale two, Richard Cox remained, in name at least, the head t1ltor. Evidence indicates that there was a close attach- \ 291icConica, 215. BOBelow, pp. 57-59. 31lcConica, 216; Strype, £3, I, 261, Strype credits :311tts with the rise of Thoras Cromwell and the appointment C’f‘ Hugh Latimer as Kin3's Chaplain. “i. “‘2; . -... .,-..--.- -- b o. v...V ~51 ...a.. u "u - Iv “HY“ AF‘C -..... L~.~.--.. . ‘v “f: .-:’._.‘...,_ .0. '..V ~ _ I v Q . F ‘p--. —~ ... ‘IA - ' b v... g V' . A... .— .. !:0l,r ‘ _ “ "----... Q P Q ‘A‘AAV RAh-.... 5v.- .- vv. _ ‘ I ."p l - ‘-.,...A- ....‘_.;'- . v. ... A _ , .4 “ .“.‘ 0’- "" 'gy .: P“~£ . "u' ~' 0‘ ‘ fin'. .» i" 6" s‘ ‘Au A V. A. “ha J. ~AI' .JV " 57 ment between Cox, the tutor, dean, and almoner, and the "Young Josiah." This amicable relationship is recorded 111 the documents accumulated by John Kichols, though he dc3es tend to over-emphasize the uniqueness of the prince's eciiication. For example, kichols claims that the court sczkiool conducted by Cox and Cheke foreshadowed later .Bee:f‘ormation grammar schools, thus crediting the later {P11c3-cxrs with founding new educational methods and systems ‘I1: :is clear, however, that many such schools actually 03?:1_£3inated in the 1520's.32 It should also be pointed cruzi: that though Nichols has high regard for Cox as a 'tllfticzr of great "fidelity and integrity"33 and quotes Le land's praises of the tutor)” he also makes basic EBITZTCDrs regarding data of Cox's life. He has Cox dying 14r1 1.591 instead of the correct date, 1581. This error 1-53 ‘repeated in W.K. Jordan's recent edition of Edward Vl's Elsaggj£§.35 Prince Edward's judgement of his tutors was f8l‘Torable: "I have two tutors, Diligence [Cheke] and 1 '1C3<1eration [Cox]."36 Also, several affectionate letters fl:‘Om the prince to Cox have been preserved. Some of \ 32Nichols, xl; above, pp. 29-31. Sig; 33Kichols, xlv; Leland, Encomia Illustrium Vivorum, 3“Nichols, xlvi. J 35Edward VI, Chronicle and Political Papers, W.K. Ordan, ed., (Ithaca, 1966), 3. 36Nichols, ccxxxvi. lull “1" -Yr -. ‘ -- . *rzc: -: :3” Unvuv av 65‘" ' "A~‘:C‘Q. A. uov -vb‘h—I d. ‘F- : 2" 1"" ...“: "MA-‘~" H- "“F A 1\ .“FI‘ "" ... .. ..“.‘.)‘>' - ' ‘44-s. -. _,,._ ° 1 I‘ 1 ~'«--:.- ’3 .1-" ‘vi. "“A ' I ,h R ...: :M-e ,: u..- -. .. ~- a, . ~ .-. 'uv ... D“. F: x 'V v. , . ~~’ ‘h‘ Q U VA " , v .-..,_e '- H 1“ .3 .c‘. ‘ . -__. FA ~__ - 2'" A I; ;::‘n :5“ .-.. I“:v. .. § ..., in ‘ ., \ :12. ~ “‘4‘. s-» , v ‘5‘ \ q ‘A \ a ‘d. :3- ..C‘W "er '2 ‘- .. g ’ I \\ ‘~~; 2r“. ‘ ..h v “| ‘l t 4.. ‘p,’_ A ., ~ JIN ‘- ‘N J’ ' QP‘ .l‘ I J 58 these letters seem to have been sent as reports of Edward's progress: one of Larch 11, 1546 contains quotes from the Roman writer Cato;37 another, of June 28, 1546 quotes Vives and Erasmus;38 and several seem to be simply exercises in letter writing, one of the main methods of Renaissance humanist training.39 However, the prince's letters do reveal many other facts about his education. First, he was apparently educated within a group situation, for Edward's letter of April 2, 1546 refers to other boys who were being similarly taught.40 Secondly, Cox seemed to be the object of much affection, for in a letter of Larch 24, 1546 Prince Edward begged his old tutor to reply: "93g 23 E3 literae meae tibi placeant etsi non sint dignae, sud qua animus donatis voluit eas esse melliores."l+l Lastly, as seen from Nichols' report of the contents of Edward VI's library, the tutors used the latest Renaissance texts; for as well as relying on difficult Ciceronian Latin, they apparently used the critical works of Hosellanus (Pagdg- 1051a, 1532 edition) and Vivesaz as well as the new royal 37Nichols, 5, document no. L. 381bid., 19. - 39Ibid., 11-25. In a letter of June 13, 1546 (Richols, 185 the prince in fact Specifically alludes to his purpose as that of practicing literate expression. 401bid., 6. “libid., 5 ff. 1+2Ibid., 329. For others see Cox's letter to Cranmer, E, XXI, January, 1546. 41’ X1" u ‘1'" w" ‘ .1". I -J.'-P.'~ .— . ‘ .... -..: o n o , a! ‘-, --.—4 .C u uIVAP :- fl ’A ..cv--._.~ .1 n. , .- .--~-.- A.., 4 A--v-’-.. \.., , ." “nu- -!_ ... , 0- v... ~4.__ ___' t t I q "' m»... .H. . " *v» f R“ ‘ ~-*‘.~ .u- :- ..n" 1') .I ’1 1|) I C 4 c "1 59 grammars produced in 1540 and 1542.LP3 That his education greatly influenced Prince Edward is hardly questioned, but problems do arise regarding King Henry VIII's motives for allowing such a man as Cox to educate his son, while at the same time the king was banning radical books and burn- F ing radical preachers. The king was either naive or had 44 plans for a unique religious establishment. Whatever the king's motives, however, Richard Cox had risen to prominence, and in Spite of his ideas had always adjusted enough to survive. Though a hunted Lutheran in the 1520's, he was soon elevated to become headmaster of prestigious Eton School. Though a product of radical Cambridge and notorious King's College, he was elevated to the deanery of Osney and headship of Christ Church, Oxford, England's center of religious conserva- tism. At the same time Ring Henry VIII was burning Lutherans he was promoting Richard Cox, even though Cox was a member of Cromwell's religious clique and was clearly a disciple of Zwinglian Protestantism. By 1546 Cox had advanced to a high position as head of the king's personal educational foundation and also as close friend and almoner to the next king of England. As often happens when one becomes powerful, Cox moved to a defensive posture. 43Nichols, cccxlii. Above, p. 54, regarding the authorship of the grammar. 44E ~elow,fp.88. .. p (.-.. r‘.,_ ..- -~ ”A" o.-. -- NV 51% 5" p “'QF-‘:. u— ’ .. 'VM’ .0 v. — . A':“V‘zv" C. h _ . h “..-_a... . ~ A. A 1"" «val .vu-U.A_.‘ __ a if“ (V'Ao-l .... . ! . ‘ ""3“ Ana- v! - O -..v-, v.._ . ‘ ‘ - .ic n‘:" P“ »’ ‘ .‘V'A as . s H - R _ ‘ C An ‘ .,J-V_ . - * A." ‘I '- ’ Hy Am: ' ""5v-_‘ . .. A.“ ‘ ”:3 A‘~:. a." av "“v._~-. ‘5‘. -V ‘ rn ._ »-, b -.. i ... ~__A A.,_ . X f t .9 A i -- . ‘ A -'~._,_ ‘. .“ -. FM“1, .'-‘-1V‘ . . fl . \ ‘V‘ f 5_- ~ A“-_ v.‘.> A.“ fl " ., 5., 2 A.- ‘ “A... ‘- ‘ I tn...“ .t v ‘. -f“ .—AVV .. u). “ . -~ \..‘~ -V V h._: '4 ‘-‘d ‘. - ‘ :‘A VI --‘ . O C'rfl- ”..v“ F,“ U M‘ V- 1““: .1 §‘ ‘ ‘. “§ . §.- \' .fl ’4" ‘ ‘ v ..., -‘ ‘s u \- ‘. ’. v‘_‘ r <' “A‘ V ‘n. V‘ 1 ~ »‘~ ... 60 He saw himself as protector of England's educational sys- tem, a system.under attack by "ravening wolves." In defending education Cox was not alone, forI attheTI Parker, Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, had to defend that institution against an attack by Bishop Gardiner. Parker, chaplain to Henry VIII and a Protestant, had been made head of Corpus Christi College at the king's insti- gation.)+5 In 1545 Parker had allowed the performance of a censored Protestant play, but even the eXpurgated work was offensive to Bishop Gardiner. Their exchange regard- ing the play is recorded in Cooper's Annals and Gardiner's analysis of the relation between education and England's Reformation eXperience reveals much: Our obedience should be example to all other in public directions without occasion of all slander. If learning should now be an instrument to stir Up dissension and trouble the common quietness, their Opinion should be confirmed which not many years past have labored to prove in books in English that the universities be the cor- ruption of the realm. Oxford liveth quitly with fewer priviledges than we have: there be that would we had as few as they . . . and he that regardeth not his obedi- ence to his prince regardeth not much his obedience to God and his truth which he hath offended in the other.4 That the bishop had been won over to the point of view that "corruption of the realm" had come through university “5C00per, Annals, I, 417. 46Gardiner to Parker, April 23, 1545, Cooper, AFInals, I, 424. T I) .. “A . ~ .— 4 ”— 0"-- -.- ~ .. A - j p ..7. ‘ u h.-" ‘ --A ., ,' Au ..‘f V..- -. ....,' ' I - nu: ‘ ’s . . - v ' ~ .4, -1 i A 0/... . p "F" A“ - :IU' ‘V- ... . . . _ 'A”" "i‘ M -' a. H v.. _ - .vs ’f‘r‘ H. ‘ ‘. v‘. ~ —- . "~-. in... v . ' " FA», . V ‘ .... 'v .‘.A‘ \ "v. A “'~J . - ’ .. AA s‘fi AA . I. ~.«-., d---- p\".~. _ h- ...-”‘1’ . I. ‘V F\-». 'nv . N... _ . - . 4‘ VA-’:~. ‘ ” \ c _-v‘~-- . ‘ ‘- . Ac -. f: .-:A. J. V.‘v ' -~‘ 1 ~ ‘ ‘ A‘n; . - “' A- ‘-“‘v ‘ .. ‘Qfl. .. ~_,. Ka‘fi .- \, ‘\ V .‘ Q Q ~:‘\. ‘- \_ $‘ “~ 1 .“ 1,] 61 radicals is seen in his persistent attack on Parker. In Spite of the vice-chancellor's attempts to placate the bishop, the university was officially reprimanded on nay 16, 1545; but, more importantly, Parliament passed an act for the dissolution of colleges and chantries.47 Though church properties had been stripped of value, English nobles did not satisfy their avarice, and the king turned to college and chantry lands to raise money. In compliance with the statute of dissolution, the king appointed visitors to determine the exact holdings of each college and chantry.LF3 Strangely, hatthew Parker headed the Cambridge visitors (the other visitors being Redman and hay), and he could hardly be considered an aggressive Opponent of college wealth. During the period of the visitation he corresponded with Katherine Parr and implored her to defend the university from "lupos qusdam hiantes," and to intervene with the king on behalf of the university.49 Her reply indicated her compliance and reflects her ideal that universities should encourage learning "as . . . amongst the Greeks at Athens long ago . . . .", but she quickly added the desire that their goal be "the attaining and setting forth the better Christ's 4737 Henry VIII, 0. 4. “asaker us. xx, 369, Cooper. Annals. I. 430b- 14’9Parker, CorreSpondence, no. xxiii, 31. {mu v: — .. u- ,— : ..., '£'£"~ . . . A, . A. ." l’~_. ~ -'- V U..- .. '..:.. ,,...:_, ~ 'V‘ V. “-5 ..u .. ‘ 'C .... d _ 2 ‘0 . ’~ '~ "fix‘f‘n' -.. _._v.."~ » "*c —~., - \ ‘». ”A... - I. \~.“A“; P ‘ . .4- ».A..-. . v ‘1... “'-\._A‘-. l . ' L- ._ y..-..___-- . . P:~ Ran-”2;. u‘ _ l‘ - v»...-_ ’- - ‘ Q \‘v. 5“. A . ~I... > ‘I. ‘ ”V“- ‘ ~~‘ .5 ‘“fl‘...-' -.‘. b I .~--- . .4__ c \1‘ ul‘.. I ‘ .. s. ‘ .l‘ .. 5 -‘-.\‘_ . y. -:"‘I-." w, “’~ Q ..n ‘.fl., ' -¢.- \ _' O . . CV._ -\ a P‘ I'v .— . g a “I .1 ‘L 4‘_.. ‘n ”h.:‘ 0- 1‘“ § .....2; 5“.“ .4__. - v 0‘ _ FAA - "V., g‘n a y.‘ "I ‘. and .“ R .‘. v; F." ‘ ..‘U A ’ . ‘V .. P. Vv 'a \. ‘ .14 a. y. 62 reverent and most sacred doctrine."5O A clearer statement of the ideal of Renaissance Christian humanism would be hard to find. Parker, however, did succeed. According to his notes on the king's inquiry into the schools' prop- erties, Parker reported that Henry VIII was quite surprised that the schools could survive on such a small endowment.51 The Cambridge episode is important for understand— ing Richard Cox's career as an administrator, for he faced the same problems as Parker and performed the same function at Oxford as Parker had at Cambridge. Though Cox was not vice-chancellor, he was obviously a man in whom the king had confidence, for he had appointed Cox head of his per- sonal college, Christ Church. Cox's appeals for govern- ment protection were made to a member of the Privy Council, Sir William Paget, to whom he wrote and begged for aid: Because there is such a number of importune wolves that devour colleges, chantries, etc. . . . the realm will come into foul ignor- ance and barbarousness when the reward of learning is gone. Similar appeals were made in ensuing letters to Paget on October 18 and 29. In the latter appeal he referred to Catholic destruction of library books, and indicated that 50Lansd MS. no. 1236, art. 8, Cooper, Annals, I, 430b,c. SlParker, Correspondence, 34; for his survey see COOper, Annals, I, 4300-439; also see Lamb, Cambridge .Documents, 50; and Masters, Corpus Christi Collegg, " ppendix," no. xix. 52Cox to Paget, October 12, 1546, g, xxx, 11, no. 260. gs m‘m— m4 . . . . a.“ . nww,‘ ‘ \' , hfiu—n ~J-..-.. ,: 3'. '.:.,,,1 .- 1. v..v ..-.- ' I C‘sfflh "fif‘l"v ~u..Jv-....-- . . - z~VAu-w-‘A "~ .7...-,.-._':. -‘ AR' “-1 -. fl: .D‘PA ‘3‘ h... .-v-—: , .. A' 2...- P ~ . "s_\. ‘ ‘ . .~ .4. ... ”A n . a ‘ F' n ‘4..b’ ' 'h" A . . . I A "rw: u .- ‘ V..‘-- “H . .A h'Fva.“ \S-J \ --. .i . - ‘, h“. . U ..- Q wk A. V“-. t- ., - . .. “nu. .- _ .. "-._ «M Q I U‘ ’ ' Van. ‘. ..V' x .‘r~‘_ _ '..‘ C. : . \'- P. ,_ _ ..‘ . . V.- A - 7 a L.“‘Q » V ‘ ‘- “ e ._“ ~‘ .. . I-” 3 N- __- ‘9 . ”K Ia‘ .' v_, ‘1 ’5 §.— ‘ . ..- A A‘ ‘ ,_\ I“- ‘, '8 ‘ '--“. "-: L— . c. .. - u- .. .§ _ . “ A A f'tn“ V: ‘ -Ih “ \ r.\ d s ‘ ‘ " ~-. 1. h ‘ . ‘V ‘A- .‘ U 3 i . -“ 94 f . » .o .. \ A n ‘ dd .- \ A . _‘ I... v \ . '\ v '. \ . .0 . C— ‘ V " 63 book burnings had led to the destruction of Bibles and even of the king's primers. In the true Spirit of an idealistic schoolmaster and tutor he saw the destruction of the new grammars as leading to teaching "the old latin with the old ignorance."53 Closely connected with his defense of education were his broader social concerns. He saw the foundations (colleges and chantries) as basically charitable institu- tions, and strongly objected to both the methods and results of their proposed dissolution. In his October 12 letter Cox demonstrated his continued concern for social problems, for he included complaints against contemporary injustices. He complained that widows and the poor were not being adequately cared for,54 and he also complained that just trials were not the common rule in court litigations.55 In short, while Richard Cox remained part of the establishment, he still eXpressed the ideals which many Christian humanists advanced, pure learning and a just, Christian society. The anomally of his position was that by 1546 he was on the defensive and could never return to his highly radical pleas for social and religious idealism as he had expressed them in the 1530's. By the end of 1547, BishOp Gardiner's aggressiveness Sigg, XXI, 11, no. 282; LXI, 11, 321. 54Cox to Paget, October 12, 1546, Lg,.XXI, 11, no. 55Cox to Paget, October 18, 1546, LP) XII, ii, no. ‘1’:- ‘C 2‘7: - —..'- mum— 'fl. A ~ - .- o.-.- 4..., a v - OJ--v-. ...“ . u . ,,\... 9'..- 1 _ _ oa...-- v... A ."N—a 0-“ ,. ...... .’ .v- ° 0 " A-w»... - >. ' " -~.~-- .“, - 7A,. - .‘»“- ;. ’v~-- v. . ‘1...” ~ ..‘f " .- .-bb-_, .--- u- c A‘, ..4 _, U ~- v .P:"q.. ‘ v... ..2‘ .. A... A “AA‘ . ._“"O.‘_ .-V~-'.' ‘-. ‘:fl~w-_‘x 0.. iv; -u - (A. I ' \A... ‘- ~ c o-__ ‘u - . A . A. - "2. ,...'~ “'..‘_ v- o.“‘\ .i PA A h P V ‘hu ‘V- I ....~~ i“~‘.r 4“» I Z-i. . -_: _\I\._: ‘c.‘ s. ._v . PA.” ‘ “h- .'Q 5.. a: "v A ...§ - r \ J 64 faded. Parker and Cox, the king's university visitors, lacked the desire to lay the groundwork for a thorough purge, for in fact they favored the Reformation and the Eew Learning. The property survey produced little which would tempt the land—hungry courtiers. There was too little wealth in the colleges. For Cox, however, 1546 proved a critical year: with the radicals he had defended the'NeW'Learning; he had acted quite conservatively in the prosecution of Dr. Crome, a confessed Protestant whose recantation had been rejected largely by Cox's objections that Crome remained a Lutheran;56 and he had firmly estab- lished himself at Oxford and at the king's court. With these varied credentials, Richard Cox, aged 47, assumed a leadership role which he would not lose until shortly before his death in 1581. 55%, 8&2-8411. _‘ I - v- ‘ A -l ’ 0 u . ... -.. ... ago—ac '“ ‘r: ‘s 3c .... " ‘1- z 5,. ‘_ ‘ .— ~ ~’ - v... .' _ 1 “9 g 5 55V- 9. .. .7- .-.. _ , _ F . ’ FF, :p.:“= C. .— . "‘-‘-.\. V. 'Wav ,‘.‘h - .. ' ‘ . ‘.‘A ...”- . "dchy--‘_.-fi .323: ’f"*v ...... ._."-- i... ..:.-r -..- l d L-‘ '...‘,I '.-‘ ~. :- ': ‘._ ‘*‘ k ‘ n‘ . ’ -. ‘ I 4 '3 1., -\_ - ‘X' n.- .-___ .- NA ..-; ‘5 {VA‘ v: ‘-._ '1. o‘~.l‘ -_-~. .\ I, . ' § _t . V VA . . Q, _.- g ‘Ru.,’-‘ ‘ .~ . OF‘ v '. ‘ -‘ . V.- “1.. ,- ‘u. 5‘5? 0 ..v- -‘ .. . \‘ .‘y—,_‘A ~“~ _% ‘_~v‘ ‘ . 4'»..‘ a \i'.‘ :_ A ‘4‘: I ‘A A . ‘V‘r‘ ~" ~ -.. ""x '5 J i . A- ~ ‘~ “ -_ V v 1“ - a. . ‘ qr- ‘ “- c. ~v‘ '5, ..A~ ‘- - l ‘ ”a? n, «..i 4 '-..-»‘ ' ‘ a "~v ‘N V‘ . 1 .HI' ~ ”IA PART II: Richard Cox as a Disciple of Zwinglian Theology As the English Reformation advanced into the era of the 1540's, it at first appeared that Protestantism would be a clear victor. Cromwell seemed untouchable; foreign affairs seemed destined to produce an English alliance with German Lutherans; and the material foundation of Catholicism had been ripped away. It was on the basis of these factors that Lartin Eucer could eXpress his great joy with the progress of the Reformation in the island: We all of us acknowledge how graciously England is dealt with, to whom alone it is given so far to recover itself in the midst of so many impediments. And we count you altogether happy in the Lord, from whose labours has resulted such fruit.l By 1541, however, Protestant hopes had proved illusory: Cromwell fell; the Cleves debacle ended the era of Lutheran friendship; and the EishOp of Winchester, Stephen Gardiner, seemed firmly in power. In explaining the about—face, one could resort to castigating Henry VIII as incompetent or cite the basic social upheaval which had disoriented English society; or any number of psychologi- cal and sociological explanations could be contrived. From the point of view of Richard Cox's career and in the context of intellectual history, another eXplanation has 1Bucer to Cranmer, October 23, 1538, O.§., I, 520 ff. 65 i g 3 .. .. - u- ‘4‘-“ i;----V". . u no '- 0. A- - I- Av __ a ‘ n 'v .6. v. .o- _ ' ll 0 “ r;“:v‘ fur .au,.--.... ,_ I « fl . l ‘ ‘Q P ' .4 - '2 a ' 1 ‘h‘ 44- - .. A:. 5' .. , __ ,. ~ .- ' ..“ "" o- a... a. "S‘Q‘Ar .0 5 r""-4.. ._ 'u.,.vl ‘- “ ‘I ”1“ _‘ ' _ . . ..R ' t ' C" 2. .‘4 ‘vv, -.J r . . q 1A-, r ‘ _ -A'V l‘ f. _ u“, ‘ ..y ‘h‘n .-., - ,\ A8 ‘0-- J‘ Q“ '-""h ,’_ u)~ . U 91-“u ‘ — ... — J-w n- “-‘ _ . , ,- v“-.‘ | A ,. - ‘QJ .. ~ v..:' ' . s', _ 7'. b A . '-.. ~-sfl ‘ V"U_. y- ‘i q ‘s h “4 “a~‘ ‘ A ”... 1 ~ 2'. \- i' Np. ~ ‘\ ‘- - I ~', : N ‘ I '. nth .x.‘ 5‘_.. _ . ”U4 “ fa ‘. w v ‘: A - ~29 ": ,.\r; A“ ‘ ... 'C 5‘ v ..., Q v- “V .\ . ‘ s d 4 I." ‘ A. O ‘ '. -v. _ ; Na '3‘ “VV "u . “\- . .‘ “‘.‘fi ~ A - 3".‘~ \ \A, ...- ‘. “\o .b.‘ , ‘ 1 . ‘ .Q ‘I“ I a ‘U 1“ “4. AV .Id - “: .: \‘r ‘. .‘, \\ r... ‘4. ., -- 66 validity. Though the king eXpected his intellectuals to be anti-Roman, it did not follow that they had to be pro- Lutheran or even pro-Catholic, for by 1541 Zwinglianism and Calvinism had polarized and were distinct choices out- side Lutheranism. The humanism pr0pounded in the Swiss version of the Reformation was both scholarly and Christian humanism, and one brand, that of hartin Eucer, was entirely willing to leave many theological problems open to question. In fact, it was in the context of the confusion of the late 1530's that Eucer had eXpressed his pleasure with the progress of English Protestantism; however, his letter of 1538 was written when England could hardly have been labelled "Protestant." The educational system was in dis- array; the Pilsrimage of Grace had recently demonstrated the depth of the social upheaval which accompanied the Reformation; and the BishOps' Book, a compromise document at most, demonstrated the lack of any ideological unity. why could Bucer be happy? The answer lies in the fact that from the point of ideas and intellectual history, leaders of the Reformation of the 1530's and 40's demonstrated the results of the humanist critique: anti-Romanism and the humanist desire for pure biblical scholarship. Richard Cox was a repre- sentative of both attitudes, and in the formulation of the lxast important religious document of King Henry VIII's reign, the King's Book, Cox clearly exemplified the .st- d..- - Ir .. I t u u. . . . . .0. ~ . H. u I. h J N. a. a; o . . . a. a... A. «x . A» h. a . .3 n. ...H 9. . .. a; .3 a. ‘1 ... R« “a .x ‘ 2. 3 . ... ... I. A; L . A; .r.. u .. .. 1. . I _v. no I. I. .... .... .... .... z. «o .. a; .4 .... C. p; A. 2. A. ... a. . . S. . . u. a. 2. .2. a... «xv C. v. A4 u. u. c; A4 %. .... s Q \-o \. ... t. s .. a. I. b. a: ... C. .. C. a. a; .... a. I v. ‘. ... A. ~. 0 .C u. 7. .... a. In ... A. . s . C. .. . . . .n . » ab .... d . A - § 1 .1. a; .. . - 3. v a. . u . a.» u . n: :« ... ..~ ... .. .. -c . A; \. . \ ... Au r. a a q n u C. C. .a‘ I‘ ..v.. .1 . .... npu v N. Av A . . A.- a n l . u. . b. u. u ‘g .5 b A v ..fi Q s .s . I. .. k v s w h s O . lflfiqfib!’ 67 Christian humanist ideoiosy.2 In 1540 Archbishop Cranmer had, at the king's instigation, initiated a series of seventeen questions for distribution among church leaders.3 The consensus of these questions would eventually, in 1543, comprise the king's last official word reqarding doctrine. Cox's position on each of the questions came more from humanist intellectual iconoclasm than any desire to formulate a formal doctrinal position, and his replies regarding the seventeen questions reveal his basic orientation. The main thrust of the questions formulated by Cranmer was an inquiry into opinions regarding sacraments: what they are, how many there are, and what they accomp- lish. The Roman Catholic view that sacraments were in themselves conveyors of grace had been rejected by the major Protestant reformers, but the creation of Protestant unity regarding the nature and efficacy of these means of grace was not forthcoming. Instead, Protestants soon fell to acrimonious bickering, and such bickering over the Lord's SUpper led to the failure of the Council of Regens- burg in 1541. The gross iconoclasm of the Swiss humanists (Zwinglians) stood in clear Opposition to the more conser— ——¥ 23.w. Dixon, History 9: the Church 23 Ensland, (London, 1811), II, 303 ff; Dixon gives the most complete Secondary account; Burnet, Records, I, ii, 356-403 quotes W38 discussions in full; Strype, Cranmer, "Appendix," no. ImIJII contains the same; also see 13, XV, 826; the docu- ment containing the reSponses is cited below as R. Cox, "Resolutions," by question. 3gg, xv, no. 826. '1‘. ... 1 “V." (I) \l ,‘A- .,‘ - ‘Np D ‘. I I I" 11) ,m ’ 6 (I) -o 68 vative Lutheran views; and the followers of John Calvin, though intellectually closer to Zwinglians, still could not agree with them completely. That Cranmer could dare to hOpe for English unity is a puzzle in itself, but the 'questions came and the differences among the theologians revealed wide and deep divisions. On the conservative side stood the Roman Catholic followers of Gardiner, who had accepted royal supremacy but little else that was new. In the middle stood Cranmer, quite Lutheran (or perhaps Wycliffite regarding the eucharist). On the radical fringes came Richard Cox and the BishOps of St. Davids and Hereford. With the first few answers, this radical position was established, for in reSponse to the simple question of what a sacrament was Cox replied, "I find not in Scripture the definition of a Sacrament, nor what a 4 Sacrament is." In part the entire group was impelled to agree with this point, but they clearly wished to make something holy and mysterious of the sacraments. Their "Agreement" was that sacraments were "not evident in Scripture, but mysterium, that is, a secret, or a hid thing."5 In his reSponse to question three regarding the number of sacraments, Cox continued his "devil's advocate" ___i “R. Cox, "Resolutions," Question no. 1. 5Ibid., Question no. 1. An "M reement" accompanied each "Question, " and usually was a compromise statement unless only one or two continued to object. In addition, those being interrogated were allowed to state their posi- tions after the "Agreement" had been formulated. ,,’ my- -g. .- " ‘r‘: A'AA‘A -.. a... _ , _ I - ’ ‘22” v .- ""‘o-I -.. b,- a ' ; ~ ‘ :\ 21‘“ "A as .‘-._'-.~ a .'~IA"~ n \- A V~.-d‘-- ‘- 9Y~AV c1.,.A_1 J.. v.. ‘ ~‘Ffi A ’Am- v'. . . ‘V‘s... _ .-U . ..g 5"” v .. '~ “'3 “a. '.. o— 69 role when he stated that scriptures give many examples of mysterious happenings, or sacraments: the king's secret in the Apocryphal Book of Tobit, chapter 12; Nebuchadnezaar's Dream in Daniel 2; Ratrimony; the Incarnation of Christ as described in Ephesians 3.6 With such answers he was obviously negating any hope for achieving unity by rely- ing on either Biblicism cr traditional views as to how grace was received. This was humanist relativism in a virile form. From biblical inquiry the questions turned to the next obvious source of authority, the church fathers. Again Cox refused to be cornered: his list of sacraments based on evidence from the early fathers' writings included Baptism, Eucharist, narriage, Ordination, Chris- mation, Laying of the Hands in Baptism, and concluded with the eternal escape mechanism, "gt cetera."7 The "Agree- ment" was that there was no "determinate" number, though conservatives held out for seven and Barlow would allow only four.8 In a similar but more dangerous vein the theologians were required to react to a statement that seven sacraments were taught in scripture and by the ancient church fathers "and were so to be taught" to ¥ 63. Cox, "Resolutions," Question no. 3. 7Ibid., no. 4. 8Ibid., no. u. . -’.. Aav :~‘Am_ v...--_...-'~. I‘A- 'fzc “a: .-.... ..-~ ., hrs" a 5 ”..--...... . a:‘6,:‘ 5"“ ”so-“s. “--. ~-~~.. - J h v a Vv ..v ,_ ‘ ’ I .FV- ... In - Q n». ,- ‘a u “‘2“ ’v-..‘ d"-A ‘ .. _ - c25“-. ;_ w".; .— (It . ,. _ , “A‘.; Q ~ ~-‘. ‘A9~ - '- in I ~ "V- .‘A- " 3 «~_ b u— -Qv‘ ‘. 3 ' ~41 ‘n., y- ‘. "“. ‘2. 5“» ‘Fa \'v. C\ (“P 5» q. ‘- ‘ st‘ 'u- ‘1— \V‘ "~~. $- ~.‘ . v PA‘u ‘u. a . .'\. 1‘- V..—.. C .4 "- ...”. ...: ?.‘:¢"‘ \ 4‘ .- “\‘ a - v.‘2\- '- 3'" -‘h, d 1“. ~‘ N.- ‘V I... *4 Cv‘ . V “U F . n! A ., ._ \ n.» ,‘A‘ ‘ ‘4':F“< ~ A 4H I- ... ‘ F_ ‘y‘ & ‘ ‘n “ s ‘n / \\ lr—I 7O contemporary Christians. In his reply to this Cox moved from his position as devil's advocate to being a virtual heretic. He asserted that the traditional seven were neither scriptural doctrines "nor of the old Authors, nor ought to be taught."9 Again he was joined by Fox and Barlow. As the questioning turned to demand precise scrip- tural knowledge regarding the problems of identifying sacraments and evaluating contemporary usage, Cox again proved troublesome. As to sacraments referred to or implied in scripture, he was willing to accept eight, including unction of the sick with prayers and excluding confession;10 and with Barlow he agreed that confirmation "cum Chrismate" had no scriptural basis.ll Similarly, he refused to accept the conservative position that the New Testament required consecration at ordination; rather, he held that appointment and laying on of the hands alone were sufficient. Barlow, being more radical, would accept appointment only.12 Cox's answer regarding the sacrament of Confession epitomized the individualism of his Protestant outlook; for while he did not deny the * 93. Cox, "Resolutions," Question no. 6. 10Ibid., no. 7. 111b1d., no. 8. 12Ibid., no. 12. n1 (. ('1) (ll “4.; Ir) 1' I) v-A fl _ u- .4 av -— ' flu s- o‘.. $I AA - - . VJ 71 usefulness of confession, he declared it need not be done unless a person is "troubled in his conscience, that he cannot be quieted without godly Instruction."13 In this position he was joined by two of the conservatives, Tresham and Robertson. But the significance of their answer cannot be ignored: it demonstrated that there was a Protestant position which would accept Catholic rites, but only in an individualized, Spiritual, and symbolic sense. This was Cox's Zwinglianism at its strongest. Rather than diSpose of the Christian tradition, he was willing to put it in a setting of historical relativity; rather than accept blanket conveyance of grace, he stressed individual piety. This view was parroted by Cox regarding anointment with oil in the ceremonies which accompanied one's remission from venial sins. Both Cox and Barlow rejected the practice on the grounds that con- temporary usage was not the same as that of the scriptures and the church fathers.14 Cox emerged from this phase of the questioning as a.rather radical Protestant. He, along with Dr. Day and the Bishops of Hereford and St. Davids, refused to accept the view that there were clear scriptural bases for seven sacraments.15 Also, he refused to attribute any authority ¥ 13R. Cox, "Resolutions," Question no. 15. 1“Ib1d., no. 17. 15Ibid., no. 5. 0A C‘- we --. . u . . ... .. a. ..c ... .v .‘ .‘n .1. ... . v. ...; . . n.“ ... 1 _ A . : . . . .. . a: ... .1 A. T.— .u . L v \ s g. .. 6; N. 7. 2. r.. .c .C :»M s» A... .. ... o. 2. .o b. :. ... a» .. . .. ..n ... . 2. no ..... a: a. A . : . .. v I. .. ...a m. to. M... .. _ . \- _. .I-utz‘ .' 72 to sacraments beyond their being a "sacre rei Signum."16 This view was hardly in accord with the position assumed by the King's 2223, but strangely was not completely rejected by the others being questioned: the "Agreement" was that a Sacrament was the "sign of a holy thing," but not the "visible Form of an invisible Grace."l7 Any attempt to account for the historical origins of Cox's ideas regarding sacraments would be an intermin- able process, but in the context of contemporary views he clearly represented the tradition of Zwingli and Bucer. He was Zwinglian in his steady reliance on both humanist scholarship and in his emphasis on the symbolic meaning of sacraments. His answers portrayed the humanist habit of thorough scholarship, scholarship which found contra- dictions in time-honored church authorities and had failed to locate clear scriptural evidence for many religious institutions. Martin Bucer was of greater influence than Zwingli as far as Cox is concerned, for Cox refused to push the humanist iconoclasm as far as the other leading Swiss Zwinglian, Heinrich Bullinger. In Spite of his personal beliefs, Cox accepted the conservative King's 322k without public objection; for, with Bucer, his ideal was that of a unified Christendom, not an atomized church. 16R. Cox, "Resolutions," Question no. 2. 17Ibid., no. 16. an . ..- o‘ -.a.v .. o". F 0-: \ a..- n l u ‘fl. ‘ 'ov... F"- i .4 'A-U . “--fn‘ " _ -.~-____ .. Aug-mu - v “G. . - C --. ~““'v~ Q 3 4 I 73 But it is also necessary to understand the closeness of the views of Bucer and John Calvin in 1540, for such an understanding further clarifies Cox's ideological posi- tion.18 Both Bucer and Calvin were concerned for Protes— tant unity, for the church as the "kingdom of God" rather than an institution without unity;19 and both idealized "the idea of a universal protestantism."20 Both had similar views on the sacraments, predestination, and church discipline,21 the last being a device to counteract the extreme individualism of the Anabaptists.22 Together Calvin and Bucer also shared the ideal of a state in which all citizens, poor as well as wealthy, were protected as part of a larger kingdom of God.23 Of course, their ideologies ultimately diverged: Calvin adjusted when he actually became the leader of an inter- national form of Protestantism; Bucer died in exile in King Edward VI's England. Richard Cox, however, shared in the ideas held by these two reformers. He shared - 18W. Pauck, "Calvin and Bucer." The Journal 23 Religion, IX (1929), 237—256. Pauck's work demonstrates the compatibility by 15u0 of Bucer's and Calvin's thought. Both were products of Renaissance humanist scholarship and both worked together during Calvin's exile in Strasbourg. 19;p;g., 240. 20;p;g., 24a. 21;p;q., 245. 22;p;g., 247. ZBEEléog 248. Also see R. Tawney, Religion and the Rise 93 Capitalism (Sew York, 1928). nuaccl AV Q 1‘V~'-u..~ a:‘° or“ ... v- F 3 o’ r‘ c Icy. i"¢-~u“‘ ‘ - Q up»; 1.. ‘4' C‘v (I) - (I) (0 '~ “My- a ‘ 'a_"av‘.‘ “\J‘ n U h #9:!- ‘. '~. r- ”--e 1 s a co, I t ,. .- (x- J. as A 4 . (r _ “m. . '- i‘ § 1 ‘ bl, l‘ u ' x « ‘f‘ “v Q'; «5‘ V‘ p 74 their scholarly critique. His desire for unity was clearly eXpressed in his conformity and in his refusal to be dog- matic in any positive way, for his answers to Cranmer's questions never placed his Christianity into neatly defin- able entities. Lastly, Cox placed great emphasis on the Christian life as a life of positive social 3ustiee.24 As Pauck cites Bucer's Christian ideal from his Enn§£_in'quat Evangel (Basel, 1536), so it is possible to epitomize Richard Cox's thought: Vera theologica non theoretic et Speculative, sed activa et practica est. Finis siquidem eius aggge est, hoc est vitam vire deifismen Neither Cox nor Bucer, however, advocated the full accep- tance of the Zwinglian critique, and this is another key to Cox's outlook. For unity's sake he avoided a total denigration of the sacramental system and thus also avoided a direct clash with Lutherans. Eventually, as Chancellor of Oxford, Cox would find himself embroiled in the controversy over the real presence; and like Bucer, Cox would occupy a middle position: not Zwinglian, not Catholic, not-Lutheran.26 But Cox's ideal seems to have been the same as Bucer's, the achievement of unity. Apart 2“Above, pp. 39-44- 25Pauck, "Calvin and Bucer," 254. 26Below, p. 168. His defense of Peter Martyr Would place his theory of the Lord's Supper on the Calvin- ist side. _. P» Q‘s-Aw If I ... ,3}... , v: ‘1 K -v-.. .... n . .-- . - fi<~w~.--- \ ~--I-._._ I’. ---.~.‘F ’ i..- -..-.. fl -“" a»...th .— v... __‘"-_ ‘ Q - ”I." .- ‘ ....-_ ~‘A- A g" r! ‘l ‘ ~-—~-- . ‘V‘. ~~k‘ .- . \I‘D : ‘A‘.- -“- -d' ‘ I» H.‘:‘.? P s‘y . y‘ - fl :: .. . , a ...- ~--‘v flu-“n...“ \ ~ ‘~V~“v, -‘— . v '- “ “ “5". ' ..’ . s fa g:- U‘— ....R .. - -‘A “A._ ‘ ~ ‘\ . ~ ‘ .--. ‘ V‘v,‘ ,- x - A-.. n ‘~ "' A. ‘ fl“ .. "s Q 3 " l'. . “- '3 .‘ “~ ' ‘- . ‘3 \— . ~.. .fi A‘. “M... a -“ ‘ k » Za. - K". A \— v. ... . ... ...‘n. \ PA ‘ ‘ \v ._ \ .. “- - A, “ ‘~.;~ v‘ - A ..r ‘5 -r‘ o ‘R. \ ‘d “‘h v‘ - g ~ ‘\“\~H ‘ \- -"_' ‘ 'v K A K r ‘5 ~ ": ‘. 3‘- g \ ‘ \y ‘ 75 from such ideals survival was a continual problem for any religious radical, and this was no exception in Cox's life. Richard Cox's individual solution to the problem of survival was to answer questions regarding the nature of the church and its authority as obscurely as he had handled the sacraments. In this obscurity, however, he could not help but appeal to King Henry VIII'S desire for power, for Cox seemed willing to allow the secular state to exercise religious power. In addition he attacked traditional views of the church's hierarchical authority. Regarding the office of bishop, considered successor to that of apostle, Cox temporized to the point of creating doubts about the very source of the office. He refused to accept the idea that bishops predated the office of priest, and concluded that bishops were "after Priests and therefore made of Priests."27 The significance of this answer is in its implications, the most important being that the hierarchical structure did not comprise the church's first means of organizing itself. Rather, Cox implied that clerics had first selected the bishOps, and that the ancient organizational model, which had become so impor- tant for sixteenth-century reformers, was in some sense democratic. He even questioned whether the apostles had __ 27R. Cox, "Resolutions," Question no. 10; Cox, Thirlby, and Redman held that "in initior eordem fuisse Episcopgs gt Presbyteros." They thus implied a model which combined both bishop and elder-run churches. '0 .-. -th .f‘ 4..v p a - n r“‘~. .-- x.” p ~r:* way- .‘8— ab—v' .A._ ~- . ~v. “v Io 76 possessed the power to force a man to become a priest.25 In addition, Cox did not limit ordination powers to bishOps. With Tresham and Crayford, he was willing to allow laymen to ordain a priest when necessity demanded it.29 Again, Cox found himself in a middle position, for in answering the questions regarding the authority to ordain, the other reSpondents had usually allied themselves with lay power or had cited the unique role of the church's authority. For example, Barlow consistently revered the "Christian Prince," while traditionalists upheld the church's author— ity as being unique and ultimate.30 Questions were advanced regarding the hypothetical situation which would occur when churchmen were not present and the secular rulers felt that it was necessary to create a new clergy. Cox, with the majority, maintained that the prince did have that authority.31 Lastly, Cox revealed his desire for a disciplined Christian society when he reSponded to the question, who may excommunicate, and for what reason. He vaguely stated that "others" (than bishops and priests) could excommunicate and that public crimes as well as theological errors were grounds for excommunication.32 ¥ 25R. Cox, "Resolution," Question HO- 9- 29;£g§., no. 11. 3022£§., nos. 9-11. 31;bid., nos. 13, 14. 32Ibid., no. 16. 54-- ft" t ..;. '4‘. -..-v . 4 P;- '0 on 13,, I F. I... 3‘5 VA" rs— “’ ..-“ v-‘ u»: ’ u. r_..‘_ A u‘v‘.;‘- .~ ‘I ‘:.A“h--V\ : - v.'_“-- _. :‘3‘~ . ”:2 0“". .‘ s. ‘4 fi-‘ "h--' t u ‘0. ~ "~..A "h! ~ I - ‘4 ‘ P: ‘ . A ~: 4° C. 7n- x-” ’- ~ A A ..I'P ..“ v-.- h‘ . V ‘ :‘\:-‘~ ‘ ""'; ‘4‘ q .. "_‘ I N4. \ 3‘." , "v'" ‘ a' ...,.. ‘ v“ “‘5” _ .. ... - u. . r! q, . “‘§ “; ‘ h ‘ "A ~ ~b A.“ ‘ 'v. ‘5'. I"-- L ’s \\ ‘5‘“. ~ _ ‘~ ‘ I V» ‘ g 3 \ i ~:.‘ n.‘ f~ - '5‘ a . Vt. ’ x.’ ’P-‘. V— ! ~"~U ‘.~ “C . ‘ h‘A ._ ‘HQ ~ “v “A \‘v 'v “A. » r~ '1 A "‘~M\\ 6.. '2‘ -... .- .. q ... ' P 1", . -—~‘ ‘ ‘5, ~ V -— ‘ . ‘ 77 Of greatest significance for Cox's survival, however, was his political subservience. As one scholar has stated, "Cox is nearly as Erastian as Cranmer, and Rarlow more 80.n33 As indicated above, the questions and exact answers are not as important as the ideologies they implied; and Richard Cox emerged again as a humanist scholar and a reformer in the tradition established by Ulrich Zwingli and modified by Martin Bucer. As a reformer he clearly envisioned church-state coOperation in the reconstruction of a disciplined Christian society, a medieval ideal using 3% modern methods. As a humanist scholar he clearly appealed to the primitive church for his model and demon- strated in his answers a thorough understanding of that church. But his Christian humanism also revealed itself in his relativism. The past was a model, but could hardly be completely reinstated; and important questions regard- ing positive policies remained. While Cox could give insights, he was hardly in a good position to proclaim what the King's Rook should say: the king's choice had to lie between the radicalism of Barlow and Fox and the conservatism of Gardiner's party, which was clearly in the 33H.H. Smith, Henrv VIII and the Reformation (Cambridge, 1926), 373. 3“Pauck, "Rucer and Calvin," 254. Though the label "Bucerian" is used here, "Calvinist" could be used as well; however, Bucer's explication predated John Calvin's. A an b “A“.: RV .— o-vvvv-v 4 A . \ ‘ H . $ V ‘ \ a C 1 ~ .‘- ‘V‘ ““fi~ .— ‘..v.‘.,'_ v ”C‘2m:,~ . _Ad.»_*;‘ . a 0‘ ~ ‘\ V7 _'¥‘o\: ‘ 'OQVV I ' ~ CI “03“-." V -_V.A - ... AS a ~a-‘ ‘ ‘4‘“ ..'Q‘~.‘~ h." 1"“. «,‘~ Sec-)- 3.” '4 -V.‘ r. \_§ ‘ .. ’-‘ ‘. "A V..: Ma“: ‘ . . “. ...“ : ~ . 'I.‘ x. “ x. 5:»- V.“ A“ x - \ k-‘ :H‘ s'vxv'. \:\q Y. ¥ ~ i-sl" ‘h‘fi‘fl- V k \‘ . I ._ . p ., ‘.‘ '\ “‘ ‘ . U l‘!‘\ '- ‘ \‘ A ~ ‘\ ~F§ .v ‘ \ '~ ‘ ,l V I d‘: 78 majority. Henry VIII therefore had little choice but to create an officially "Catholic" church, with the important exception of his assuming its headship. In Spite of this official position, the king obviously appreciated Cox and evidently was not averse to the ideas expressed by him. In Spite of his Zwinglianism, Cox was given the reSponsi- bility of educating the next king of England, Prince Edward. Since Richard Cox was an educational leader in the 1540's his ideals as an educator are relevant to his intellectual biography. Though most of the available material reflects Cox's methodology, a few strands of evidence indicate his view regarding content, views which evidently changed little after his days as master of Eton. As a grammarian he clearly favored the use of texts which would instill pure, classical methods of using Latin. As seen in his letter to Paget, he abhorred "the old latin with the old ignorance;"35 therefore, his involvement in the revision of the royal primer seems quite logical. But in an age of controversy even that harmless book was suSpect. The reaction to the first edition was that it gave "offence" and was "seditious," but there is nothing in it which could possibly have been seditious.36 Lew 35_s_r_>_, slaw-341p. 36Above, pp. 41-42. ' - ' 1.3..-- ‘ n_ 5")“ . i. . v“ -va-..-.. ' s anolne‘qfl? V-‘naLAb'-v,,’ ““C“'P~n - .~‘_ _.~- , - -“"a¢~.—.-.. ;.v‘_ A v |._- , O ‘ "N ... ‘ - ‘V‘ '- -. . q 1“~ - .. k- y ‘- ‘flu‘5‘ ._ ‘ -“'v. - a -. Q“ \ ‘ ~-: 7" ‘v ' . -‘, :‘A - '- 80.. 'a .. v“. L: L“ A "' 9‘;r ‘1 ”‘ l-A c . a ' [a a "v. ,M~'l .\ '5“ . 'v‘._ ’ I" ~ 0 ~"‘\4 ‘.-'V‘\-\ ’- ‘. ”A - ~ ~ ‘4' “2“ “A~. :y ~. V“ «4‘ ... ‘- F ‘ ..o 22‘ ‘V ‘A~,. ‘ V‘ ‘ A ‘ _ . .':,..~, 3 *v‘. -. ‘. s“ ‘ .~ “‘9 U ' R‘ V“ ~‘ : \I H- : ‘k.“ ‘ H y. O““ ~vd~‘v “l' H.‘ , _ V5.2» v.v‘ --.. A. «N I “r :- x A‘ - in K! \ \ :- ..- .. J ." 1Q» \- i -"‘ \-A__ \ ,.‘ ‘ “I, it" a_, ‘ 4 ‘. I‘ ~ ‘\ \ § '3. A a‘ V I ‘- ‘. ... “ '- ‘Q 79 grammars and primers gave offence because they eSpoused New Learning, not heresy. The content of the Prince's education, however, was not so neutral. Nichol's survey of Edward VI's library reveals the presence of the royal grammar,37 but also present were a homily by the Swiss Protestant, Rudolph Gualter, and the works of Vives and Idosellanus.38 The last author was of course the critic whose works Cox had used to revolutionize the Eton cur- riculum. Of equal interest are Cox's views on methodology. Though Haddon saw him as "the greatest beater," he clearly had endeared himself to Prince Edward;39 and this can be traced to the teaching ideals eXpressed in the "Foreward" to g §horte Introduction to Grammar (1540).40 Cox was apparently head of the committee which produced the grammar,41 and is the most logical choice for author of the "Foreward." He favored avoiding "tediousness of teaching," and though the new dialogue texts did this, Cox advised similar techniques in teaching basic grammar. The editor's advice "To the Reader" was to make grammar study seem both easy and reasonable. The former was to 37Nichols, Literary Remains, cccxlii. 33$ichols, cccxxv ff. 39Above, pp. 57-58. 403. Cox, et al., A Shorte Introduction of Grammar, 1567 (cisuo). ' “lAbove, p. 54. -.. b-.~ - - P” “A“? .v ”-' —- 4..., . I —"-"'\f‘ o ‘ ~A\_ .. .- \ ‘~ . d. In: 9.‘ a..- - ‘F -.. w- _ "u. U .— vfi§ ‘-- " .d*~ v' , . . a «28%,. -v‘ CA‘ .- g- '1 - . _ U h. ‘Na.-. ‘0' “I- ‘ A vo‘ ' e“ “g.“ K g-“ .... \s _ ~.‘ ‘ fl 1'!" ~, ‘ ..A- ~ I. ~- ‘ ‘ . r- '- 1*- u ~-- 0-. ., H-« V‘v :‘c‘ .. ‘~- '3‘“: s, A ‘ l 1 ‘ II ‘ .. “ 4“ .v _ ‘ 'A \, .- g~ - a .- \ -.. ‘. s rl . ‘~. (.5 ‘9 I . ‘Q . ‘ \“,v '\ O “ £555 V“ “ ‘\ Q .. \r- .— . . D 8 ‘§ -~ . . Q . ' .- K -‘ . - u.’ 80 be achieved by using easy examples, the latter by eXplain- ing the reason behind the rules rather than by forcing memorization of rules. Cox suggested that one learn "not by rote, but by reason."42 To reinforce the basic gram- matical foundation, the writer advised that the student be allowed to read a book of interest to him. These ideas were expressed in terms which demonstrate a schoolmaster's adjustment when the learning situation is not ideal: "if the foregrounds be well and thoroughly beaten in, let them not continue learning their rules . . . but rather learn some pretty book . . . ."43 He further suggested the device so odious to most Latin students, translation from English into Latin. He concluded with an encourag- ing word for those teachers who enforced Speaking the Latin tongue.4u Cox's over-all ideal, however, was hav- ing students completely submerged in their studies: I would all their time they be at school, they should never be idle, but always occupied in a continual rehearsinm and lookina back arain . . . to keep well their old, then to take forth any new.45 By his teaching methods and scholarship, Cox had made a mark for himself as a leadinm educator. The major interpretive problem inferred by the 423. Cox, §_§§orte Introduction, A3. ”31b1d., A3. J ”41b1d., A4. 451b1d., Aha .‘ -.V i a l d . -‘F —: AM 9... ”..-.-- v..., v- » I b .' ‘5} Cut. .. "'-—v.4 ‘. ,_ o . .- . ‘fl— . "‘ -v\v,._ -' - . -.A.fi- ‘ ‘ ~ --~.,‘v - C W...‘ N ' “ C‘ A‘ .‘-I "’ v- . .\\q~, R‘- .1- -“-.a ~,-. 5 . mu ,3 .. ‘1 - " ~..‘~ “._ ‘ . ‘Vl‘fighq, ”"v.- e. " V— "A.“A.‘.~ v,_ .‘ ---- .-— . cu- \ ‘Hv ’2‘5.‘__ "4 - '«g - h ~t‘n-‘ : vs~A~ A ~ “~.‘ “A “ c V'Vld ‘9 .A: . H‘. ‘ ‘ ‘ P~ L H “‘ A ‘ an; ‘3-“ V‘. ‘“A ‘ ii \,~< 0 “V '3‘ ~ ““"Q° \_ N. , \. . 5‘ ‘4' A‘ ‘v A“: v \r. K V I AWN . I,‘ . .\ ‘. . 'ur.‘fil“‘.‘ ‘\.\ V-u ' \i I" ~ . \(. 6 \\ MA‘ ‘9 \\ :‘ ' w ‘. s x‘ .\ \~‘ 1"; N Bl facts of Cox's life and ideas during Henry VIII's reign involves deciphering the king's role in the progress of the Reformation. Was he Catholic, Protestant, indiffer- ent, or simply out of touch with the great social upheaval which was enveloping England? G.H. Elton has worked out in detail the point made in the seventeenth century by BishOp Gilbert Eurnet, namely, that Henry was never in control of his policies.“0 Depending on their reSpective views of history, other writers excoriate or praise the king on the grounds of his immorality, his lack of religion, or his dedication to the state. However, from the evidence provided by the ruler's appointment policies and his thoroughness it is possible to see the king in a differ- ent perSpective. He acted as though he wanted a religious establishment which was a product of English culture and yet unified with the rest of Christianity. John Strype excepted, historians have often ignored the thoroughness which characterized the king's plans and policies. It is clear that King Henry was obviously deeply concerned with supporting as well as reforming two of the most obvious pillars of English life, the church and the nation's educational system;47 and Richard Cox's career ”éEurnet, I, 485. 4727 Henry VIII c. 42. This law is an example, for though the king was annexing church properties, he still released Oxford, Cambridge, Winchester, and Eton from payment of first-fruits and tenths. . -37.»... uv..-‘ i - F. U” a. ,3 7. 4'" v.- .| . I- ‘C ’7 -v -... ;,. l i. U s. V {'- -. l O I. 82 exemplified the king's concern. In Cox's progress under Henry VIII, from Ely to Osney to Christ Church College, as well as in the king's plans for a reorganized church, it is apparent that the monarch wanted cathedral churches which were centers of learning. The new or.: :anization was analogous to the old monastic structure, but new appointees were no longer dedicated to praying. They were devotees of the New Learning. To encourage learning was the precise role of Cox as Prebend of Ely in 1541, and further appoint- ments granted to Parker and Hay reflected the same atti- tude.48 Known scholars, and radicals at that, were given the Fflnms of the re-organized church. For example, four of the five prebendary stalls at Ely went to scholars and the heads of colleges,49 and similar facts emerge upon examining the Nestmins ter foundation of 1540. There a bishOpric replaced an abbey, but besides its resident deans and twelve prebends it was to support the following: ten readers in divinity, law, physio Hebrew and Greek twenty students in the universities two masters of grammar forty grammar scholars. 0 Whatever the king's religious motives, he seemed intent on creating a learned England, learned in the sense of dedica- 4SBentham, E12, 225. 49Ibid.. 225-253. 50w. Combe, The History of the Abbey Church of St. Peter's Wesminster, Its Antiquities and lonuments (London, 10125, I, 235} Register Book C, folio 76 is Combe' 3 source 0- [517' finer“ H - V-‘ a -. r“. l A h~*' A“..— yu--¢V“" 3.- x ‘AA’“" ‘ .— ._,J-‘ ,5“: n ___,_..A WAV‘N nu‘ “ ~“h‘n ‘-" "I ,_ J tion to the "New Learning." His educational appointments, with the exception of those former abbotts and monks who conformed, went to Renaissance scholars, and scholars rooted in the New Learning were selected to educate the king's own son. Of greatest significance, however, are the views of these men: they were hardly Spineless grammarians or simply pr0ponents of "Erasmian pietism and the cause of learning."51 As seen above, Cox the grammar- ian was also Cox the religious and social radical. The same interpretive problem arises when the king's ecclesiastical policies are examined; but his religious views are even more difficult to identify because they were so clouded by foreign policy. Charles V and the Lutheran princes stood against each other, but each was a live option for henry. Ey allying himself with the Lutherans the king would have pursued the most treacher- ous policy, but an alliance with the emperor would neces- sarily ensure to England a continuation of her role as a second-class power. Though English hopes, such as those eXpressed in Cox's paper in the mid 1530's,52 were aimed at creating a vision of international leadership, that vision was surely a vain dream as long as land armies dominated EurOpean diplomacy. In reality, England was in a frustrating position: any ruler with Protestant learnings 51J. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII (Berkeley, 1963), 474. _. v. _ ... _ . .. .. ... ... . .... .. .___. _ . .... r. r._ _. ... a; .... r1 ... . .Q. 3 c. 7. 3 _ r 1 a. a: t E ... I V: T , 2 2 f ... v. by n. Au .. A; a: P; A» #V v. I. ... .. .. av ... ~. 3v ..w. “. 5. ’ 1. Nu ...a 0’ ...“ :v .: ... .L . . ... . a :. .... .. ... .u n. L“ L. ... C _ m. .... a. .. .r” 2. .fi. .... .r.. ... a .e z . .. an . u, c. «. ... ... l. .... .‘ . a ... a. 3.. a. ..‘H t. a. _ C A. 5, r t. .C ..e ... ... a. a. 2 at t. \. 4 ran the risk of being destroyed. From historical hind- sight Protestant success seems a foregone conclusion; however, that was hardly the case in the early stages of the Reformation. henry VIII and his successors were forced to act with caution. King Henry VIII's caution was characterized by two things, care to avoid presenting just one face to the Catholic powers and care to ensure a uniquely English religious revolution. The first of these two aims is clearly seen in the king's various policies as applied to the Continent: the Cleves marriage, a Protestant policy; the Ten Articles and King's Book, a Catholic policy, with the exception that it included helanchthon's adiaphora coctrine;53 the BishOp}s Book, a compromise policy. After Cromwell's fall the second of the above three choices seems to have been the king's guiding principle, for doctrinal standards were quite Catholic, Protestants were actively persecuted, and Bishop Gardiner's power seemed to grow rather than diminish. The pOpular interpretation of these facts is that Henry was obviously disillusioned with Protestantism and that after the death of Cromwell he simply had no policies which would 53A.G. Dickens, The English Reformation (London, 1964), 142. A; v.-V—‘ ‘\_ P- .....- -..- -vA ... r." my C H... .3 . .. .5 .i“ E .. .. ,4. «J m. “I .v 0‘- .. v Cu . . O a; .. . a u .. v .~ v .ru 1 . "a .... a: r... . v c. a. A: ...m p: a; $.— .» u .v; 3.. u. . — s f~ _. r. .. . .e _ . 7. 3 C r: m. .... v. 2. Q. ~ . . . a. u . rd «3 .. _ A. N... Z .. . on . e. . 5‘ .... ..1 a. a: m. c. ...: .. q . _ . _ . .. C 3‘; r.. .l E. ..... f. .. Sig inc. ”...; l c on C c, Q» nu av C .. .3 ... (R ...x x‘. n: r: 9 .2 3.. o. T .... 0 .f. ...... .... .. .3 .35. A: A... O 3 . r. 7 .3. S . C .3 T t t C .t \/ ...: E S ... S t. a . r... 1.. r .... 1.1:. .... .... .... t e . .JL... .3 .L ~ D. C n T, ..7.‘ t.< .... O O C M. Q E s e 7‘ E a .3 C AC T C 3 .i ,C C a. 2...: 1.. _ ... .-.; S ...... a .. e : a E a... .n _. I \ 41‘ 4.. ‘3‘ .F. .1 .... Q .1 .... 4‘ o x... a. .l« .... . .... .....2... 1...‘ .3 .... z e In M. av ad \ h\ A.» \, \....‘ xvi-3‘ \v a» —v \ a; a: u .. ‘1‘ 2y um A.» ...... v... .9... in \..k ...~ .“.~ kn”... -~_~ s..~ ..Cu .. ~. (a... q... \ e A a 85 give England sound, creative direction.5LL The modern pro- ponent of this view, Professor 3.3. Elton, may have been influenced by his dedication to elevating Thomas Cromwell's reputation or to his own brand of political determinism,55 but his reducing Henry VIII to a mere cipher is hardly in keeping with the facts. Though the king presented one face to the Continent, his Catholic face, his institution- alizing religious policies were in fact not detrimental to radical Protestants. The basic policies of the 1534-1540 era were not surrendered when Gardiner replaced Cromwell, for uniformity, a reorganized church, and the principle of avoiding stringent enforcement of doctrinal uniformity remained accepted policies. Thomas Cranmer's ideas, with the exception of his eucharistic vi ws, were quite Protes- tant, yet he was protected by the king. Pro—Catholic doctrinal statements simply were not enforced against 54G.B. Elton, England Under the Tudors (London, 1956). Professor Elton's view is that the king never really controlled his policies: under Wolsey he had been "a mere cypher behind the over powering cardinal" (101); from 1529 to 1532, between Nolsey's and Cromwell's periods of power, the king;s rule is characterized as being "with- out a policy" (122); Cromwell is credited with founding the constitutional monarchy and organizing the nation state (129); and the years without great leaders are con- sidered years without a policy (186 ff). It should be pointed out, however, that these views are contradicted when Elton himself explains Wolsey's fall:" because he could not serve the man who made him" (120); and when Edwardian government is criticized for repealing Henry's heresy acts (205). Regarding these last-named acts it should be pointed out that they were not even enforced by the king-~as the examples of Archbishop Cranmer and Richard Cox prove. They were only enforced against those who publically held Lollard or Lutheran ideas, such as the heretics Anne Askew and Richard Crome. 55Ibid., 110, 163. v..v .o. u.- ”pa-0' fl .. A- g,’ ... A .— VV-.. V ‘ 0 Q F'r- a-A,‘ .— w.._.“_. . 6' .. ‘74. ‘nm “...... ‘9- q s A," __ a- (~" ~,‘ ‘ C." A ”a-.. fi _ *.' v :‘ -.--“ .‘ \v H ’5‘ -'~.r "., A. . KM- -. J \ ’ --~‘ v. Die-u -A " 3-. ‘ VA-.V Q.' ”C h ""v ‘ -‘:‘fi .. ~- ‘. -n 5"- “ v . v- w ’r“ .‘_ “us... . §. ( H (J (l’ 4 f” m M ii 6 03 the archbishop, and neither were they enforced against many other Protestants, Richard Cox included. Those who were prosecuted as Protestants were primarily accused of being seditious by publically teaching what had been for- bidden. They were condemned more for their disobedience than for their heresy.56 That a person as radical as Cox could survive and in fact advance indicates that there was an alternative to martyrdom--silence. To look for a posi- tive working policy, one must therefore look to more fac- tors than foreign policy, official doctrinal statements, and the persecution of some Lutherans and Lollards. From the perSpective of Richard Cox's career two additional factors must be considered: the acceptance of the idea that the church must be subservient to the state; and basic administration policies as outlined in religious directives, or "Injunctions." Injunctions were based on the king's and the church's administrative powers, powers which were unclear due to the great institutional revolution of the 1530's but which by necessity had to be exercised. The injunc- tions of 1537 evidently were never revoked, and stand as an excellent example of what Henry VIII actually envisioned as a reformed church: instruction of the people in the mother tongue, the supremacy of the king in ecclesiastical m 56Examples are Dr. Crome, Anne Askew, and Robert narnes. .C ‘ P‘ A. ~v v uv‘ u.-- a»; --E u v ... .. 37 affairs, the settin: up of the Bible in English churches, and a clergy which avoided public scandal.57 But beyond these ideals there were also directions for a reformed society. Sermons received new emphasis and were to be directed at young people in particular: to provide and foresee that the said youth be in no mannerwise kept or brought up in idleness, lest at anytime afterwards they be driven for lack of some hystery or Occu- pation to fall to beamingsfistealinq, or some other unthriftiness. In addition, clerics were to provide for the poor and for the support of scholars: one fortieth of holdings worth more than twenty pounds was to be distributed to the poor, those holding property worth one hundred pounds or more were to give one fortieth of each one hundred pounds to a scholar, and one fifth of the benefice's value was to oe used for church restoration.59 In a concrete way the injunctions implored the creation of a reformed society in which the poor were cared for, learning was supported, and "unthriftiness" was abhorred. These views were pre- cisely the values eXpressed by contemporary humanist critics of the church, and represent the ideals which 57Cranmer, Remister, fol. 47, Burnet, I, 11, 203 ff. Though the Bible was later removed and replaced with the Kingis Book, the rest of the injunctions were not revoked or replaced. 581bid., 203. 59Ibid., 203 ff. .A‘c“ -p—k.,-~- - A: .1 .. ,_ ,, V-.A....I - ~J.V.uv- 7‘... ..v--. -- I \ op- .‘A'. 91 was "contrary to the Word of God" eventually created one of the great crises of the Reformation in England, but on the basis of the ideas described above the king's policies of the 1540's can be understood-~and so can Richard Cox's elevation as an institutionalizer of the king's ideals. In the same context, the king's appointing of Protestants to educate the Prince also makes sense. Dr. Lacey Baldwin Smith has pointed out that the nature of Prince Edward's education is basic in determin- ing the king's religious preferences,70 but his analysis that Cox and Cheke were simply "devout and obedient Erastians selected by the king for their learning and loyalty to the crown" and that they were not known Protestants is unacceptable.71 Further, that Cor was used by the crown in the heresy trials of Barnes, Askew, and Crone, is not a consideration which clouds his own religious radicalism. Rather, they demonstrate his desire for religious unity in England and his subservience to the state, and these ideals were characteristic of the human— ist-oriented Protestants. Included in such a group were Bucer, Relanchthon, and, until 1541, John Calvin. Thus, while foreign relations dictated a policy designed to placate the French, as Dr. Smith points out,72 Eenry VIII a 4 7OSmith, "Henry VIII," 1243. Also see Scarisbrick, 7 . 711bid., 1243. 721bid., 1255. v -A q-« -m—V" .1 .. 2. a. . ... ... r; 3,. 2. u. L” .... .. ... . a .a . . ‘Q a. _. a. . ... .. .t .. A 2v 2; by .. Tu . a: l ... a . en 1 Q... 2v ‘1. m-» A: g . a. o r” 0! § 2. .3. Iq.‘ .xd r .v . . .... A; a. ... a e , a . a... . Us IQ 9 quite consistently pursued a domestic policy which helped create a religious establishment which was patterned after the ideas of many Continental reformers and at the same time was uniquely English. Cox's promotions and obvious pOpularity with the king indicate that Henry VIII's religious establishment was oriented to the hew Learning. Basic to it were well— endowed and humanistic schools and universities, and Cox's life illustrates much energy devoted to these ends. His role as a student, master, tutor, and dean all demonstrate his dedication to institutionalizing Renaissance learning. Secondly, the flew Learning developed a critique of tradi- tional religion. The fact that Richard Cox had as a student joined those who searched for the Philosoohia Christi outside the security of scholastic philosophy, that he negated the traditional view of the sacraments in 1540, and that he formulated plans for unity in 1536 all militated for an alternative to traditional Roman Catholic- ism. In maintaining these views he had much in common with reformers such as John Calvin and hartin Bucer. Thirdly, the Few Learning was a social critique, and in this reSpect Cox's paper of 1536 was in conformity with Hugh Latimer's social radicalism, as well as the social ideal behind the injunctions of 1535. All envisioned a "commonwealth" ideal of full employment, "thriftiness," and justice. While Cox had plans for implementing these doov p..- ...“:c ,. I Uta—v- A. .....- ~w¢¢¢ vat-v - ‘ : Q . .~l ‘ -| p ‘a... .5“ u..“ .v‘ u— . ‘ Ip"\n- . .VJ‘ 'O-‘ .. ‘ “‘~, :H', \ ~‘- “\C . I 5“.“l“ \- “J" - - “AA“:“ v" \“U‘ ‘fl “ “v ‘m._ ‘A. ~‘ 93 ideals, however, they never became more than hopes. After the king had fulfilled the demands of military expendi- tures and tried to satisfy land-hungry courtiers, the treasury was empty. This is perhaps one key to the conser- vative party's success, for those in power had gained far too much from the Reformation by 1540 to allow the imple- mentation of the idealistic social ethics of the Christian humanists. BishOp Gardiner and his party viewed the radical demands of the reformers as social revolution and had little trouble conveying their view to henry VIII, and for a time these conservatives were successful.73 Fourthly, the Lew Learning provided the basis for the new English church, namely, England's culture. Since this critique eXposed most traditional beliefs as historically conditioned and therefore relative, there was little else to turn to but past culture and the will of the prince. Of course, there were idealists who wished for a return to primitive Christianity, but such an ideal seemed to humanists like Cox as impossible as any strict Biblicism. Again, Cox's replies to the questionnaire of 1540 are important, for he was unwilling to appeal to any unitary picture of the primitive church. Rather, the adiaphora provided a basis on which reformers could build, namely, the history of their own cultural form of Christianity. 73L.B. Smith, Prelates and Politics (Princeton, 1953). 145- v r- S n‘v- .. A-.. .-- D ( Oi}. / Edwardian reformers were left the reSponsibility of defin- ing a properly English way of eXpressinw Christianity, and \’ again Richard Cox served as an important institutionalizer. CHKPTER III KING'S ALMONER AND CHANCELIOB OF OXFORD PART I: Edwardian Administrator Richard Cox's life during the reign of King Edward VI is easier to trace because of his role on many ecclesi- astical committees and his fulfillment of the nearly impossible task of serving as Chancellor of Oxford Univer- sity. Also, in this period more evidence is available for his personal life. The major problem of the critical and chaotic years from 1547 to 1553, however, was to establish what Henry VIII had intended to create, a reformed but uniquely English church. In laying the basis for such a creation, the deceased ruler had pro- moted the establishment of a series of educational- religious foundations, but had found it impossible to finance them. Thus, there were continued financial crises, crises which Edwardian governments were never able to settle with finality.1 Instead, well-known eXpedients were used to raise money: since church land 1This point is continually made by J. Dasent in his introductory chapters to volumes II, III, and IV of his edition of The Acts 22 the Privy Council. ’ 95 96 had been almost entirely stripped, church plate and vest- ments were the next target;2 coinage was debased to pro- vide new revenues;3 and the government even turned to stripping libraries and selling the bindings of books it hadremoved.)+ Aside from economic difficulties, however, the new government had to solve the problems created by the chaos in national religious life. Since Roman Catholic ways were not acceptable, it became necessary to formulate new vehicles of religious expression. Traditional Catholic methods of worship remained the basis of the religious service, but the English made two adjustments: they purged from religion what leading Protestants had labelled "super- stitious" and created an "English Way." The results of these efforts were two successive productions, the Book of Common Prayer of 1549 and its more Protestant succes- sbr of 1552.5 But questions of a constitutional and legal nature remained also; for, though Henry VIII's praemunire and supremacy statutes had solved the problem of the church's loyalty, they had left unsolved the problems of . 2APO, II, III, and IV. Throughout these volumes there are several examples of confiscation of church goods. 3Royal Proclamation, 1549, Hughes and Larkin, #40 ff; Proclamation,1551, Ibid., 518 ff. “Ape, vol. III, "Introduction," xvii; APC, III, 224. 5Proctor and Frere, A.New History 9: the Book 2: Common Prayer (London, 19b97. my. a i. T: l 1 Cu 1*: lw‘ 3.; he“ 0 in. tote: ,- 861 TV! ‘ \L ‘r: “‘9 £0 97 legal jurisdiction and the church's internal legal relation- ships. Edwardian governments therefore had to deal with 6 the problem of ecclesiastical law. The problem which over- shadowed all others, however, was unity, for England was inhabited by a mass of Opposing factions; and though these factions usually had selfish social, economic, and politi- cal interests, they all seemed to express their differences most vociferously when confronted with the prime topic of sixteenth-century religion, namely, the unity of the church. It was with religion that Richard Cox had most to do, and it was as a religious leader that he had an impact on and influence within English society. As King Edward's reign proved both chaotic and critical for England, so it proved to be for the career of Richard Cox. Cox, however, was no longer the rising young man, for he had arrived. Within the religious-educational structure he served as Dean of Christ Church, Dean of Westminster, and Chancellor of Oxford University. At court he held a position that Wolsey once had held under King Henry VIII, the office of King's Almoner. Because of his learning and probably because of his political influence he was called on to serve on many important ecclesiastical commissions. These included the commission for canon law reform, both 6Le um Ecclesiasticarum was produced, but never adopted 5y either Edwardian or Elizabethan governments, much to the chagrin of the martyrologist John Foxe and the Protestant historian, Gilbert Burnet. 3 1 D d ww " cg_,iut€ 1 pOxic ' Q» Lb RU . rent 1‘; ‘Id ~K. a“ a; at 98 committees for writing the Book of Common Prayer, a com- mittee to discipline Anabaptists, and a commission which investigated Oxford.7 Again, therefore, Richard Cox would be important as an institutionalizer; for, though there is no evidence that he was a member of Parliament,8 and therefore could not be claimed as a creator of policy, he was surely important in other ways. It was up to Parliament and the court to establish basic policy, but it still remained the duty of the countless govern- ment functionaries to carry out those programs. From per- forming an institutionalizing role at Eton and in the education of Prince Edward, Richard Cox advanced to per- form a similar role under King Edward. As he had been called upon for religious advice during Henry VIII's reign, so he again played an important role in establish- ing English ecclesiastical policy during the reign of Edward VI. The highest official position Cox ever held at court was that of almoner, and it is in that role that he is usually alluded to in Edwardian state papers. Some authors have even maintained that he became a member of 7CPR, Edwardlyg, II, 251. 8Parliamentary Diary, Henry VIII, Edward 2;, Cotton Tiberius, D 1 (British MuseumS. ..a “ the P in me 51" as. Pow- ....y... a. V V V. a. 'v-‘ can A W 2‘ Viv ..-- a 40 v u «I. O a m. C by e -5. m i n. ‘ ...... v 5‘ ‘4 ‘hu .. A ...v e 4‘ S 5 Av y .r... 9 my .0. r. a w. AL h‘ 3 .fl C 0 C 'C 3: a: it at r .3. «t C 5 e a. “u \uk ~HV 5. cc .1. a ‘ e O C a. O a. V t nhu an 3 .PJ. 71s fix ..-» xv. \J. 5.. 99 however, there is no evidence of this 10 the Privy Council;9 in the Privy Council's records. Nor does John Dasent, editor of those records, include him in any lists of its members. The young king's latest biographer, Hester Chapman, has claimed that Cox was demoted to almoner when Cheke entered the court as an additional tutor;11 however, the position of almoner was evidently no mean task. It was a duty that Cardinal Wolsey had performed for King Henry VIII, and actually involved contacts and responsibilities most courtiers and churchmen never had. The almoner's extensive monetary resources are described in a grant of March 16, 1547: Grant to R. Cox, clerk, STP, the king's great almoner, in augmentation of the king's alms, of the goods, debts, and chattels of all felons . . ., and all deodands, within England, Wales and the marches, the town and march of Calais, 9A. Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, I, 465. In one sen- tence Wood makes several errors regarding Cox. He makes him Canon of Windsor on July 16, 15u8, and adds that "about that time he was made one of the privy council, almoner to the king, and dean of Westminster." However, he had actually been elevated at Windsor by Henry VIII, long since deceased; had been made almoner in isfih; was not made Dean of Westminster until 1549; and never became a member of the Privy Council. Wood praises Cox's poetry and his ability as a tutor, but obviously inter- prets his rise as part of a Protestant conSpiracy of overwhelming political and economic motivation. 1°APc, II, III. 11H. Chapman, The Last Tudor King (New York, 1959), 59- aflhm ‘\ *‘W‘IA ' «Air 3. I n-9,, ‘~.. 48C 9 v. Q i s y h2‘+ CunLI welS I 1 V» ox tit a L A3 52b .33 1*- ‘ H b0 u l r 0-. ukla «é 100 and the towns of Upper and Lower Boulogne, forfeited to the king after February 21 last. Appointing him to enquire from time to time for such profits and levy them. An entry from the king's household account of February, 1548 also illustrates the extent of additional payments to Cox the almoner: for so much money by him disbursed and employed for the king's majesty's privy alms (July, August, September, October, November, December, January, February), after the rate of xx Ll the month, the sume of clx Ll.13 Evidently the almoner was reimbursed for his payment in this case. Though his original source of money is not indicated, it probably came from the broad grant of the chattels of felons and loans. In addition to controlling regular alms, Cox was required to distribute money on religious holidays. A Privy Council entry of March 10, 1547, for example, refers to L 100, 2 s, 7 d that were set aside for distribution among the poor on Palm Sunday and Good Friday.14 The same entry indicates that the king's total contribution in the form of alms for 1546-7 was two hundred ten pounds.15 Secondly, the almoner, lchR, Edward 1;, I, 101. 13"Household Book of Edward VI," Trevelyan Papers, J. Collier, ed. (Camden Society, 1857), 191; according to gag, III, 137, this amount L xx per month is again paid for 1550 and promised for the next year. 14APC, II, 141. On April 8, 1549 a warrant was issued to pay the almoner two hundred marks for alms for Maundie Thursday (APC, IV, 18). 15APC, II, 114. Q . “97' CEVSIdse b & "I I ~ u kLE': SJD Council ‘5' “A. 4:430- 518 101 because of the very nature of his duty, had close con- tacts with members of the lower classes. Apparently the king supported thirteen indigent citizens, for a Privy Council warrant to William Cavendish indicates that alms supported thirteen "poor men daily at v sterling apiece."16 This entry was repeated in the records of March 1, 1548.17 But the poor were not simply indigent beggars, for the almoner also gave pensions to widows of veterans. A Council letter of March 6, 1547 orders Cox to pay yearly alms of forty shillings to Joan Power, widow of a man who had been killed "at Boloyn."18 Thirdly, Cox's role as almoner put him in close contact with the higher echelons of authority. He evidently had the Council's and the king's trust, for he was entrusted with large sums of money; and, given the young king's overwhelming piety and charity,19 Cox must have been a valued and trusted advisor and confidant. John Foxe goes far in emphasiz- ing the king's dependence on Cox in helping settle suits for money.20 That he was highly regarded is borne out by his elevation to the office of Chancellor of Oxford 159313,, II, 114. 173151., II, 174. 18%., II, 447. 19Foxe, g, V, 701. 2021913., v, 701. C Us ‘3‘ ‘ ‘ «b 9-O~.O “EC t‘ A‘” \‘ .30518hob in I 31+}. ,_ Va. brie Protf an "VI ‘6 +. 2 a 10th.,» “I ‘2Tx.4 ‘~;‘ 102 University. Cox's elevation again demonstrates the point that the English monarchy was intimately concerned with the nation's educational system: as for Henry VIII's, so for Edward VI's government. In the new government Protes- tant sympathizers were installed as heads of the univer- sities, the Duke of Somerset at Cambridge and Richard Cox at Oxford. Cox was somewhat of an anomaly at Oxford, for he was a Cambridge graduate; however, he could not help but play an important role at the university, for he was dean of one of its most important colleges, Christ Church. Again his elevation was troublesome for he had married. Though there is no known documentation as to whom he married or the circumstances surrounding the marriage, the reaction to it at conservative Oxford could have been little else but hostile. Because of his marriage the chancellor was soon attacked by Dr. Richard Smith.21 The problem of clerics being married was always an in- flamatory issue during the Reformation, and in England it promoted the polarization of the religious Split. Also Bish0p Gardiner again had a point for disagreeing 22 with the Protestants. An additional complaint against Cox was that his election was not conducted in the usual ZIStrype, gg, II, 68. 22IbId., II, 103. way, and th’. mrried Prct head of £171 chosen on 2.3 U 0 n» “I ‘. L "' 0.. ' V‘s : L do: earl—7 h Ii A. 59” Emerge: ‘ a ’ a 9“ mine-d at t 'n' "‘ '1 1. . E.e cervhcfi ‘ ‘ | I" a "r.': a Rolfe N: °~:Cial o 32“.”: 103 way, and this extra-constitutional election eXplains how a married.Protestant and graduate of Cambridge could become head of England's conservative university. Cox was chosen on May 21, 1547 by a religious Convocation held in London, and not by the university's regents.23 This elec- tion early in the new king's reign was a portent of the new government's educational policies.2u Though Cox's administration will be analyzed below, the course of his new Oxford leadership can be outlined at this point. To say the least, his practices were unorthodox, both in personal life and administration. Taking a wife was completely unheard of for an Oxford official, and the outrage eXpressed by the inmates of the university indicated that they were hardly ready for such a deve10pment. Moreover, Cox was willing to allow others to marry also. The foreign divine, Peter Martyr, was allowed to bring along his wife when he became a profes- sor,25 and Anthony Wood records that women servants were permitted for the first time, as were wives of canons and 23wdod,.Anna1s, I, 124. 24Below, pp. 108-142. This portion analyzes the jpolitical-educational policies, at least as seen from the point of view of Cox's Oxford administration. 25J. McClelland, The Visible Words of God. An E2 osition of the Sacramental Theology of Peter Martyr Y駧ffibfi§gh,1957y,24;McClelland relies on the biography by M. Young, The Life and Times of Aonio Paleario CLondon, 1860)_—who in turn relies on.K. Wood. D h ‘ ‘ .~ .' 5055“ .v VIC -U-.. ‘ . - F..“‘ I Y}; 5.3. 931C 11:"; 104 heads of colleges.26 It hardly seems likely that the placid center of learning was turned into a community of gossiping women and brawling children, but Cox's personal act and new administrative policies had a great effect on normal university life, an effect which has provided a basis for the criticism leveled by many. Wood summarizes additional charges against Cox also: that he permitted and encouraged mocking of the Catholic religion; that he allowed students to poke fun at professors "of the old stamp;" that he interfered with the weekly disciplining of students; that he allowed students to break fast days and "to revel in common houses;" and that he encouraged university preachers to "rail and brawl against Religion and ceremony."27 Lastly, Wood charges him with pursuing a pro-Protestant appointment policy.28 In short, Cox emerges from Wood's account as an administrator with a tainted record: a Protestant guilty of moral turpitude. Aside from charges which would lead to such a general condemnation of the chancellor, Cox did partici- jpate in two events which revealed his pro-Protestant views __._ 26A. Wood, The History and Antiquities 2£_the Universit 22,0xford, J. Gutch, trans. (Oxford, 1792), II. I, 100. 27Ib1d., 100. 28Ib1d., 96. 1 ES 5‘ - est A ”h:§- 1'“ y. «as alSO b O otestan as ex: V i Pr 0? as he he." a e C . I - Man 5 ..u ac.aa.~d . .n Mo Tu. Cay» v.\.: hu.‘ Jx so-‘ 9 0 an. a; a.» at 3 3 1 2 3 s e 3 H44 1.4 .a 7L ...... .Pu Q. ”Vs .nu .. ‘ hu..?( 105 and which have Opened the way for the charge that he was the "Cancellor" of the university rather than its chancel- lor.29 By 1549 one of the major problems within the Protestant camp was the controversy over the eucharist, and that controversy Spilled over into Oxford.30 As a churchman Cox had been involved in the problem through his appointment to a commission to study eucharistic doctrine in 1548,31 and again he had reSponded to a series of "Questions." .Again he revealed as Zwinglian a position as he had in 1542.32 At Oxford, however, disagreement was expressed in a public way, for a diSputation between Peter Martyr and Thomas Tresham was organized, with Cox performing the role of "moderator."33 One could hardly expect the head of the university, who had already been intimately involved in the promotion of Protestants and the importation of Swiss reformers, to defile Peter Martyr and the Protestant cause--and he did not. Cox has also been criticized for allowing the destruction of library books, for his alleged participation in such destruction has exposed him to the charge of destroying 29J. Gairdner, History, 291. 30Secondary accounts are contained in Dugmore's The Mass and the English Reformers and McClelland's The Visible Word.2£ God. 3lBurnet, II, 98 ff. 32Burnet, II, 11, "Collection," no. XXV, 146 ff. 33Be16w, pp.165—166. 106 the university's cultural treasures and of being a gross hypocrite. When learning was threatened by Gardiner's pro-Catholic policies, Cox had leaped to the defense of the colleges and had complained to Pagetabout the whole- 34 sale destruction of books. However, as chancellor of the university Cox was accused of being part of a zealous Protestant scheme to destroy Catholic power--and destroy- ing their books was one tool at the reformers' diSposal. As a member of a nine-man commission to visit Oxford, Cox had participated in the formulation of a set of injunc- tions; and part of carrying out of the injunctions was the destruction of Catholic service books.35 Anthony Wood has claimed that the zealous Protestants went far beyond their original orders and destroyed virtually all learning.36 Though this accusation, along with many others made by Wood, is an over-simplification, Cox's reputation has suffered. A contemporary Catholic stated the negative position clearly: O that man's blind mind, who yet would be accounted as assertor of true doctrine, and a Vindicator of godliness! But how unworthy is he to be the chief of the University.37 3%;3, XXI, 11, 260, 282, 321. 35c. Mallet, §,Histor '2; the University-o; Oxford (NeI‘I York, 1924), II, ' 3’ 91. 36This charge is made through his works on the university. 37Richard Smith, as quoted by Strype, 3g, II, 325. 107 Though no one has thoroughly examined this charge as yet, Cox's experience as chancellor was an unhappy one, for his policy was neither entirely anti-Catholic nor pro- Protestant; and thus he satisfied no one.38 In 1552 he requested that he be allowed to resign his position.39 Again he worked through Convocation, not the regents of the university; and, according to Anthony Wood, Convoca- tion approved his resignation on July 19, 1552 and fur- ther promised that Cox would "never after be burdened with the office . . . ."40 In spite of his lack of success at Oxford, Richard Cox's life during King Edward's reign is filled with accomplishments. He continued to play an important role in establishing Protestantism. 38Below, p. 130. 39Wood, Colleges and Halls, 92. “OWood, Colleges and.Hal;§, 92; Mallet, II, 92. The resignation is also reported by John AbUlmis in a letter to Henry Bullinger on.August 16, 1552 (O.L., II, 457). He also indicated that Cox was to onBme bish0p and that he h0ped the Duke of Suffolk would be elected next chancellor. He must have been disillusioned, however, for Cox received no advancement, and a Catholic succeeded him as chancellor. PART II: Application of Ideals as Head of Oxford As Chancellor of Oxford, Richard Cox was important in one phase of Tudor history which has been almost entirely ignored by modern scholars, university adminis- tration and policies.1 Arguments regarding the relative support given schools has been virtually perennial, but administrative policies at the higher level and studies of the wider impact of the Reformation on this phase of intellectual and social history are lacking. This fact is eSpecially strange in light of the obvious importance of the universities and the close interest Tudor monarchs demonstrated in scholarly affairs. It is clear, for example, that the universities were the source of leader- ship of all phases of English society; therefore, produc- ing graduates with an acceptable ideology was almost man- datory. When Henrician government recognized this fact it proceeded to support and control both grammar school education and university training, and had assumed finan- cial burdens as well.2 New revenues were produced within the church and by the king, curricula were re-oriented to 1Scholarly studies usually have dealt with grammar schools, such as the works by Leach and Simon. A. Wood's works and those by Mallet do study Oxford, and Bass Mullinger and Charles C00per are authorities on Cambridge. However, beyond Wood's and Mallet's studies little has been done to analyze higher education thoroughly. Joan Simon's work contains a brief section on Oxford, but no thorough analysis. zAbove, pp. 49-53. 108 :1. 4.: U. h‘ u ‘i D. 1 4 . X . AV N a. a: & a Q» 3 1rd. ..1. k “V .5 V Auk I!" s e as at fly 1, x ....w .1. .3 ... ..- u- hi» \hc 109 conform to the ideals of humanist scholars, and reorgan- ization of the universities was begun. In addition to these characteristics, during Henry VIII's reign the universities were entrusted to the leadership of disciples of the New Learning. Richard Cox was one such disciple, and he was promoted to become head of the king's own college, Christ Church, Oxford. At the time of the second Tudor ruler's death, however, the question was Open as to just what Edwardian policy would be. From the point of view of Cox's role as an intellectual and institutionalizer the important question remained as to what his accomplishments would be in the new educational structure. Catholics interpreted Edwardian policies as hope- lessly Protestant and at the same time many contemporary Protestants abhorred the conservative aura of the regime, eSpecially until 1552;3 however, an alternative view is that Edwardian policy was directed toward avoiding extremes and carrying out a reformation based on the ideology eSpoused by the New Learning. It was a policy which idealized unity and was deve10ped by compromise, just as Henry VIII's reformation was. That learning was 3Bishop Gardiner exemplified the Catholic position. Bucer, Peter Martyr, and John Knox were all Protestant critics. Knox, for example, even refused to accept the Prayer Book of 1552 as being too Catholic. 6" ‘- . . . . . C ~74 a; T. a 3 J. H . -. a: at O C a a: L... a . .r.. all r, C 2 . n v ...n .. C e 7 ...fi Li. ..L a .lx AC 5: a. x: a 110 supported is clear from the new government's directives. They were incorporated in a set of injunctions set up by a Royal Proclamation of July 27, 1547. The injunctions set up the Bible in English churches, but added that it was to be accompanied by a book of explanation, Erasmus' Paraphrasesf‘L and thus the government avoided a clear alliance with either radical Protestantism or traditional Catholicism.5 Further, the same injunctions ordered wealthy clerics to support scholars: those churchmen holding benefices worth one hundred pounds were "to give competent exhibition to one scholar" and do the same for each additional one hundred pounds of their endowment's 6 value. Such a provision was nothing new, for it repeated what Henry VIII had done; but it does demonstrate the con- tinuity between the regimes and the support for scholars that the new government was willing to enforce. It was also in the context of the monarchy's support of learn- ing that the proclamation allowed unlearned persons to confine their sermons to homilies which had been pre- pared by learned men; the same proclamation ordered that grammar instruction was to be based solely on Henry VIII's Primer and Grammar.7 Another example of the government's 4R0yal.Proclamation, 1547, Hughes and Larkin, 393. 5Bish0p Gardiner, for example, opposed the Para- phrases as poor translations. 6Hughes and Larkin, 393. 7Ibid., 393. 4. -. C 3 c e .. -. » .~Lm 1 v C . v. ”A‘ H Ifilv ,\ V “U. ~l» c» A V i».- ‘.. S 5“. r ‘I ‘1 '4 \ "t 0 F A v \w a wax: [WVd ax» 111 avoidance of radicalism was its proclamation against public discussion of the eucharist for the purpose of avoiding "irreverent, superfluous and curious questions" until the learned clergy could decide the proper doc- trine.8 These acts seem based more on the government's desire for a learned reformation than on anti-Catholic- ism.9 The inevitable problems which accompany the sup- port of education also appeared to plague the new government, for it had to find ways to raise the neces- sary funds. (As head of the king's college at Oxford, Cox received twenty-four hundred pounds to redeem debts incurred during Henry VIII's rule,10 but in addition to supporting his own college the new king also undertook monetary obligations for supporting learning in the entire university. Privy Council records indicate the 11 support of public lectures in civil law, as well as 12 the sustaining of King's Readers; and the editor of the Acts 22 the Privy Council cites several examples of 8Hughes and Larkin, (December 27, 1547), 410. Though the doctrine was ultimately Protestant, public diSputation was allowed. 9Ibid., (February 6, 1548) (September 23, 1548), 416, 432. The former forbade innovations and the latter set up homilies. 10Mallet, II, 40. llAPC, II, 229. 12Ibid., IV, 147. nu. a: .hu .5» 112 continued support given by the Edwardian regime to many educational projects.13 When the Oxford town corporation tried to remove its support from Oriel College, Somerset interjected himself into the diSpute and ordered the city to raise the required nineteen pounds "to be equally born among the townsmen of the same as they may for their portions bear it."14 .Along with governmental support went control, and the university was often directed by political mandate rather than according to traditional scholars' politics. Though there are few examples of governmental intervention at Cambridge, for Somerset himself was chancellor of that university, Oxford appar- ently often gave way to political pressures. In June of 1550, Cox was ordered to investigate the religious beliefs of Dr. Thomas Cole.15 Cole had accepted.Protes- tantism, but in this case the Fellows of New College bypassed the university authorities and asked the Privy Council to expel him. He remained, but the fellows were correct in suSpecting his religious loyalty. When Mary Tudor became queen, Cole became Catholic.16 When Cole 13A‘PC, xv. 1L’Ibid” III, 296. 15Ibid., III, 204. 16Wood, Colleges and Halls, 189; Athenae, I, 450 ff. fc T- HE Q L “ ‘3:- 113 voluntarily left Oxford in October of 1550, the Privy Council intervened further and ordered the fellows of New College to elect no one without the king's license.17 Further, there are several examples of the government's attempt to purge the university of Catholic influence. Dr. Morwent, head of Corpus Christi College, and two students of that college were investigated in 1551 and imprisoned for using unacceptable service books for worship;18 Cox was ordered in the same year to send Peter Dormot, "supposed to be an Irishman," before the Council:19 and, as in the case of Richard.Allen, when the subjects conformed the government ordered their college to return them to good standing.20 Further, the government controlled the appointment of royal lecturers. In.August of 1552, for example, an additional Greek lecturer was appointed, and the fee was to be divided between two lecturers rather than be kept by one.21 Thus, while continuing Henry VIII's support of Oxford, Edward VI's government was involved in the university's administration. lzggg, III, 186. 18;p;g., III, 287, 404. 19gpig., III, 332. 20;2;g., III, 431. 21;p;g., IV, 333. 114 Chancellor Richard Cox could therefore plan on receiving governmental support, but he could also eXpect interference: the university was no longer a place of learning removed from secular politics, but rather was one foundation upon which the Tudors wished to build their modern, reformed, Christian society. The aims of the Tudor monarchs clashed directly with traditional university goals and the traditional form of university government; and it became Cox's duty to work out the details, a task which proved virtually impossible in Edward VI's reign. The new government was not at all sure of a positive policy, and thus mixed bold, uni- lateral actions with 'vacilatin'g inactivity. As seen above, Cox obtained his position in an unusual way, for he was chosen by Convocation rather than by the regents of Oxford. Such an election was consistent with the government's proclaimed ideal that it would grant inde- pendence to the church,22 but it also raised the prob- lem of the proper constitutional roles of the parties involved. As head of the university Cox's legal posi- tion was virtually that of an archbishOp, though his power extended to Oxford's students only.23 No known 22The proclamation of July 31, 1547, for example, gave bishops and archbishOps the sole power to license preachers, thus ensuring the church's government over its own clergy. 23J. Griffiths, ed., An Index 39 Wills Proved in the Court of the Chancellor of the University 2: Oxford (oxford, 18627, viii. 115 document clearly defines the chancellor's exact power, but it can be inferred from the university's statutes, which gave the chancellor sole disciplinary power.2 John Griffiths, a student Of this phase of education, indicates that the chancellor's legal powers were not changed by the Reformation. The Edwardian government seemed to expect the universities to Operate within the English ecclesiastical framework,25 and the election Of Cox by a convocation in 1547 bears this out. Cox's actual administration, however, proceeded to demonstrate that the ideal was unrealistic. It also demonstrated rather tolerant policies, for the new administrator was still the devotee Of humanist ecumenism. .As before, he submitted in the face of political pressures, some Of which were designed to wipe out any vestige Of the Old religion, while others attacked the more radical Protes- tants.26 The general character Of Cox's administration has usually been downgraded by scholars, but closer examina- tion Of policies as reflected in appointments and inter- nal administration suggests that traditional authors have 2“Griffiths, vii, viii. 251bid., viii. 26APC, III, 137. In 1550 Cox was sent to Sussex to correct the iconoclasm instigated by Bishop Day Of Chichester. 9e“ 116 categorized Oxford administration as they Often have categorized Edwardian government in general: iconoclas- tic, destructive, and singularlyProtestant.27 A dif- ferent view is suggested in the latest analysis of Tudor education by Joan Simon, but she goes little beyond general assertions and a few statistics to prove her position.28 As Simon has pointed out, there was no master plan for creating a certain type Of university, for the king's own college actually had no governing statutes.29 One major deve10pment at Christ Church, however, was its successful absorption of the formerly autonomous Broadgates Hall. This type Of annexation was evidently carried out by the other major colleges also,30 and was analogous to the general policy of centralizing the university: as the colleges absorbed the halls and inns, so the university was to absorb the colleges; and university-wide lectures absorbed everyone.31 Such 27This interpretation is emphasized in the studies by Wood, Mallet, and Gardiner. 28Simon, 259. Her work mainly discusses the grammar schools, and is designed to correct the earlier work of A.F. Leach. 29Ib1d,, 259. Henry VIII died before he could issue statutes. 30Ibid., 260. 31The best evidence regarding curriculum at the university is to be found in letters; as, for example, JOhn AbUlmis' letter to the Zurich reformer Rudolph Gualter regarding Oxford life (Q,L., II, 418 ff). AbUlmis 117 centralization led to the appointment Of university-wide lectureships, general diSputations, and the means of selecting Richard Cox as chancellor.32 Cox was clearly a disciple Of governmental support for students, and his Christ Church success reflects this. The student body was increased by the admittance of twenty-four new pen— sioners after 1547, which was a twenty-five percent increase in the college's size, and by the inclusion of tuition students from Broadgate Hall.33 The entire reported that the curriculum Of a medical student included traditional reading from the works of Galen on medicine and Of Aristotle on physics, and included additional work on morals by studying Aristotle and in theology by listen- ing to Peter Martyr's lectures. DiSputations were held three times a week, and bachelor of arts declamations twice a week. Regarding government, AbUlmis reported that the colleges were allowed to choose their own proc- tors and bedells. Another interesting development, which may account for Anthony Wood's mistaken notion that learning was being purged, was the deleting of some subjects. AbUlmis indi- cates that colleges were becoming Specialized during the period Of Cox's chancellorship, and that separate col- leges "are distinguished by various studies and pursuits. Creek is taught in one, Hebrew in another, Here mathe- maticians flourish, there the poets; here the divines and physicians, there students of music and civilians." Yet he also indicates that all colleges were eXpected to pro- mote a certain common, basic education: "in all Of them . . . the elements and rules Of rhetoric and logic are impressed with eSpecial diligence and accuracy upon the minds of the scholars." Though Oxford medical training was quite traditional, college Specializations were innovative and quite modern. In fact, they are the basis of Oxford's modern organization. 32See above, p. 18 for a discussion Of the founda- tion Of these policies. 33Simon, 259; Mallet, II, 41. 118 university eXperienced a parallel growth in numbers, for in 1552 there were two hundred more students than in 1545.34 Thus, the general charge made by Anthony Wood to the effect that "the wells Of Oxford and Cambridge dried up"35 is not true from the standpoint of enrollment. The sources for Wood's interpretation, along with other negative judgements Of Cox, are an oration published in 1566 by Peter Frarin36 and a poem by William Forrest. Frarin's work was first delivered in Latin in the School of Arts at Louvain in 1565. The oration was subsequently translated by John Fowler and published in Antwerp; and it was designed to strike fear in the hearts Of Catholics by citing the ignorance, immorality, and cruelty of Protestants. For better instructing children about the contents Of the book, a "Table" containing apprOpriate drawings and ditties was appended at the end. It was comprised Of such "poetry" as follows: Calvin in his Chamber five years taught a Nun Till she was great with gOSpell and swollen with a son.37 3431mon, 259. 35wood, History and Antiquities, 113. The charge is repeated in Mallet, 94. 36P. Frarin, An Oration Against the Unlawful Insurrections Of the Protestants of our Time Under Pre- tensegto Reform Religion (Antwerp, 1566). 37Ibid., "Table," B viii. 1“ ‘\ 119 It was from such a source that Wood gathered information about Cox's "destruction" of Oxford.38 Frarin's work was primarily about Continental events and his section on education mainly attacked Continental schools; but he did single out Richard Cox's work at Oxford to demon- strate what Protestants were doing to English univer- sities. The author claimed that the universities were empty, and that Yea they have set their heads together and fully agreed among themselves, to bannish the Greek and Lat n tongue quite clean out of the country. To substantiate this charge he cited Edwardian Oxford: Which were the schools in Oxford suffered to go down and the ordinary diSputations in Logic and PhilOSOphy left off ifi King Edward's days: Answer Doctor Cox. 0 If Cox were to answer he would simply point out two facts; first, the classical languages were in fact emphasized by the new leaders, to the extent of setting up King “1 and continuing the Henry VIII's Grammar and Primer support of linguistic studies in the university; secondly, Frarin failed to mention that though college diSputations were suppressed they were replaced by university—wide 38wood, History and Antiquities, II, 114. 39Frarin, G, Gi. 401bid., Gi. ”1"Royal Injunctions," (1547) no. 34. E. Cardwell. Documentary Annals (Oxford, 1844), 20. 120 lectures and diSputations. Cox was also charged with being destructive. The charge was made by William Forrest and quoted by Anthony Wood: He robbed the Church of Frydyswis (I say) Of chalyces, crosses, candylstycks withe all Of silver and qylte, both precious an gaye With coapis of tryssure, and many a rich pall, Ded grat to God above eternall And other collegis may him well curs 42 For thorowe hym they are faire yeat the wurse. With Frarin's and Forrest's work providing his sources of information, Wood was hardly using objective accounts or detailed proof. Rather, he was relying on rather slanted and misleading sources. But there are other phases of Cox's administration which deserve eXplication. Wood makes the charge that Chancellor Cox appointed only his Protestant friends to university posts, and made such appointments in a rather wilful and reckless way: "he did but utter his mind, none dared to deny him."43 Regarding Christ Church College this charge seems quite true, for as its head Cox established as students such obvious Protestants as William Whittingham and the foreigners John.AbUlmis and John Stumphius.44 The uZWood, Annals, I, #68-9. ”Bwood, History and Antiquities, II, 96. u“Ibid., 26. The last named man was a Swiss Protestant; AbUlmis was used as a messenger between the English ecclesiatical leaders and the Swiss reformer Bullinger; Whittingham did become what Wood calls "that rigid Calvinist." 121 Italian reformer, Peter Martyr, was also given a position in Christ Church.45 However, examination of appointments of heads of colleges indicates a mixed policy rather than a solidly Protestant one: Cox seemed to advance the new religion when he could, but certainly did not run rough- shod over Catholic interests. Chancellor Cox's initial appointments of proctors and a vice-chancellor went to Protestants: William Wright,.Archdeacon of Oxford and Dean of Durham Cathedral, was designated .Vice--Chancellor;1+6 Edmund CriSpyne and Henry Bayly were chosen proctors.#7 Regarding college appointments, however, neither a purge nor a singularly Protestant appointment policy can be discerned. Strong Catholics who had been appointed before 1547 remained in office and others who were known to be Catholics were actually appointed during the sup- posedly proAProtestant years. Thomas Raynolds, appointed head of Merton College in 1545, remained; and he was one of the most vocal Catholic leaders.)+8 That Merton remained Catholic is seen from the fact that it produced Richard Smith and Thomas Tresham, two of the strongest 49 Opponents of Peter Martyr. ierton's historian, in Spite u5Above.;h 103. 46Wood, Eagti, I, 124. “7323.. 124. “BWood, Colleges and galls, 9. 498. Henderson, Merton College (London, 1899), 30. fl 122 of his vigorous criticism of Cox, states that the English Reformation actually had little effect on the college as 50 In University College, Cox similarly had a whole. little effect, for the appointees of both 1547 and 1551 were not zealous Protestants;51 and though the chancellor apparently tried to force the election of John Caius as head in 1551, the college selected its own leader, George Ellison.52 Though the Protestant William Wright was chosen head of Balliol College in 1545, his successor, elected during Cox's administration, was a Catholic. James Brooks, almoner of Bishop Gardiner, replaced Wright in 1547 and is labelled by Wood himself as "another most zealous bishOp for the Roman Catholic cause."53 Several other known Catholics also retained their offices. Hugh Weston, a man of doubtful reputation and changeable religion remained head of Lincoln College, a post he had held since 1538.54' A man of similar reputation, John Warner, remained head of All Souls College. He was called SOHenderson, Merton College, 80. 51Wood, Colleges and Halls, 52. 52W. Carr, University College (London, 1902), 81. Caius was associated with Katharine Parr's household, having translated Erasmus' Paraphrases for Henry VIII's Widow. Later, under Elizabeth I, he became a Catholic. 53Wood,.Athenae, I, 314. 541bid., I, 295. Wood calls him a "very lewd man." iHiS troubles under Mary, however, resulted from his appealing to the pope in a legal matter, not for being a Protestant. Cu Rd 2‘ AA 123 a secret Protestant and a "great intruder into ecclesias- tical benefices" by Wood;55 but that he was a Catholic is borne out by the fact that he was selected vice-chancellor in 1554.56 Cardinal Pole was hardly reckless enough to overlook a "secret Protestant" in such an important posi- tion. Thus, many colleges retained their Catholic head masters. There was no purge in these cases. At the same time, Protestants were also retained and received promotions as heads of colleges. William Haynes, a Protestant associate of Cox from Eton College and Christ Church, remained head of Oriel College, a posi- tion he had held since 1540.57 At his death in 1550 his prebendary in Christ Church was filled by Peter Martyr,58 and John Smith, whose religion is not traceable, became head of Oriel.59 William Devenysh, Provost of Queens College and a Protestant, retained the post he held since 1534;60 similarly, Henry Cole, a man of changeable reli- gion but a Protestant until Mary's rule, kept the post he had held since 1542.61 Though he was replaced in 1551 by 55A. Wood, Eggfii, I, 81. 5?;g;g., I, 141. 5?;ggg., I, 108. 58A. Wood, Athenae, I, 328. 59A. Wood, Egggi, I, 123. 6°;2;Q-. I, 114. He was deprived by Mary for hav- ing married. 61A. Wood, Colleges and Halls, 189; Athenae, I, 450 ff. v .‘10 he H :3te“ 93" the 1 disso .- Provo: 1531. A1:.J .ru wan. IL .... O M. h. ..Ji a | I.“ 124 Ralph Skinner, whose religion is not known, Henry Cole left because of promotion, not a purge: he became Provost of Eton and Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral in 1551.62 Other "apparent" Protestants who retained the headships they received during Henry VIII's rule were Robert Morwent, head of Corpus Christi since 153763 and Robert Weston, head of Pembroke College since 1546;64 and.Protestants who received promotions but did not replace Catholics were John Hawarden at Brasenose College55 and Thomas Randolph at Pembroke.66 Again, the roles played by the above college heads hardly give evidence of purge, though three colleges were purged and the holdings of a fourth were entirely absorbed in its dissolution. Of the four colleges handled roughly, the pivotal one was Magdalen College, for its visitation affected the entire university and cpened the way to the charge that Edwardian reformers were trying to ruin learning. Oppos- 62A. Wood, Colleges and Halls, 189; Athenae, I, 321. 63A. Wood, Fasti, vol. I, 50. Called "Pater atriae literatae Oxoniensig" (Wood, Colleges and Halls, p. 395); he was probably a Protestant because of his pro- motion of the New Learning and his associations with Edward Wotton and Richard Fox. 6&A. Wood, Athenae, I, 386. Called.Protestant because Of his political role as Chancellor of Ireland (A. Wood, '92;%£££% and Halls, 615); he was replaced by Thomas Randolph, a C 113 Church student and.a Protestant. 65Ibid., I, 529. Also see R.W. Joffrey, "History of the (college, 1547-1603,“ Brasenose College Quarter Centen- .éEZ’JMonographs (Oxford, 1909). 66Ibid., I, 564. 125 ing positions polarized easily at Magdalen College, for its head, Owen Oglethorpe, was an outSpoken Catholic, and its students were very active iconoclasts. Already in January of 1548 the Duke of Somerset had intervened to warn the students to stop defacing property; that is, they were evidently breaking windows and applying white- wash to walls. The Duke wrote, And herein do we not incite you to any undecent innovation, but even we here say of Mr. Cox's the King's Almoner's, comend- able beginning in his houSe [Christ Church], go would we hear of the sequel of yours. 7 In short, Cox was here upheld as an example of moderation, not of thoroughgoing reform; however, the fellows of the school were not satisfied with Oglethorpe and requested a visitation.68 The results of this visitation, which evi- dently included All Souls College,69 St. Mary's Hall, and 67H.A. Wilson, Magdalen College (London, 1899), 82. 68lbid., 90. 69It is also possible that the reforming injunctions were meant to apply to all Oxford's colleges. The injunc- tions for All Souls College, for example, included a list of those who were to receive COpies of the injunctions, and the list included the heads of all the colleges as Well as the king's visitors. The injunctions included éEenerally the same provisions as made for Magdalen: pro- tlibition of grammar teaching on the college level; purg- rng the colleges of drunkards; including Irishmen among the scholars. If these were meant for all colleges, they SiVe a good picture of some Edwardian educational ideals: thorough education, moral reform, and union with the Irish. The ideals, though important, were in all probability entirely unrealistic. See Frere and.Kennedy, Royal Injun - 3.1313. II. 197 ff. I‘ :1 126 New Inn, had both religious and educational importance. H.A. Wilson has retold what happened, and his account is based on the register book of the vice-president of the college, on William Dunn Macray's study of Magdalen's membership,70 and on the statutes of All Souls College.71 On the basis of these sources it is clear that religious changes were made: daily masses were ended, images and pictures were destroyed, and the chapel was whitewashed.72 Such changes could hardly be called moderate, and Wilson cites them as the basis for two major events: the impor- tant diSputation between.Peter Martyr and Catholic leaders regarding the eucharist, and the Oxfordshire riots of 1549.73 The religious character of Magdalen was also changed by personnel policies in which Cox must have had an important role. Records reveal the appointment of nineteen Protestants, five Catholics,twenty-three indi- viduals whose religion cannot be documented, and four outright Protestant rebels (Lawrence Styl, William Chip- man, William.Perkins, and John Fowler).74 .According to 70W. D. Nacray,_A Re ister of the Lembers of St. 1~ma_1,hggdalen College, Oxford London, 1 9 71Frere and Kennedy, II, 197 ff. 72Wilson, 91. 73235;. , 92. 7l‘LIvlacray, 92. ‘4 onu .cb 127 Macray, Thomas Williams, a.Protestant, was also illegally given a position as a fellow by Richard Cox.75 While Protestantism was thus being institutionalized, important educational changes were also implemented. These changes were in conformity with the govern- ment's political aims as well as the educational goals of the Renaissance humanists. The political factor was represented by the unique attempt to include Irishmen among the college's fellows.76 Given the racial and cul- tural prejudices of the English, such a change could not help but provoke trouble. In addition, the college was required to adjust to other stringent standards: Magdalen was ordered not to teach grammar;77 and, though this fact has been used to demonstrate that the new government was Opposed to Renaissance education, it clearly was an attempt to upgrade education. Rather than put off learn- ing their grammar until they were members of colleges, students were required to master it before entrance. Thus their higher education ideally would waste no time on basic subject matter. Also, attempts were made to guarantee 75hacray, 97. 76Frere and Kennedy, II, 229; "Irishmen, many of whom are learned, should by allowed entrance" was the royal order; also see "Statutes of All Souls College," 197 ff. 77Wilson, 92. The order read "grammarians are to be converted into logicians." 128 that colleges would continue to be centers of learning rather than regress into a source of sinecures. Chaplains, clerks, and choristers were to be endowed only in confor- mity with "the most necessary uses of good leters,"78 and no fellow was to be permitted to hold office for over twenty years unless he also was a Public Reader, that is, he would necessarily have to be learned enough to parti- cipate in public lectures. In implementing these changes Richard Cox was clearly carrying out his ideals as a schoolmaster. Assuming grammar instruction had been reformed, he went on as a college administrator to carry the reform to its logical conclusion, and university students were assumed to be proficient grammarians and dedicated scholars. Public reaction must have been a shock to Chancellor Cox, for it was almost completely negative: the city joined the college in objecting to the new rules and to Richard Cox himself.79 Thus divided, the college faced chaos, and in a sense Oxford became a microcosm of the contemporary upheaval in English life: Protestant versus Catholic; New Learning versus the old; centralization versus particularlism; and even English versus Irish. As usual, however, authority 78Wilson, 92. 79Ibid. , 93. ‘1‘ u: .1.. by LU Long “y 129 won, and Cox's reforms were not repealed. Radical Protes— tant success was eSpecially marked at Magdalen, where Protestant iconoclasts, backed by the Earl of Warwick, destroyed the high altar, plastered up windows, and burned organs.80 In addition, one of Cox's old students, the firm.Protestant Walter Haddon, was appointed head of Magdalen in 1559.81 St. Mary's Hall and New Inn were also deprived of their Catholic heads. horgan.Phillips, a Catholic who debated with Peter Martyr, was replaced as head of St. Mary's by the Protestant William.Norfolk;82 and at New Inn William.Aubre, a Protestant, replaced John Gybbons.83 Though all Souls College received new statutes of the same type as Magdalen's, its head, John Warner, remained in office.84 Regarding his appointment policies as Chancellor of Oxford, Richard Cox cannot be interpreted as a thorough- goinngrotestant inquisitor, Anthony Wood and his followers notwithstanding. The new statutes enforced at.All Souls and Magdalen Colleges were a product of the humanist desire for sound education; and Cox's tolerance of iconoc- 8°w11son, 95, 96. 81Ibid., 97. Also see Haddon,_Lucubrationes (London, 1352), which contains praise for Cox (85, 86). 82W00d, Athenae, I, 432; Fasti, I, lué. 83WOod, Fasti, I, 131; Colleges and Halls, 672. 8“Wood, Fasti, I, 82, 141. r0- (1 '1 .9? .‘t.’ 130 lasm was more a product of his political subservience than an expression of his own religious zeal. Moreover, the examples of purge in 1549 and after were the results of chaos within the colleges themselves, and bear little resemblance to any sort of plot, conSpiracy, or master plan. When Richard Cox could institutionalize new ideas he did just that, but more often he worked for unity and compromise. His appointment policies reflect the old Henrician ideal: conformity to the state, advancement of scholars regardless of their personal religious loyalties, and adaptability when faced with strong Opposi- tion. Another charge brought against Cox by Wood and many subsequent historians is that the chancellor was reSponsible for destroying Oxford's collection of books and manuscripts in 15h9 and 1550. James Gardiner, for example, holds Cox responsible for destroying books "by the cartload" and maintains that "the New Learning" was virtually destroyed "by Dr. Cox's endeavors."85 On the other hand, Thomas Fuller expresses confusion in account- ing for Cox's role in the book burning. Fuller blames John Dudley, Earl of Warwick and head of the visitation committee, and doubts the reliability of those who would blame Cox.86 Upon looking for a correct assessment of 85Gairdner, III, 395, 399; IV, 291. 86Fuller, 317-318. rf m () SD (n '0 .r l. 'U H- r) 131 the woes of Oxford's books, it is clear that information is severely lacking as to the number of volumes removed and the percentage these volumes comprised of the original collection. One must rely on secondary accounts and evalu- ate the few primary sources which later writers have used. Since Wood is usually cited by all historians of Oxford, his sources in turn must be examined, and again, the only source he cites which refers to Oxford book burning is Peter Frarinus' diatribe against Continental reformers' destructive acts: Universities, Colleges and Schools be overturned, Thefiiv‘é‘eifipé‘éoi‘; iiiffééit? they “”1 As with Frarinus, however, so with Anthony Wood; for both have built on the theme that there was a Protestant scheme to destroy learning. The theme is absurd, but the stanza on library destruction is eSpecially important for Richard Cox's reputation. In the 1520's and 30's he had promoted education and learning and in the forties he had helped produce a well-educated prince. He also had participated in royal attempts to purify grammar instruction and had begged Sir William.Paget to intervene and to stop the destruction of books. Such an about face attributed to him by Wood, Mallet, and Gairdner would have been a 87Frarinus, "Table," Gi. 132 complete reversal from most of the positive things for which Cox stood. Though Wood makes broad charges against Cox, actual proof of library destruction in Wood's Colleges §££:§2ll§ is generally lacking. Of the some twenty learn- ing centers discussed, only two are cited as having actually eXperienced the destruction of their libraries. According to Wood, Balliol College's books "which smelled of superstition, or that treated of School divinity, or of Geometry or Astronomy" were destroyed.88 He also claims that decorative wood cuts and pictures were ripped from Balliol's books during the Protestant purge.89 A similar charge is raised regarding Pembroke College, where "when the University was in a manner left desolate, in the reign of King Edward VI, the said school went to ruin, and books were lost."90 However, no statistics are given; and, more importantly, absolutely no claim of destruction is made regarding the remaining eighteen foundations (or ninety percent of those discussed). Evi- dence is similarly lacking in the works of other historians of the colleges. In discussing Magdalen College, the school which was changed most during Cox's administration, H. Wilson makes no mention of a destruction of the library.91 88Wood, Colleges 22E.§2ll§t 89. 89;p;g., 9o. 99;p;g., 625. 91wllson, 86-97. 133 Probably the most thorough eXplanation of destruc- tion is given in B.W. Henderson's history of Merton College. His account is based on Wood's general works, and it explains the destruction of books as an attempt to "rout" scholastic philosophy and describes the visitors' activities as the acts of "ignorant vandals" Which destroyed the works of the schoolmen, Catholic 2 Hender- commentators, astronomers, and mathematicians.9 son buttresses his account by citing Wood's quotation from Thomas Allen: “A cartload of books were taken out of the library and sold or given away (if not burnt) for inconsiderable nothings."93 In one of the few Citings of statistics, Henderson indicates that sixty-five of the ninety-nine manuscripts from the collection of Bishop Rede were destroyed, though many other works were saved 4 Three other and preserved in the Bodley Collection.9 authors have claimed that the libraries of their subject colleges were destroyed. H.W.C. Davis makes the claim in his history of Balliol College,95 as do H. Rashdall and T. Fowler in their works on New College96 and Corpus 92B.W. Henderson, Merton College, 79. 93;§;§.. 79. 9%;2;g., 80. 95H.W.C. Davis, Balliol College (London, 1899), 89. 96H. Rashdall, NEE College (London, 1909), 56. ‘. V.‘ ‘ ‘u h. \ RF. 134 Christi.97 In all three works, however, libraries are discussed generally, and.Anthony Wood is cited as the basic source. The authors do not use library records or eye-witness accounts. No mention is made of book destruc- tion in works on University College, Brasenose College, and Christ Church College.98 Evidence of destruction is similarly lacking in a recent work on Oxford's libraries, and the work in fact cites the libraries' growth after 1535 as being evidence of the desire to set up the New Learning.99 From available studies it does appear that some destruction did occur, but the extent of that destruction is cpen to doubt and the documentable motivation does not reveal rampant anti-Catholicism. An alternative eXplana- tion is that reformers such as Cox wanted to establish an English method of worship and pure Renaissance learning. Royal Proclamation had banned the use of books other than the King's Primer in devotions and grammar training,100 and Catholic service books were ordered destroyed. A Proclamation of December 25, 1599, for example, ordered 97T. Fowler, Corpus Christi (London, 1898), 56. 98W. Carr, University College; W. Jeffrey, "History of the College;" H.L. Thompson, Christ Church. 99N.R. Ker, Oxford College Libraries in 1556 (Oxford, 1956), 6, 12. 100RoyalProclamation, July 31, 1547, Hughes and Larkin, 393. n1 ’f 135 the destruction of all antiphanories, missals, grails, pro- cessionals, manuals, legends . . . and ordinals . . . and all service books.101 This proclamation provides one source of understanding the government's motivation: it expected worship to be conducted according to the officially-approved documents, the Order of Communion, and the Book of Common Prayer. Though written by Protestants, these documents were designed to unite the English in common religious expres- sion.102 In short, they were products of the Christian humanist desire for unity; but neither government support, nor idealistic intentions, nor the purging of old service books proved successful. Many Protestants and Catholics joined in rejecting both works as unacceptable. Another motivation which can be identified is economic, for this motive was present in the king's purge of his own library at Westminster. A Privy Council Order of February 25, 1550 reflects this factor, for it orders the purging of his Highness' Library at Westminster of all superstitious books, legends, and such like, and to deliver the guarrantee of the same books, bfing either of gold or of silver . . . . 03 101Royal Proclamation. December 25. 1549. Hughes and Larkin, 485. 102That they actually led to destruction and revolution is the tragedy of Edwardian England. 103APC, III, 229. 136 It would be far-fetched to suppose that the government based any great monetary hOpes on the sale of books, but service books and "superstitious" books evidently were considered in the same class as all church goods: worthy of being removed and sold. With such a broad description as "superstitious" it is also easy to understand how zealous and uneducated members of visitation committees might create complete havoc. But a third factor is cited by Joan Simon and should also be emphasized. In her view, the extreme acts committed at Oxford seem "instigated not by the visitors but as a result of internal dissension."104 She indicates that the library did suffer through the loss of the collection of the Duke of Gloucester, but refuses to blame any authorities for such destruction.105 In this context, however, Cox's role does make sense; for while he surely must have detested the destruction,no one seemed able to control what the Reformation had produced: a polarized, unsettled society. Oxford's libraries became victims of anarchy resulting from a religious revolution, and not the victims of a carefully laid government plot. Change in another phase of educational life, how- ever, was planned: foreflgn Protestant leaders were 10“Simon, 259. 105Ibid., 279. m If.) 137 imported to educate English students at Oxford and Cam- bridge. The background of the general exile from the Continent lay in Charles V's imposition of the Interim and in.Archbish0p Cranmer's desire to unify the reformers. The immediate effect was a great influx of foreigners into England. The Protestant from.Poland, John Alasco, received financial support from the government and ulti- mately became superintendent of the foreign churches set up in England.106 At Cambridge several foreign scholars were given positions: Bucer in theology; Fagins, Tremellius, and Chevallier in Hebrew; and Encinas in Greek.107 Philip Melanchthon, Lutheranism's greatest scholar, was invited to England, but he never arrived.108 One of the first and easily the most impor- tant of the foreign appointees, Peter Martyr Vermigli, was installed at Oxford through the efforts of Chancel- lor Cox and ArchbishOp Cranmer. Hartyr's successive roles in the eucharistic debates, the re-writing of the Book of Common Prayer, and in the formulation of a new church law provide much evidence of English dependence 106APC, III, 1:20. 107Simon, 261-262. Letters from most of these men are to be found throughout the Original Letters. 108T. Cranmer to P. Martyr, February 10. 1549. _o_._I=. , I, 21. f‘ (L a 138 on the Continental Reformation for direction.109 Martyr had become a Protestant after reading the works of Bucer and Zwingli, and he relied on the techniques of humanist 110 scholarship in his exegesis. As a result he led the way toward a more closely defined EnglishProtestantism.111 During Cox's administration Martyr also became the per- son around whom many controversies swirled, for he attacked Catholic doctrine regarding the elements at Communion and had a personal life which was not accept- able to many students and most Catholics. The eucharist controversy develOped into a full-scale diSputation in which Martyr had to rely on the protection offered by Richard Cox.112 During the Oxford riots of 1549 the Italian became the object of much derision, to the extent that one of the chants of the rioters was "Death to Peter Martyrl". However, after peace was restored he received a prebendary in Cox's college, Christ Church.113 Cox and Martyr also faced difficulty at Oxford because they brought wives to live at Christ Church. While in 1°9h. Young, The Life and Times; J. McClelland, The Visible Word 2§_God. 110Young, 403, 121; McClelland, 12 ff. 111Belowyp. 165. 112Young, 428 ff. 11311322.- , 1:32. 139 Switzerland, Martyr had married Catharine Namartin; and, according to Wood, she and Cox's wife became the first women to reside at the university and all were harassed by Oxford students.1le Of greater importance in analyz- ing Cox's administration, however, is his apparent reli- ance on Martyr to give Oxford Christians a new ideology. In his correSpondence with the Swiss leader Heinrich Bullinger, Martyr indicated that in addition to his work on Corinthians he was involved in several univer- sity functions: he lectured on theology; he was expected to participate in public lectures every other week; and he was active in weekly diSputations at Christ Church.115 It is interesting also to note that his success at Oxford was not achieved with ease, for he reported that "my adversaries . . . are indeed most obstinate."116 Though his success was limited, the support given to Peter Martyr stands as another example of Cox's impor- tance as an institutionalizer of new ideas. Oxford's Chancellor again demonstrated his dependence on and acceptance of Continental Protestant thinkers, eSpecially those who were intellectual descendants of Ulrich Zwingli. 11”Young, 423, 433, 434. Young bases his Oxford account on Anthony Wood's works and quotes extensively from them. 115P. Martyr to H. Bullinger, June 1, 1550, Qg§., II, 481 ff. 1161bid., 482. C\ at .C 140 Of great importance in analyzing both Cox's Oxford administration and the nature and progress of the Edwardian phase of the English Reformation is the apparent failure of the former to impose Protestantism and of the latter to impose harsh government. Though Cox's administration really invoked no radically new programs, it surely must be labelled a "reformation," for by building on Henrician changes he obviously hOped to reform England by reforming education. But by education he did not simply mean indoctrination. EVidence indicates that disputations continued; as, for example, Peter Nartyr's continued involvement in them demonstrates. The Protes- tants evidently shared a common humanist faith in educa- tion: they believed that reformed religion was so obviously true that exposure to it would automatically lead Catholics to Protestantism.117 Thus, diSputations continued, Catholics received promotions, and the Protes- tants' opponents were not purged for their disagreement. As Cox failed to purge Catholic ideas, so he failed to rid the colleges of Catholic believers: Hartyr's great Opponent in the debate over the eucharist, Thomas Tresham, lwas subsequently elected Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, thus actually reducing Protestant influence.118 Similarly, 117Simon, 260. 118Wood, Colleges and Halls, 90; Tresham was succeeded in 1551 by Owen Oglethorpe, the man purged from Merton (Colleges and Halls, 91). r", ..«U + ECO ' I Quit uy.‘ o.v E . 3‘ ... tun ‘0 "A ..v ‘ 1‘ .\ 2 a: twin h a AM u v P\ 0‘ ‘ ms 4 s n .v C A v a v H14 a a -\ J AAU \WV. Alb 59 h/l uh 1. fi‘ \ \wv. h—A Ali 4 \ ll!‘ 1‘ a ‘14 141 though much has been written about the purge of books, apparently many "superstitious" works were left in the libraries, for Elizabethan letters have survived which demand the removal of the same kinds of Catholic writ— ings supposedly purged.119 It is possible that the libraries were re-stocked during Queen Mary's reign, but again there is actually little statistical evidence on which to base the course of the libraries' history. As Chancellor, Richard Cox had failed to purge Oxford of Catholicism and he had not set up Protestantism either.120 Both factors were also generally true for the entire Edwardian period, for the state did not follow any consistent plan. Rather it encouraged iconoclasm and then was forced to punish the Protestant radicals who destroyed church property; it had proclaimed its Protestantism, but then allowed.Protestant-Catholic dis- putes to continue; it had sought unity, but actually divided the religious factions. As seen above, all these characteristics epitomized Oxford during Cox's adminis- tration, and he admitted the failure of his idealistic course of action by resigning. The methods planned by 119J. Gutch, ed., Collectanea Curiosa (Oxford, 1781). 275. 120J. Stumphius to H. Bullinger, November 12, 1550, O. L., II, 467 ff; Stumphius complained that Catho- lics remained at Oxford and that "master Cox, in his Opposition to them, seems to be rather fond of the Fabian tactics: for he has begun to act with greater laxity." O1 tc 142 the humanist scholars and idealists had eXposed the English to public diSputations, to King's lectures, and to compromise religious formulae, but the hOpe that the new religion would be forthcoming proved naive. Chaos followed. From an educational perSpective, however, Cox's administration conforms to Miss Simon's judge- ment of Edwardian policy: when the reign of Edward VI is given due weight as a period of educational advance, that of Elizabeth falls into plggf as a predominantly conservative age. There was no Edwardian Purge. There was no successful establishment of a unified Protestantism. Rather, there was an unsuccessful attempt to pursue contradictory policies, the source of which seems to be humanist con- fidence in education and reason. After examining these facts from the perSpective of Cox's role at Oxford, other duties he performed assume equal importance. He served on the important commissions which were designed to give English religion a positive direction. 121Simon, 291. I'h‘fiw '\ int 1" «at CHAPTER IV EDWARDIAN RELIGIOUS LEADER PART I: Edwardian Religious Committees and Ecclesiastical Discipline A recurring and nagging problem which faced all reformers was the construction of new liturgical forms, and the problem was no less pressing for Richard Cox as he served on numerous liturgical commissions. The prob- lem of creating a positive structure for religious eXpres- sion was certainly not new for Englishmen generally nor for Cox either, for history seemed to repeat itself for both. The English liturgical solution of 1549 was even entitled as it had been in 1536, "The Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.u1 Similarly, Cox must have been close to earlier attempts to formulate religious services. Thomas Goodrich, the Protestant bishOp who promoted Cox's interests and whom the young cleric had served as chaplain, prebend, and archdeacon, was appointed by King Henry VIII in 1543 to work with the Bishop of Sarum and revise con- temporary service books.2 Though the nature of Edwardian —.‘ llki 1Lathbury, History 9: Convocations (London, 1853) 2Proctor and Frere, 31. 143 l.‘ 144 formularies is discussed below, it must be noted that Cox was apparently reSpected for his knowledge regarding prOper modes of worship. He had the distinction of serv- ing on both Prayer Book committees, that of 1549 as well as that of 1552,3 and the Prayer Book which he helped create served as the critical issue between Cox's Anglicans and more radical Protestants."F In Spite of the book's revision after it was criticized by Peter Martyr, Martin Bucer, and John Calvin, the product of 1552 was still considered unacceptable by many English Protestants. The subsequent division proved to be the major source of the most marked ideological Split in English history: the Anglican-Puritan division. In conforming to the Opinions of Bucer and Martyr, the Prayer Book committee, and Cox as well, moved farther away from Catholicism; but the production of the new book also led to harsh relations with those who did not accept the adiaphora ideas as applied to religious ceremonies. The critics were led by John Knox, one of the king's chaplains, and he and his followers refused to accept any religious formula not found in scripture. This struggle between Knox and the Prayer—Book party began the long conflict between Anglican and Puritan. — 30. Dugmore, The Mass and the English Reformers (London, 1958), 202; Fuller, II, 313. “Below, p. 155 ff. 145 From Cox's viewpoint the problem attacked by the liturgical committees was necessarily closely related to another problem, the creation of unity by means of dis- cipline. Though Elizabethan Puritans later used this matter continually to stimulate feelings against Anglicanism, and subsequent writers have taken them seriously, the Anglicans did attempt to discipline English Christians. Conformity to the Prayer Book was the major criteria; another was the use of ecclesiastical commis- sions. Richard Cox was a member of the first commission to deal with discipline pg; g2, and his appointment came in the wake of the influx of radicals which accompanied King Edward's accession. AS the "Donatists new-dipped" had inundated England at the time of Henry VIII'S mar- riage to Katherine Parr, so they came to the Island at the accession of King Edward VI.5 The Edwardian response, though not as harsh as the former king's reac- tion, was firm. On April 12, 1549 a commission was appointed to investigate the Anabaptist influence, and Richard Cox was one of the investigators appointed to 5The activities of the extreme radicals are dis- cussed in the works of Burnet and Strype, though a major study of them is lacking. Anabaptists among the radicals evidently survived, for in 1580 a work against them by 'William Wilkinson was dedicated to Richard Cox, then Ilishop of Ely. Anabaptists should be distinguished from tflie foreign immigrants whose "superintendent" was John Alasco, the Polish Calvinist, and the French Protestants Who were led by Poullain. Church authorities often dis-’ lLiked even these latter groups because they did not fol- 11va the order of worship prescribed in English Prayer <><>ks. Fc ‘1 L. lo I‘li 146 search for "all anabaptists, heretics, and condemners of the Common prayer."6 Since Catholic common prayers were still in use, it is apparent that the initial reSponse to Protestants who were radicals was hardly cordial. Though the committee of which Cox was a member produced few practical results,7 it did demonstrate that England was no place for Protestant radicals, especially those influ- enced by Continental Anabaptists. The ecclesiastical disciplinary commission was renewed in 15518 and 1552.9 But Anabaptists were not the only objects of dis- cipline, for the conservative Catholic leaders, BiShOps Gardiner and Bonner came under censure and imprisonment; and Richard Cox was active in building a case against them. His role was to publicly attack BiShOp Gardiner in a sermon delivered at St. Paul's Cross on July 8, 1548. Evidently the bishop had preached a conforming sermon before the king, and Cox proceeded to attack the sermon for being a lie.10 According to Wriothesley's Chronicle, Cox attacked Gardiner by exhorting all the audience to pray for his [Gardiner's] conversion to the truth, 6CPR, Edward 1;, II, 406. 7Burnet, II, 177; Burnet cites the prosecution of "some London tradesmen" and Joan of Kent. 8CPR, Edward_y;, III, 347. 9Ibid., IV, 355, 10This is reminiscent of Cox's role in the Crome trial. Cox's methods did not change, though his prin- clPles might have. - Ar (u. n' 147 and not to rejoice of {his his trouble which was godly done.1 According to John Foxe's account, proceedings against Bishop Gardiner had begun with an investigation in October of 1547 by Cox and four others. They questioned the bishop regarding his disagreement with Cranmer con- cerning the nature and method of salvation,12 and Cox was subsequently called to witness against the bishop concerning the interview. Cox charged that Gardiner vio- lated many Protestant ideas: he preached regarding the authority of St. Peter; he advanced the idea that the pope could be a good advisor to the king; he had com- plained of conditions of the deprived Catholic clergy; and he had continued to discuss the mass and the sacred altar in Spite of Somerset's orders that such discussions were to be discontinued.13 The charges in themselves are not particularly doctrinal, but they point up the usual charges against sixteenth-century heretics. They were considered seditious and disobedient people. Bishop Bonner eXperienced the same denigration as Gardiner; in fact, the two cases were as intimately connected as the 110. Wriothesley, Chronicle (London, 1875), 4. 12Foxe, AM, VI, 45. Cranmer had written a homily on salvation which was quite Lutheran; Burnet, II, 59. 13Ib1d., VI, 97, 150, 151. 148 bishOps had been in delaying Protestant success. Among the charges against Bonner was the fact that he had heard Cox's warnings against the ideas eXpressed by Stephen Gardiner, but had simply ignored them. Article Ten of the 1549 charges against Bonner states: That ye were at Easter Dr. Cox's the king's almoner's sermon at St. Paul's Cross . . . wherin he declared the great contempt of the bishOp of Winchester.1 Though Bonner denied he was present, later witnesses placed him at Cox's sermon.15 Both bishops Spent most 5 of King Edward VI's reign in prison.16 While thus serv- ing as a royal inquisitor, Cox was evidently relieved of his duties as the king's tutor. John Nichols cites a letter to that effect,17 and the same fact is reported by Martin Micronius in a letter to Henry Bullinger on May 20, 1550.18 The latter also reported that rumor had it that Cox would receive the post of Bishop of Winchester. Though Cox was advanced to Dean of Westminster, the power of a bishOpric did not become his until the reign of Queen Elizabeth. 1“Foxe, V, 762. 15Ibid., v, 768, 769, 772. 16APC, II, 181. Gardiner was imprisoned in September, 1547 and Bonner accompanied him in 1549. 17J. Hooper, "Letter," March 27, 1550. Nichols, Literary Remains, cxli. 18M. Micronius to w. Bucer, May 20, 1550, 9.3., II, 149 Related to the examples of discipline applied to radical Protestants and conservative Catholics was the attempt to create a structure of law within the English church. Richard Cox was appointed to serve on commis- sions whose aim it was to reform ecclesiastical law.19 It is apparent that the English Reformation had not adjusted to being absolutely controlled by royal power even though King Henry VIII had been able to advance his will Without much fear. Thus medieval canon law remained in force.20 Henry's royal proclamations and injunctions virtually created an ad Egg ecclesiastical law system; however, such control was hardly possible under Protec- tor Somerset. The church, supported by Continental scholars, demanded its autonomy. In its official state- ments, the government complied with this demand, and the church was promised independent jurisdiction, at least in Spiritual affairs.21 To fill the gap thus created by governmental promises and the church's lack of a law sys- tem, Edwardian parliaments carried out what Henry VIII 22 had promised, and a commission of thirty-two men, including Cox, was appointed to produce a new canon law.23 19CPR, Edward 1;, IV, 114; IV, 354, 2OArchbishop's Commission, The Canon Law 23 the Church 22 England (London, 1947), xi, xii. 21:190, II, 114-115; Royal Proclamation, July 31, 1547, Hughes and Larkin, 393. 222 and 3 Edward VI 0. 1; 3 and 4 Edward VI Q 11; .5 and 6 Edward VI 0. 4; 25 Henry VIII 0. 19; 27 Henry VIII 0. 15; 35 Henry VIII 0. 16. 23Edward VI, Journal, G. Burnet, II, ii, "Collection," 56. 150 Either due to disagreements or the commission's bulk, however, the thirty-two man group was reduced to eight. This eight-man committee was named in the Privy Council records of November 9, 1551, and included the following: Cranmer, Thirlby, Cox, Peter Martyr, Dr. Taylor, Dr. May, John Lucas and Richard Goodrich.2u The completed work was given to the commission of thirty-two, which included another foreign divine, John Alasco, but the young king died before the new ecclesiastical law could be approved by Parliament. As a disciplinary tool the new canon law was quite comprehensive, which is perhaps the reason Queen Elizabeth refused to allow its use dur- ing her reign;25 but for the era of Edward and Mary its most important feature was that it recommended the Edwardian Prayer Book as the best means of religious eXpression.26 This judgement was surely not shared by Catholics or by all Protestants, and as a disciplinary device the Book of Common Prayer proved to be the great- est dividing force among Protestants in the Marian exile. Cox's role in helping create a system of discipline that 24522” II, 410. Strype (Cranmer, I, 192) claims that Taylor, Martyr, and Christopher Haddon (who trans- lated the book into Latin) were the men who did most of the work. 25Below, p. 246. 26Fuller, II. 353. IlliixLM22 .. -‘~ A 151 elevated the Prayer Book also proved to be an important step in his career, for as a leader of the "English party" at Frankfurt he soon had his opportunity to try to create a disciplined English congregation. Before turning to an analysis of Cox's intellec- tual development and impact during King Edward VI'S reign, it is necessary to cite two duties he performed. First, because of his rather high position he was involved in the social turbulence which accompanied the religious and economic troubles of the young king's reign. Earlier statements by Cox demonstrated his sympathy with the indigent,27 but his role in 1549 was to help put down rebellion rather than to encourage unrest or plan for social change. Though it is easy to simply emphasize the social causes of the revolts of 1549 and of Somer- set's deprivation in 1552, contemporaries evidently saw religious causes. Edward VI, for example, published 5 Message . . . . to the Devonshire rebels in 1549, and in it accused their behavior thus: "It is sedition, it is treason . . . ."28 However, in building his argu- ment he referred only to contemporary religious troubles such as the proper means of receiving the bread at com- munion, the heresy of Catholics, and holding services in 27R. Cox, "Paper" (1536). 28Edward VI, A Message, 1. un“ 152 the English language.29 It was in such a religious- political context that Richard Cox proved useful to the Privy Council. On October 7, 1550 he was ordered by the Council to repair in Sussex to appease the people by his good doctrine, which are now troubled through the seditious preachings 38 the Bishop of Chichester and others. In Sussex "sedition" was begun by Protestants, for BiShOp Day had replaced altars with tables, and he and his fel- low preachers were evidently opposed by the populace.31 Cox again proved useful to the government, for his aim had long been that of unifying the church within the framework of Protestant and Christian humanist ideology as eXpressed in a uniquely English worship service. Though England could not remain Catholic, it was also clear that the radical iconoclasm of many Protestants was also unacceptable. Another aSpect of Richard Cox's career was his further advancement, for in 1549 he was appointed Dean of Westminster. Under Henry VIII Westminster was desig- nated a bishopric for the County of Middlesex;32 but it 29Edward VI, é Message, 1. 3°APC, III, 137. 31Gardiner, The English Church, 285. 32Letters patent, December 17, 1540, w. Combe. 233. . m; M“ .Jd’n . 153 was re-united with the London See in 1550.33 The position of dean was lucrative, L 586 13s 4d, so Cox's appointment was an important advancement. The deanery was essen- tially an educational foundation,34 but it had also become important to the Edwardian government in its numerous raids on church property. One author has it that Dean Benson, Cox's predecessor, died because of "extreme vexation at having granted away in so long leases so much of the lands of the church to Lord Seymour and other persons for the use of the Protector."35 With Cox's elevation, the government did advance a subservient and amenable person.36 Thus, little trouble resulted when church properties were taken during Edwardian times when the see was re-united with the London bishopric37 and Westminster was converted into a cathedral church. As dean, however, Cox granted away more properties. AS stated by Combe, There was more plunder of the church by the protector as well as by the dean, prebendaries, and servants, during the 33Combe, 238; LeNeve, III, 347. 3“Above, p. 82. 35Combe, 237. 36Leweve, III, 347. 37W. Combe, Westminster, 238. According to Combe, Lord Wentworth, Sir Thomas Wroth, "and others" gained prOperty in that transaction. 1mm ...-..ihsii '. ! ..~..\TUI~ S «.1 pk 154 time of Cox, than at any other. In the First Chapter Book there are leases fog fifty, eighty, and ninety-nine years.3 Such subservience earned Cox the affection of Somerset, at whose execution he performed the religious services,39 but it did little to aid his reputation among either Catholics or Protestant opponents of the Prayer Book. 38W. Combe, Westminster, 241. 39J. Fox, Acts and Monuments, VI, 295; G. Burnet, Histor , II, p 296; H. Chapman, Egg Last Tudor King, 237; JOhn AbUlmis to Bullinger, February 8, 1552, Q,L., II, 448 ff. AbUlmis reported that Cox was Somerset's "confes- sor, as they call it, and doubtless to his exceeding grief and distress, for they had always been upon the most intimate and friendly terms." 0.... I" ‘- '(‘n PART II: The Adoption of Continental Reformation Ideas An analysis of Richard Cox's ideological attach- ments as he served on the important ecclesiastical com- mittees of King Edward VI'S reign necessarily involves a discussion of the Continental Protestants whose ideas con- tinued to play a determinative role. Martin Bucer's ideology remained formative in Cox's case, eSpecially regarding discipline, but Bucer's influence also began to diminish. Aside from the subject of discipline, his ideas were usually characterized by their vagueness and negativism. He excelled, as the humanist scholars often did, at criticizing evils in established Catholicism; but his desire to promote unity led him to state positive doctrines in as vague a way as possible. Rather than promote unity, however, such an approach provided topics ‘for debate, debate which characteristically led to religious divisions rather than religious unity. One of the Continental exiles, for example, cited the difficul- ties which had arisen from vague statements about the doctrine of the eucharist in the catechism of 1548: "fightings have frequently taken place among the common peOple, on account of their diversity of Opinion, even during the sermons."1 Bucer's influence was virtually 1J. Burcher to H. Bullinger, October 29, 1548, 0.I_o., II, 642 ff. 155 156 ended shortly after his arrival at Cambridge, for he died early in 1550. Henry Bullinger, the Zurich reformer, soon filled the gap, however, for his ideas were ably presented in England by Peter Martyr. Bullinger's out- look was directed toward more positive definition of doc- trine, especially on the eucharist, and he generally reflected a unified position agreed upon by the three most important representatives of Reformed Protestantism, Martyr, Calvin, and Bullinger himself. As Cox's role is analyzed, these Continental reformers assume great impor- tance in the creation of an Anglican ideology. The context within which Continental ideologies were imported provides the background against which Richard Cox's role can be analyzed; for though the mon- archy had expressed its dislike of icons2 and had pro- claimed that it would rely on the church to run its own affairs,3 the creation of positive doctrinal formulae was not forthcoming. The reliance on foreign intellectuals therefore became necessary. There was more to the influx Of foreigners than either the English lack of an ideology or Charles V's Interim, for England after 1547 became the major Protestant power in EurOpe. Archbishop Cranmer 2"Injunctions," Cardwell, Documentary Annals (Oxford, 1844), 47. 3 Royal Proclamation (1547), Hughes and Larkin, 417; Cardwell, Documentary Annals, 43, 44. :mfi—Ij uni-I- ("N 157 realized this, and throughout the Edwardian period he pursued two important policies: an attempt to assemble all the major reformers in England; and an attempt at holding a major council of Protestants. The latter aim was reflected already in 1549, when the Provost and Council of Berne accepted the archbishop's invitation to attend a general council of Protestants.“ Similar plans prompted John Calvin to reSpond to Cranmer's invitation in 1552. Calvin congratulated Cranmer for a care "not confined to England alone, but regardful of the world at large." He then proceeded to blame secular and religious leaders for blocking unity earlier, but excused himself from attending a conference in 1552.5 Because of such lack of COOperation, no council met; however, the arch- bishop, assisted by Richard Cox and Cambridge leaders, was somewhat more successful in luring Continental Protestant scholars to English shores. Letters were sent out in 1548 and 1549 inviting the Lutheran leader Melanchthon,6 John Alasco,7 Wolfgang Musculus,8 and Martin “Council of Berne to T. Cranmer, December 19, 1549, Q.L., II, 717 ff. In a letter to Bullinger Cranmer also suggested that a general synod meet to create a unified stand on the eucharist (Q.L., I, 22), 5J. Calvin to T. Cranmer, April, 1552, 9.9, II 511 ff. He wrote, "I shall have sufficiently performed my duty, if I follow up with my prayers what shall be undertaken by others." 6T. Cranmer to P. Melanchthon, February 10, 1549, Q,L., I, 21. 6 7T. Cranmer to J. Alasco, July 4, 1548, Q.L., I 1 ff. 8T. Cranmer to W. Musculus, December 23, 1548, Q,L,. T. 126- ____ 158 Bucer.9 Cox's role was to provide positions for those who accepted invitations, thus filling Oxford with many foreign students and professors. That the appeals were successful was not pleasing to all Protestant leaders is indicated in a letter by the exiled printer, Chris- topher Froschover, to Rudolph Gualter, Bullinger's chief aide in Zurich: And in this reSpect the English are in my Opinion justly worthy of censure, that they are endeavoring to draw away from Germany its men of learning, that they may be able in the meantime to live at ease themselves: for if we diligently look into the facts, we shall find that they have men of higher talent for the most part than the Germans.10 In Spite of such a view, Richard Cox continued to play the host to Continental exiles, however ungrateful they might be. The evident congenital weakness of the English scholars of "higher talent" was that they were perhaps too scholarly in their own unique way. Scholars like Cox never produced definitive doctrines--they relied on the immigrants to provide that function. The English aim was stated succinctly in Cranmer's invitation to John Alasco: We are desirous of setting forth in our churches the true doctrine of God, and have no wish to adapt it to all tastes, or to deal in ambiguities . . . . We 9T. Cranmer to h. Bucer, October 2, 1548, 9.1... I, 12. " 10C. Froschover to R. Gualter, May 28, 1551, Q,L., II, 723 ff. 1T 159 have (thus) invited both yourself and some other learned men . . . .11 The dream of unifying all Protestants proved vain, however, as it had for all who had hoped to unify the religious rebels; and the government's policy of moderation also proved unsuccessful. Once the religion which suited English "taste" was found, there was no room for com- promise. The Edwardian reign proved to be the period in which the English defined their Protestantism more closely. The doctrine and method of worship which com- promised the Book of Common Prayer in 1549 and its suc- cessor in 1552 proved to be the touchstone of the Anglican religion, and the immigrants supported by Cox were essential in the development of both doctrine and an order of worship. With the Protestants in power, an obvious problem for them was the maintenance of disci- pline, and for this Cox in particular relied on Martin Bucer. Bucer had dedicated his Dg_Regno Christi to King Edward VI and had earlier influenced Cox's stand on the issue of the eucharist;12 but that his continued interest was in discipline is seen from his letter to John Calvin. Bucer attaCked "those teachers who dare to write and assert publicly, that it is a fanatical attempt 11To Cranmer to J. Alasco, July 4, 1548, Q.L., II, 16 ff. 12Above, p. 67 ff. I” (D 160 to construct any system of ecclesiastical and penitential discipline."13 Bucer and his friend Paul Fagius were given positions at Cambridge,14 but both died quite soon after their arrival. Thus Bucer's position of influence was filled by the influential Swiss reformer Heinrich r; Bullinger. This change was reflected by two things, 1 Cox's subsequent exchange of letters with the Zurich leader, and the growing interest in creating a more posi- ih.‘ :1 tive and therefore more narrow doctrinal position for the JEnglish church. The contact between Cox and Bullinger twas stimulated by John AbUlmis, a student whom Cox had Islaced in Christ Church College, and AbUlmis' description car the head of both Christ Church and Oxford itself to IBullinger could not have been anything but impressive. lie claimed that Cox had all the "correct notions reSpect- :1ng every article of the Christian faith."15 Subsequent eexchanges between Cox and Bullinger reveal mutual admira- tzion, for Cox's letters to the latter are full of effusive Ixraise for the Swiss leader's theological writings,16 and 13M. Bucer to J. Calvin, 1550, 0.1;... II, 545 ff. 14p. Fagius to J. Ulstetter, n.d., g.p., I, 332. licacording to this letter, Cranmer had wanted to send Fagius to Oxford and Bucer to Cambridge, but they both <>t>Jected, and were kept together. 15J. AbUlmis to H. Bullinger, November 27, 1548, 2._I_-lo , I. 3480 I 163. Cox to H. Bullinger. October 22. 1549. 9.1-. - 119; November 1, 1550, Q,L., I, 120 ff. 161 also reveal those leading court figures who were influ- enced by Bullinger's work: Catherine Parr, Cranmer, the Earl of Warwick, and the Marquis of Dorset, all of whom Cox reported he had "saluted in your [Bullinger's] words."17 Being an evidently new devotee to Bullinger, Cox emphasized their agreement in such strong terms as, "you so entirely coincide with me,"18 and proceeded to re-align his thinking to conform to Bullinger's. On the one hand Cox was led to work for a more simplified form of worship, and claimed that though such simplifi- cation was his preference, he could only try to persuade the bishops to change.19 Further, he was converted to Bullinger's views on the eucharist. In referring to the Calvin-Bullinger agreement regarding it, the Consensus Tigurinus, and to their subsequent defense of the agree- ment, Cox eXpressed the hOpe that all Christianity "would aim at the same mark of truth."20 It was regarding com- munion that Bucer's influence waned, for he had not wanted the church to eXpress its eucharistic belief in any definitive way. Rather, he desired a vague statement in 173. Cox to H. Bullinger, November 1, 1550, 9.1., I. 121. ‘ 183. Cox to H. Bullinger, May 5, 151, 9,;., I. 122. 191bid., I. 122. 201bid.. I, 121. a: 162 hopes of creating unity.21 Thus, though the English hoped to create unity, the foreign scholars actually represented divisions among Protestants, divisions which were only beaten down when influential leaders like Cox selected a position and enforced it. The Swiss who desired a clear alignment in favor of the real presence of Christ at the sacrament Opposed both Bucer and the Lutherans. John Burcher, a Stras- burgh preacher who corresponded with Bullinger, did not hesitate to condemn Bucer: "He is an invalid . . . or almost in his dotage, which is the usual result of a wandering mind."22 The same author wrongly united Martyr with the Lutheran cause, and castigated both for vague teachings in the communion form of 1548.23 Actually Bucer himself was very critical of Peter Martyr's defense of the real presence, for he criticized the book in which Martyr summarized the position he defended in the Oxford diSputation of 1549,24 "I am as sorry for 21Burnet, II, 166-68. 22J. Burcher, to H. Bullinger, June 8, 1550, 9.;., II, 685. 23J. Burcher to H. Bullinger, October 29, 1548, 9.3., II, 642 ff. Burnet edited a document by Luther Which indicates that Luther was willing to allow differ- ent interpretations at the time of his death in 1547 (Burnet, II, 167). zuBelow, p. 165-170. ‘1 I mmfirL v 163 master Martyr's book as any one can be; but that diSpu- tation took place, and the propositions were agreed upon, before I arrived in England."25 He then asserted that Martyr changed the preface of his book to conform to Bucer's thinking.26 More important, however, is the fact that many English leaders opposed the Lutheran view of the eucharist. This fact was reflected both in the persecutions which had occurred earlier under Henry VIII and also in the correSpondence of the Protestant merchant, Richard Hilles. Hilles wrote that Lutheran influence was wideSpread among English professors "so that either Luther has drawn them into his error, or else, fascinated by the world, they pretend themselves to be Lutherans."27 In their dissatisfaction with Luther's eucharistic ideas, the English looked for an alternative. John HOOper, later Bishop of Gloucester, expressed his reliance on Bullinger,28 and also eXpressed the English quandary: "The holy supper is not a bare Sign, neither is it the true and natural body of Christ corporally exhibited to me in any supernatural or heavenly manner 25M. Bucer,to H. Bullinger, may" 15, 1550, g,;.. II, 544. 26Ibid., II, 544. 27R. Hilles to H. Bullinger, January 28, 1546, QaLo. I. 383- 28J. HOOper to H. Bullinger, January 27, 1546, .L., I. 33. He also eXpressed dissatisfaction with l O C in's writings (Ibid., 38). 164 . . . ."29 The same author, however, clearly did not understand the differences among Continental theologians themselves, for he mistook Peter Martyr and Bernardine Ochino as Lutherans.30 It was out of such confusion and distrust that Richard Cox's support of Peter Martyr assumes great importance, for in the Oxford diSputation of 1549 and in his subsequent writings Martyr developed the acceptance of the real presence without resorting to either transubstantiation and consubstantiation on the one hand or to symbolism on the other. Martyr's position was in fact that of the Consensus Tigurinus (Bullinger's and Calvin's), and was subsequently written into the English Book of Common Prayer and Anglican articles of faith.31 Cox's role in all this was again that of an institutionalizer. As seen above, he had switched to Bullinger's version of Zwinglianism and away from Bucer's, but his role in supporting the new position at Oxford demonstrates again the important role of adminis- trators in establishing an ideology. Richard Cox gave full support to Peter Martyr's views. 29J. Hooper to H. Bullinger, January 27, 1546, Q.L., I, 44. 30Ibid., I, 61. 31Dugmore, The Mass and the English Reformers. 165 That Martyr had accepted Bullinger's position is apparent from their correSpondence, for Martyr wrote the following to the Zurich leader on April 25, 1551: What you have mutually agreed upon reSpect- ing the sacrament of the eucharist[:the Calvin-Bullinger agreement:]is very gratify- ing to me; and I desire nothing more than that a plain and perSpicuous statement upon that subject may be set forth in the churches of Christ: as for my own Opinion . . . I go along with you altogether, and scarcely deliver any other sentiment in this place, when any conversation or diSpu- tation takes place reSpecting the Lord's supper. John AbUlmis, Bullinger's most frequent Oxford correSpon- dent, wrote to the same effect regarding Martyr's dis- putes with the Oxford Catholics.33 The Oxford diSputa- tion had originated in Catholic challenges made against Martyr's lectures on Corinthians, for when crowds became unruly during one lecture, Chancellor Cox intervened and arranged a public diSputation with a Catholic professor, Richard Smith. Fearing reprisal, however, Smith went into voluntary exile, and Martyr subsequently diSputed with three Catholics, Thomas Tresham, William Chedsay, and Morgan Phillips. Martyr, evidently because of Cox's support as well as his own demonstration of extensive knowledge of the church fathers, carried the day by defending three propositions: 32p. Martyr to H. Bullinger, April 25, 1551, 9.;.. II, 493 ff. 33J. AbUlmis to H. Bullinger, June 21, 1550, 9.3., II, 413 ff. 166 1. In the sacrament of the Eucharist there is not transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. 2. The body and blood of Christ is not carnally and corporeally present in the bread and wine, nor, as others say, with the shows of bread and wine. 3. The body and blood of Christ is sacramentaily joined in the bread and wine.3 The first proposition denied Catholic doctrine, the second voided consubstantiation, and the third placed Martyr firmly on the side of Bullinger for it asserted an independent, real presence in Spite of the individ- ual's faith. That Cox should choose to support this view does indicate change in his intellectual history, for his role in revising the eucharistic form in 1548 had been largely negative, though he did adhere to patristic example as Martyr did in 1549. The Ques- tions of 1548 are similar to those circulated by Cran- mer in 1540, though the later ones were not as far- reaching; and again, the reveal Cox's perSpective.35 Cox denied that participation in the sacrament could be of value to anyone other than the participant, for it 34NcClelland, The Visible, 15-25. This is the most recent full account of the diSputation, though it is described in most works on the English Reformation. 35C. Burnet, II, 11, "Collection," 146 ff. In document XXV, Burnet cites the entire list of questions, with reSponses. Subsequent references will be made to the apprOpriate "Question" only. 167 was of value only to each individual.36 Regarding the positive definition of the mass, Cox saw it as a "remem- brance" of Christ's passion and death,37 and when called upon to define the mass, he reSponded that it was a Thanksgiving to the Father, in distribut- ing the Body and Blood of Christ to the Congregation, to have the Death and the Passion of Christian remembrance and in the end to laud and praise God.38 Taken literally, the statement eSpousai both the corporal presence and an interpretation which implied the mass' role was a "remembrance" rather than an efficacious event. Regarding the performance of the mass, Cox demonstrated both historical awareness and the desire somehow to re- capture primitive Christianity, both of which were of course important Christian humanist and Reformation themes. In accounting for the priest's role in taking the elements by himself he cited a decay in the early Apostolic religion: "the Priest was forced to receive the Sacrament alone."39 He then went on to promote the idea that the congregation should also receive the sac- raments, just as the priests did.)+0 As to the issue of whether preaching should accompany the mass, Cox reSponded 36Questions #1 and #2, 37Questions #3 and #4. 38Question #4. 39Question #5. 40Question #6. 168 that the service should "have some DOctrines, after the Example of the Primitive Church."41 In all these answers Cox revealed his general orientation, but he hardly eSpoused any particular point of view; however, when Peter Martyr advanced a precise approach in 1549, Chan- cellor Cox immediately supported his propositions and his defense of them. AS the chief moderator at the debate, Cox was called upon to summarize the diSputation, but he proceeded to heap effusive praise on Martyr's per- formance and ideas: But Peter, who is worthily called Peter, for his assured steadfastness; Martyr, and worthily called Martyr, for the innum- erable testamonies which he gives many times for the truth, ought to have great thanks at this time, both of ourselves and of all the godly: first, because he has taken the greatest care in sustaining the burden of diSputation. For it 'not Hercules himself against two,‘ what say we of Peter alone against all comers? Further, whereas he undertook to dispute, he diSproved the vain sayings of vain men, who Spread envious and odious things against him; namely, that he would not or dared not defend his doctrine. Finally, that he so singularly well answered the eXpectations of the great magistrates, and indeed of the king himself, while he not only has delivered unto the University the doctrine of Christ, out of the living fountains of the Word of God, but, so far as lies in him, has not suffered any man to disturb or stop the fountains. 2 This joining of the Protestant cause as represented by ulQuestion #8. 42H. Cox, "Oration," McClelland, 22; Strype, Cranmer, II, 848-851. 169 Bullinger and Calvin in Switzerland and Peter Martyr in England proved to be the basis of English eucharistic doctrine as officially defined in Anglican formulae. It also proved to be important in further defining England's Reformation ideology. Again, Richard Cox proved impor- tant in institutionalizing Continental ideas. Intimately related to the debate over the euchar- ist was the revision of the 1549 Book of Common Prayer; and in changing it the English were formulating prin- ciples of long-range importance. First, the new book of 1552, along with its alteration by means of the black rubric, exemplifies movement closer to Continental Protes- tantism.43 For example, though Fagius and Bucer initially approved the book of 1549, they did report to the Stras- bourgh Council that the book included concessions . . . to a reSpect for antiq- uity, and to the infirmity of the present age; such . . . as the vestments commonly used in the sacrament of the eucharist, and the use of candles: so also in regard to the commemogfition of the dead, and the use of chrism. In Spite of the "concessions," however, the two Stras- bourgh clerics accepted the English rite in the true Spirit of those who accepted the adiaphora idea; for they reported 43F. A. Gasquet, Edward VI and the Book of Common Pra er (London, 1890); J. Ketley, ed., The Two— Liturgies Forth 21 Authority in the Reign of King Edward VI (Cambridge, 1844); Proctor and Frere, A New History. “4P. Fagius and M. Bucer to the Council of Stras- bourgh, April 26, 1549, Q.L., II, 534 ff. 170 to the Council that "They [the English] affirm that there is no superstition in these things, and that they are only retained for a time" so the peOple "may be won over."45 Thus, though certain ceremonies were accepted as "indif- ferent," in Spite of their impurities, they were to be accepted until the people were ready for more change. Peter Martyr's reaction conformed with that of Bucer, and in his correSpondence with John Hooper, the bishop who had strenuous objections to vestments required by the Prayer Book, Martyr resorted the adiaphora theme.46 Another man who objected was John Dryander, an immigrant instruc- tor of Creek at Cambridge. He indicated that ceremonies "may appear useless, and perhaps hurtful, unless a candid 47 interpretation be put against them; and he also claimed that Bullinger would not like the eucharistic views of the book, "for the book Speaks very obscurely.“+8 When Cranmer asked for suggestions regarding chang- ing the method of worship, there were many critics who were willing to suggest changes. Bucer wrote an extensive “5P. Fagius and M. Bucer to the Council of Stras- burgh, April 26, 1549, Q.L., II, 534 ff. “chClelland, 26-27. He cites a letter from Martyr to HOOper in which the former eXpressed some tolerance for Catholic rites as not all being "defiled and poluted." He also wrote to Hooper that "I thought it right to suffer the same until better times should be granted." 4 47J. Dryander to H. Bullinger, June 5, 1549, O.L., I, 3 O. "‘ 48Ibid.. 350. 171 criticism,49 and Martyr concurred with his views. Martyr 50 also went on to deveIOp a more doctrinaire position. The new commission for revising the book included Richard Cox, and the results of the committee's work, the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, conformed to the wishes of the Swiss leaders.51 It is interesting to Speculate concerning possible different results if the Lutheran reformers had accepted their invitations to come to England; but men like Musculus and Melanchthonlwuirefused to accept. The new book, therefore reflected the ideas of Bucer, Bullinger, and Calvin; however, at the same time it retained customs, such as kneeling at the Lord's Supper, which were rejected by more radical Protestants. .John Knox, chaplain to the king, refused to conduct ser- xrices in accordance with church traditions and instead (demanded a service which could be found in scripture o.nly.52 Knox's objections and behavior proved to be the 49M. Bucer, Censuri Buceri super libro sacrorum . . . (1551). This work is summarized in E. P. Echlin, Iqie Anglican Eucharist (New York, 1968). Father Echlin <314aims precedence for Bucer in the creation of a new book, hultzMartyr and Bullinger were doctrinally more important. 5GP. Martyr, Censura libri Communium Precum (1551). This is analyzed in McClelland, 29- 30. 51Dugmore, 202. 52J. Ridley, John Knox (Oxford, 1968). 172 backbone of stiff Puritan resistance to the "English rite" as opposed to "Biblical rite," for Knox assumed that the former could only be Christian if it included only those activities found in scripture. While much ink has been used to detail the exact differences between the successive Prayer Books and to identify the origin of each idea in these works, both contemporary letters and later events encourage the development of an additional perSpective. First, as borne out by Marian and Elizabethan religious history, the Book of Common Prayer became the English means of establishing their own unique form of Christianity. It is ironic, but the very book constructed to please Con- tinental Protestants was the tool which the English used to divorce themselves from Continental Protestantism.53 Secondly, the importance of the Prayer Books in Edwardian England also was that they represented an attempt to impose some kind of religious discipline. On this score Calvin and Bucer are of great importance, for the deve10p- ment of discipline represented both an achievement and a defeat for the influence of their Christian humanism. Attempts to "educate" the English to Protestantism had obviously failed: early Edwardian tolerance had produced chaos rather than unity. On the other hand, the great 53Below, Chapter VII. 173 emphasis which some of the reformers placed on living a life of obedience and conformity to Christian values was boosted,54 for one of the great motives behind an exact order of worship was the desire to maintain discipline. Those who did not conform could be kept away from ser- vices and sacraments until they changed. The success Bucer had at Strasbourgh and the subsequent application of the same type of discipline by Calvin in Geneva docu- ment their interest in disciplining their peOple, and they encouraged the same for the English. In a stern letter to Somerset, for example, Calvin encouraged the suppression of "sedition and disorder" in both those who walk disorderly in the name of the GOSpel, and those who are sunk in the old superstition. Both these and those deserve to feel the sword of the prince. They who give themselves to the GOSpel ought to be vigilant and orderly, and to prove what they profess. The procedures of such discipline were in turn outlined by Bucer to Calvin in a letter written in 1550: those who have openly offended should be compelled to do penance, and, when that is performed, to be absolved of such offence, and receive absolution oféthe church for their particular Sins. 54Above, p. 74, where Bucer's emphasis on Chris- tianity as a way of life rather than a doctrinal struc- ture is eXplained. 55Dixon, History, 524 ff; Calendar p£_State Papers, I, 11. 56h. Bucer to J. Calvin, 1550, g,;.. II, 545 ff. mun-:. V 174 Such a procedure was little different from Catholic pen- ance, the major distinction being that the Protestant device was public rather than private. What Bucer and Calvin promoted was accepted by Richard Cox, but he soon realized that disciplining a nation was more difficult than dominating a city-state, and English nobles were eSpecially difficult to discipline. In a letter to Bullinger, Cox bemoaned the nobles' evident lack of Christian living and went on to indicate that "we tremble at the rod."57 That he could expect such a situation is quite apparent, for the English Reformation had always been characterized by political subservience. It was built on royal rather than clerical supremacy. Thus, since social discipline was equally difficult to enforce, the English created an alternate standard: subscription to Anglican rites as outlined in the Book of Common Prayer. Of course, the Prayer Book contained ideas and taught Christian values, but conformity to the church's ceremonies became the touchstone of the English Reforma- tion. Through their ceremonies the English could remain Protestant, but also could enforce an "English" way. 573. Cox to H. Bullinger, October 25, 1552, 9.9. I, 123. In this letter Cox claimed the changes made by the Prayer Book of 1552 were created "according to the rule of God's word." However, he abhorred the lack of discipline: "the severe institutions of Christian disci- pline we most utterly abominate. We would be sons, and heirs also, but we tremble at the rod." In the same letter he asked Bullinger to explain his teaching on the eucharist further. 1‘?“ 175 At the death of Edward VI the reSponsibility for maintaining English Protestantism fell to those who became exiles; however, it must be noted that the basic structure of Anglicanism was actually institutionalized during the often-neglected Edwardian period. First, the new government had continued the educational policies of King Henry VIII in Spite of continued economic crises, and it is within the educational world that Richard Cox continued to have importance. As an idealistic scholar he had hOped to reform Oxford by merely eXposing it to Protestant thought, but he apparently had few converts. He did, however, succeed in directing the university to modernize by forcing Specialization within colleges, by serving the general pOpulation through public diSputa- tions, and by forcing colleges to stop giving courses in areas supposedly emphasized in grammar schools. Secondly, the new government had failed to purge England of either Catholic or radical Protestant influence: its policy of opposing consistent iconoclasm and persecuting conserva- tive Catholics had produced discord rather than unity. This factor, too, was a continuation of Henrician policies, for Henry VIII'S policy had neither produced unity nor been consistent. Catholics and Protestants alike fell when faced with royal supremacy, and both types of Christians had died in the persecutions of the 1540's. Thus, Cox's various roles under Edward, whether support- ing the Protestantism of Peter Martyr or correcting the 176 "seditious" Protestantism of the BiShOp of Chichester, were similar to his previous roles under Henry VIII. Thirdly, the new trend in Edwardian religion is apparent in the Shift to an evidently great reliance on the Zurich reformer, Henry Bullinger, eSpecially when the English were forced to define their position on the eucharist. The four volumes of Zurich Letters (the first two are entitled Original Letters, but are actually from the Zurich archives) not only give evidence of this shift, but Richard Cox's letters and actions give similar proof. The new view of the eucharist was a product of an agree- ment made between John Calvin and Henry Bullinger, but Cox did most to institutionalize it by his support of the Oxford professor, Peter Martyr Vermigli. Martyr publicly advanced the Swiss view of the eucharist at Oxford and was given assistance by Chancellor Cox. Also, Cox served on the Prayer Book committee which wrote the Bullinger- Calvin view of the real presence into the Book of Common Prayer of 1552. The Bullinger-Cox connection is further eXpressed in several letters between the twos8 and in letters between Bullinger and John AbUlmis,59 a disciple of Bullinger to whom Cox had given a position in Oxford. Taken together, these letters have revealed several things about Richard Cox: his financial and moral support 589._L_.. vol. I. 599.1... vol. II. 177 of immigrant Protestants, his concurrence with Bullinger's ideas, and, perhaps most importantly, his continued reliance on Continental reformers to provide him with an ideology. Though an important institutionalizer, Cox never had gone beyond the negative (and perhaps "pure") stage of humanistic scholarship. Though he could point out flaws and errors with ease, as in his views on the sacraments, he also was aware of the lack of a pure, posi- tive model on which to build a reformed religious insti- tution. And it was in this that Richard Cox is somewhat a representative English Christian humanist, for few of them were ever able to produce a positive, narrow ideal and then enforce conformity to it. Lastly, however, a great step was taken toward defining English Protestantism by Edwardian Anglicans, for they did adOpt disciplinary formulae, the Prayer Book, a new canon law, and the Forty-Two Articles. In accepting the necessity of discipline, reformers such as Cox were relying on the views of Bucer and Calvin to the effect that disciplined Christian living was central to the Reformation. Since the Forty-Two Articles came too late to have a great influence and the canon law never did receive official sanction, the Book of Common Prayer became the actual means of discipline. A method of wor- Ship rather than an outright ideology became the central j~SSue in the development of Anglicanism, and in a real 178 sense this was the major product of English Christian humanism. Given the natural historical orientation of humanist scholarship and the English reverence for their own religious tradition, reliance on the Prayer Book was quite logical. Nevertheless, though it seems logical from a historical perSpective, many contemporaries refused to accept Anglican rites. John Knox objected to communion forms, BiShOp HOOper criticized vestments, and the large number of foreigners continued to use their own orders of worship, much to the chagrin of English bishops. During King Edward's reign the stage was set for the Anglican- Puritan division. This Split, aside from its immediate theological importance, developed issues of great ideolog- ical significance: the authority of government in religion; the obedience due rulers; the meaning of the adiaphora idea; the nature of biblical authority; and the authority of history. Richard Cox proved important in leading the Prayer-Book party against the Puritan-led group which Opposed Anglican rites. To develop this aSpect of Cox's life, however, occurrences at Frankfurt on the Main must be analyzed. .fl...‘ -I\\‘ v ‘ CHAPTER V LEADERSHIP DURING THE MARIAN EXILE PART I: The Frankfurt Troubles The course of Richard Cox's five years in exile would be impossible to follow if it were not for the works of John Foxe, Christina Garrett, and the anonymous author of the pamphlet, The Troubles 23 Frankfort. The last- named document is an account of the Frankfurt divisions over both the Book of Common Prayer and the nature of church authority. The work also provides much informa- tion about Cox's actions in 1555.1 In addition it supplies the basis for analyzing the Anglican-Puritan division and the relative importance of Continental theologians in the troubles of the Frankfurt congrega- tion. Using the above works, and inferences which can be made from later correSpondence, the nature and course of Cox's exile can be reconstructed. As Dean of Westminster, 2 Cox was initially used by Queen Mary, and given his 1P. Collinson, "The Authorship of A Brief Dis- course," Journal 2f Ecclesiastical History, IA, 188-208. Since the nineteenth century it has been assumed that William Whittingham was the author of the pamphlet, but Collinson has demonstrated that suCh a view is no longer tenable. 2APC, VI, 324. He was the recipient of the goods of William Drury and Robert Stirley on August 21, 1553. 179 180 strong belief in political subservience it is not diffi- cult to imagine that the Edwardian leader would have served the Catholic queen in Spite of his Protestant loyalties. At the same time it must be pointed out that Cox's personal life and his activity in alienating many leading Catholics did place him in a difficult position. As a married cleric he clearly violated the new govern- E ment's ban on such marriages.3 Also, though Cox had tried to placate Oxford Catholics, he had helped build the case against Bishops Gardiner and Bonner. With such enemies, Cox could hardly have expected to be tolerated. In September of 1553 he was deprived of his holdings.“ It is difficult to believe that Cox was involved in the plot to recognize Lady Jane Grey as queen, but his short imprisonment can be interpreted as the result of suSpi- cion which was soon proved false.5 Whatever the cause of Cox's imprisonment, he was released almost immediately but ordered not to leave his home. A possible explana- tion is that he had friends among the Catholic party, but 3Clerical marriage was outlawed in December, 1553, and in the following February Queen Mary ordered foreigners to use English worship forms. EQER, Philip and Mary, I, 323; Leneve, Fasti, I, 352-354; Julius Trerentius to John AbUlmis, NovemEer 20, 1553, Q,L.. I, 373. Trerentius reported that Cox was "stripped of all his preferrment." 181 the importance of his limited freedom was that it gave him the Opportunity to escape from England. He fled in the Spring of 1554. The whole question of the mass arrests and subsequent "escapes" has been raised by Miss Garrett in The Marian Exiles, and the question is rele- vant to Cox's situation. The known fact is that barely two weeks after his imprisonment he was released by official order on the condition that he would remain in 6 house arrest at Westminster. Aside from Garrett's eXplanation that the government was actually encouraging the exiles to leave rather than persecute them,7 it is possible that Cox was not at all hated by many Catholics. In Spite of his testifying against Gardiner and Bonner, he had promoted Catholics at Oxford; and as a humanist scholar he often had seemed more interested in truth and unity than in being doctrinaire. Whatever his interests, his solution was to flee to the Continent. Leaving his family behind, Cox escaped from his house arrest on May 6, 1554 and joined Edwin Sandys. Having crossed the English Channel,8 they passed through 60. Garrett, The Marian Exiles (Cambridge, 1938). 7Ibid., 16-17. 8Foxe, 5g, VIII, 597-598. At the point of depar- ture an important contact was made, for the exiles met Edward Isacc of Kent. He became an important lay leader in Frankfurt on the side of the Prayer Book party. John Knox blamed him for causing his exile (Knox, Works, IV, 46, 47). 1.1.1.: .-.-;.-¢3£f; Ac: - 182 Antwerp, were joined by Edmund Grindal and Thomas Sampson, and proceeded to the most important of the exilic centers, Strasbourgh.9 Though Grindal and Sampson subsequently left Strasbourgh, Cox and Sandys remained. It is interest- ing to note that from this group of four wandering exiles came three of the most important Elizabethan religious leaders: Sandys became Archbishop of York after serving as a bishop; Grindal ultimately rose from BiShOp of London to become Archbishop of York and the Archbishop of Canterbury; and Richard Cox held one of England's most lucrative bishoprics, Ely. Sampson rejected such honors and refused to serve Elizabeth as BiShOp of Norwich, for by the end of the exile he had aligned himself with the Puritan party. At Strasbourgh Sandys and Cox joined the large colony of English scholars who had fled to that city to become students of the erstwhile Oxford professor and Italian reformer, Peter Martyr Vermigli. Strasbourgh soon became more than a center of learning, for many of its English inhabitants formed the heart of the party which forced English congregations to use the English Prayer Book only. Also, this party provided the English church with its leadership when the exile ended. Though Richard Cox could consider himself a major Edwardian leader, he did not initially impose himself 9Foxe, VIII, 597. 183 upon the Frankfurt congregation when its troubles appeared. Instead, the Frankfurt church found that it had been so comfortably settled and well received that it invited other English congregations to join it. Upon their arri- val in June of 1554 the Frankfurt exiles had been offered the use of the same church used by the French exiles. The French, under the leadership of Valaren Pullan, had fled from England to Frankfurt. In England they had found refuge in Glastonbury during the reign of Edward VI. The one condition the English exiles had to agree to was that they would not "dissent from the Frenchmen in doctrine or ceremonies lest they should thereby minister occasion of offense."10 Thus, the English congregation used an order of worship which the Edwardian government had allowed to be used in immigrant churches only.11 The effect of the new service was that the English exiles did away with the litany, congregational reSponses to the minister, and the long-suSpected surplice, plus "many other things also 12 omitted." In addition, they created a creedal discipline, 10A Brief Discourse 23 the Troubles Be un 23 Frank- fort ig Germany Anno Domini 1555 (England, 1575 , 14; cited below as Troubles. The French liturgy can be read in Henry Cowell, "The French Waloon Church at Glastonbury, 1550-53," Proceedin 3 23,223 Hgguenot Society 23 London, XIII (1923-1929), 502-503. Cowell poifits out that this liturgy had its origin in Calvin's service, which he created when at Strasbourgh. 11Though Edward VI and Somerset granted that per- mission, bishops disliked the exceptions made for the foreigners. 12Troubles, 6. 184 to which new members were required to subscribe in order to gain membership in the church. Thus "reformed," the Frankfurt exiles sent out a general letter inviting the other English exiles in EurOpe to join them "to the true setting forth of God's glory."13 The Strasbourghers' interpretation of the letter, much to the dismay of the Frankfurt congregation, was that Frankfurt really wanted pastors. They therefore offered the services of John Ponet, late Bishop of Kent, John Scory, John Bale, Richard Cox, or any two of them.14 Rather than accept Strasbourgh scholars, however, the congregation wanted to invite their own choices, of whom John Knox, ex-chaplain to King Edward VI and Opponent of the Book of Common Prayer, was the most well known. With the consent of the leading lay exile, Richard Chambers,15 the Frankfurt congregation refused the services offered by the other exiles and sent a letter to Strasbourgh conveying their decision.16 The 13Troubles, 7, 8. 1“Ibid., 8. 15Garrett, 111-114. Though there is confusion as to Chambers' exact identity, Miss Garrett maintains that he was the exiles' contact, along with Robert Horne, with the English Protestant leaders. He and Horne apparently controlled the common purse, and thus their advice and consent was naturally cherished by the exiles. 16Frankfurt Congregation to the Strasbourgh Con- gregation, October, 1554, Troubles, 20. 185 letter was carried by Chambers, but he soon returned, this time with Edmund Grindal and a letter from the Strasbourgh scholars who demanded conformity to the English Prayer Book. Signed by Sixteen residents, the Strasbourgh reply indicated that the signers would come to Frankfurt in February of 1555 to help establish the English book.17 The meeting never materialized, and the Frankfurt group, with Knox as minister, adopted the Genevan service book as the "most godly and farthest off from superstition."l8 A newly-arrived pastor, Thomas Lever, would not accept the Genevan service, however, and he constructed a compromise order for temporary use. Meanwhile, the two major opponents of the English rites, John Knox and William Whittingham, appealed to John Calvin for his judgement on the English service book. They produced a letter which described the Book of Com- mon Prayer in largely negative terms, and Calvin reSponded in kind by condemning the book and its propo- nents as having "delight in the Popish dregs."19 Per- suaded by Calvin's letter, the majority of the congrega- tion voted to accept the Genevan order of worship; but Since there was no unanimity on this course of action, 17Strasbourgh Congregation to the Frankfurt Con- gregation, November, 1554, Troublgs, 22, 24. 18Troubles, 27. 19J. Calvin to the Frankfurt Congregation, January 2, 1555, Troubles, 35-36. 4! 186 another compromise service was pr0posed for use until the end of April, 1555, and disagreements regarding it were to be resolved by a committee of five eminent Continental divines, John Calvin, Wolfgang Musculus, Peter Martyr, Heinrich Bullinger, and Pierre Viret.20 This compromise was not accepted by the Strasbourgh leaders, and they f— reSponded by sending Richard Cox to Frankfurt for the eXpressed purpose of forcing conformity with the English Prayer Book. Cox, evidently accompanied by fellow scholars from Strasbourgh, joined the minority at Frank- furt on March 13, 1555, and together they proceeded to discredit the Frankfurt ministers and disrupt the non- English order of worship. Richard Cox's method was direct. He and his fol- lowers simply began using the English liturgy by answering aloud during the service, and when the church seniors inquired into this behavior Cox replied that he "would have the face of an English church."21 John Knox's reac- tion was not long in coming. In a sermon he resorted to 22 the contemporary device of prophesying, which, contrary 20Troubles, 37. Musculus was a German reformer who had been Influenced by Bucer. He is discussed below, pp. 299-302. Viret was a disciple of Calvin. His influence on English religion is discussed by Robert Linder, "Pierre Viret and the Sixteenth-Century English Protestants," Archiv fur Reformationgeschichte, LVIII (1967), 149-171. 21Troubles, 38. 22This method of preaching was troublesome in the Elizabethan period. When Archbishop Grindal refused to discipline prophesiers, he was suSpended by Queen Elizabeth; below, pp.280-281. 187 to its later meaning, did not involve predicting the future but meant the application of biblical texts to Specific contemporary situations. Rather than "prophetical" it was actually "analogical." Knox's Springboard for his attack on the English order was the Genesis account of Noah's drunkeness, Knox's interpretation being that some things must be kept secret and others should be revealed. The Prayer Book difficulties were classified in the latter group. Knox then proceeded to attack the sins of the English church: "slackness of religion," "want of discipline," the Edwardian persecution of Bishop Hooper for his refusal to wear vestments, superstition of the Prayer Book, and the wealth of the English clergy.23 The congregation resolved to deal with this flagellation of English Protestantism by holding a debate, and thus allowed membership to Cox and his followers so they could have an official voice in the church: however, once admitted to membership, Cox simply "forbade Knox to meddle anymore with the congregation."2u At this point William Whittingham, Knox's ally and Cox's former student at Christ Church College, asked the Frankfurt town govern- ment to force the parties to compromise.25 An ensuing meeting not being successful, the congregation appealed 23J. Knox, "Sermon," Troubles, 38, 39. 2“Troubles, 39. 25Ibid., 40. ...." ‘7 188 to the Frankfurt Senate that they be ordered to use the French order of worship, as required at their initial arrival in the city.26 Though Cox is quoted as first accepting the Senate's order to comply with the French form, the Prayer Book party did as Whittingham had done and made an appeal to the Frankfurt government.27 This appeal, however, was not theological. Cox's followers showed the Frankfurt leaders a pamphlet whicn Knox had published for English Christians, £2 Admonition 22 Chris: glans, In the pamphlet he had attacked Queen Mary, her husband Philip, and Spaniards in general.28 Unfortunately for Knox, Philip's father, the Emperor Charles V, was attending the Imperial Diet at Augsburg at that very time. The Frankfurt leaders were hardly ready to offend Charles V by harboring a theologian who had published sedition by criticizing Spaniards. Knox was sent packing to Geneva. The Strasbourgh scholars (three D.D.'s and thirteen B.D.'s) were presented to the Frankfurt government as the new leaders of the church; and William Whittingham was ordered to refrain from making further trouble as well as being 26Frankfurt congregation, "Supplication to the Senate," Troubles, 43. 27Troubles, 49. This action opened Cox to charges of being "double-faced." 28Knox accused Edward Isaac of giving the pamphlet to the authorities (Works, IV, 46, 47). 189 ordered not to join another church.29 In effect the town council was forcing the English Prayer Book upon English citizens, just as Edward VI had; and in Spite of the appeals of one Anthony Gilby, the government refused to intervene further as long as unity was main- tained. Having achieved his victory in but two short weeks, Richard Cox proceeded to reorganize the govern- ment of the Frankfurt church. On March 28 he gathered "such as had been Priests and Ministers in England" for the purpose of constructing the new organization, and though he proposed an organization which included both clerical and lay leaders, he obviously wanted a church governed by leadership provided by a learned clergy. Only the clerics were allowed to nominate suitable can- didates.30 It was regarding this very fact that the second major Frankfurt "trouble" first saw the light, for Christopher Goodman, a scholar who had come from Strasbourgh with Cox, proposed that the congregation itself should vote on an order of worship and elect its own officers.31 By contrast, Cox clearly preferred 29Troub1es, 45. 30Ibid., 46, #7. The clergy chose those "whom they thought most meant to be Bishops, Superintendent or Pastor with the rest of the officers, as Seniors, Ministers and Deacons." 311b1d., #7. According to the author of the Troubles Cox's "proceedings . . . were such as if there had been neither orders, officers, or church there, before their coming." 190 clerical control as had been customary in England. Largely because of Knox's political views, how- ever, the Opposition to Cox's party was broken, and the new leader turned to the task of re-establishing a rapprochement with John Calvin and to creating a church which would in the future resist any reappearance of the old difficulties. The first goal was apparently achieved, for Cox and his supporters wrote to Calvin and explained their behavior.32 Since they had restored peace and elected new officers, the Genevan leader responded in a rather favorable way, though he did have some criticisms. Consistent with his earlier dislike for English use of "Popish dregs," he stated that the English followers of Cox were "more given and addicted to your country than reason would."33 Of greatest importance to Calvin, how- ever, was the fact that peace had been restored. Thus, he indicated that he would not interfere with the Frank- furt church, and then proceeded to suggest future guid- ing principles. He maintained that the line between per- missible ceremonies and those to be forbidden should be drawn at the use of "lights and crossings or such like trifles," for those who used such superstitions should "drink the dregs."34 Secondly, he suggested that elections 323. Cox, gg,g;, to J. Calvin, April 5, 1555, 9,;.. II . 755-756. 33J. Calvin to R. Cox, §t_gl., Troubles, 51 ff. 34Ibid., 52. Cox must have taken this advice seri- ously, for it was over these very issues that he had his earliest difficulties with Queen Elizabeth (below, p.235), a" .....‘Ab‘hf; l ‘ v‘. 191 by the clergy should be effected "with common voices;" that is, he disapproved of any distinction between clergy- men when an election was involved.35 Thirdly, he condemned the treatment given John Knox, for he claimed that the charges against Knox should have been made in England, not in a foreign country. In Spite of the criticisms, it is clear that Calvin still considered Cox and his party to be acceptable Protestants; and it is further clear that Coxians held Calvin in high regard. Calvin's parting wish was that the Frankfurt episode "be buried in perpet- ual forgetfullness."36 William Whittingham obviously did not forget, for he and his party again asked for mediation of the differ- ences. During the exchange of letters between Cox and Calvin, Whittingham had gone to both the Genevan leader and to Bullinger to convince them to intervene against Cox.37 Having failed, he and his followers presented their position in August of 1555 and again asked for com- promise. Cox allowed a discussion between the parties, but the debate ended in failure: "certain warm words passed to and fro from the one to the other, and so in 35J. Calvin to R. Cox, gt gl.,'Troubles. 53. 361bid., 53. 37Troubles, 5o, 51. Bullinger apparently did not allow the use of surplices, wedding rings, or private baptism; but neither would he intervene on Whittingham's side. gals-x“. ...-1.1.0 RN 192 some heat (they) departed."38 Whittingham's followers removed themselves to Geneva and Basle, and those who had come with Cox left also. But before leaving the latter party set up a school and permitted some tolerance to the minority who still Opposed the Book of Common Prayer. In a letter by Thomas Cole it is reported that the minor- ity members of the Frankfurt church who did not accept all the English ceremonies were allowed to suit their own tastes.39 Not much is known of the success of the new school, but it could not have been too prOSperous. Though lectureships were established in Greek, Hebrew, and Theology,“0 troubles again shook the English at Frankfurt. The new difficulties resurrected the problem of discipline and church government, matters which caused so much bickering between Anglicans and Puritans during Queen Elizabeth's reign. Though no records survive by which the exact course of Cox's travels can be traced after his departure from Frankfurt, two letters written in 1559 and 1560 do estab- lish a basic outline. According to the author of the Troubles at Frankfort, in late November of 1555 "The learned men who came . . . returned again from whence they came, and some to other places."41 The safest 38Troubles, 53. 39Thomas Cole, "Letter," n.d., Troubles, 59. 401bid., 60. 41Troub1es, 59, 61 ff. mum .‘n-y Mm 193 assumption regarding Cox is that he returned to Strasbourgh to rejoin the English leaders there. Later, probably in 1556 when Peter Martyr moved to Zurich, Cox went there also. At least his correSpondence with the Zurich reformers indicates a close attachment and an amiable 42 friendship. It was from Zurich that Cox was recalled to Frankfurt in 1557. This time he was asked to be a moderater in the quarrels concerning the proper means of discipline to be set up in the congregation.43 In the latter part of 1557 and during 1558, however, Cox broke the pattern of exile life. He travelled to Cologne and Worms, in Germany. Judging from his letter to George Cassander, Cox first travelled to Cologne, and then went on to Worms.4u At Cologne Cox was befriended by Cassander, a Catholic humanist who was instrumental in the plans of Emperor Ferdinand I to bring Catholics and Protestants back together.”5 Evidently Cox made further friendships with- in a circle of like-minded citizens, for in later corres- pondence he requested that Cassander greet five mutual 42§.;., II. This volume contains several letters exchanged between Cox and Rudolph Gualter and Heinrich Bullinger to amply demonstrate his closeness to them. 43Troubles, 99. 44R. Cox to G. Cassander, March 4, 1560, §.£., I, 41. 45J. Leclerc, Tgleration and the Reformation (New York, 1960), I, 270-296. 194 friends. From Cologne Cox went to Worms, where he con- tacted Wolfgang Weidner, an obscure Lutheran to whom Cox wrote after he returned to England.”6 Again Cox requested that his correSpondent greet two mutual friends, James Cornicius and VeSpasian Fittich. Though Cox was at __ .- I! v Worms when Queen Mary died, he returned to England by way of Cologne to see his Catholic friends one last time; however, Cassander was not there and Cox proceeded to England.47 "“f I 3. 5"} v That the period of the exile was critical for Cox is obvious, for it virtually placed him at the head of the Anglican party. In addition, the Frankfurt episodes fur- ther eXposed the Protestant divisions already apparent under King Edward VI, divisions which in sum amounted to two different views of the church. In turn, these church views were based in different ideologies. Disci- pline, liturgy, and church government may have been the points of reference, but the basic ideological character of each party, Anglican and Puritan, came to the surface during the Frankfurt crisis; and Richard Cox was a direct- ing force in establishing both an Anglican victory and an Anglican way of thinking. Secondly, the Frankfurt troubles revealed the secular implications which were to divide ”6R. Cox to W. Weidner, 1560, §.;., I, 26 ff. 47Ibid., II, 41. 195 Anglican and Puritan. Their theologies implied social and political differences which would be resurrected in the revolution of the seventeenth century. Thirdly, Cox's exile ended on a surprisingly ecumenical note. At Worms Cox worked with Lutherans, but more importantly at Cologne he came under the influence of George Cassander. That Cassander was a Catholic and that Cox should develop a friendship with him is in itself signifi— cant, but the implications for the Elizabethan religious settlement are even more important. The humanist theme of unity had not died. PART II: The Ideological Basis of the Anglican-Puritan Division Though scholars have often analyzed the Frankfurt troubles from a purely liturgical point of view or as a defense of the Puritan party, an analysis based on Richard Cox's and the Anglican party's ideological position is lacking.1 About all the Frankfurt episode has gained for Cox is the reputation of an immoderate, bad-tempered indi- vidual,2 and the reasons for such a view are quite appar- ent. Virtually the only source of information about his role is the Puritan pamphlet, The Troubles at Frankfort, and it is difficult to imagine that the author of that work could have been anything but hostile. The pamphlet was written amid the Anglican-Puritan struggles of the 1570's, when, in Spite of their failure to direct Queen Elizabeth's religious policy, the Puritans continued to press for more reform.3 Cox was at that time an old, discredited bishop. Lawsuits brought against the seventy- year-old man represented him as an overly wealthy prelate 1M.M. Knappen, Tudor Puritanism (Chicago, 1965), 118-123; H.J. WitherSpoon, The Second Prayer Book 22 Edward the Sixth and the Liturgy 9: Compromise (London, 19055; A. Hinds, The Making 2£_thg England 2: Elizabeth (New York, 1895). 2Knappen, 127; Hinds, 35. 3Below, p. 275 ff; P. Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (London, 1967), 159-172. 196 1...}.--‘b-l". ' " v 197 and a cruel, Spendthrift landlord.“ Also, his service on the Court of High Commission had brought him great unpOpularity, for it was that court which had to enforce Elizabethan laws against Puritans. Because of these considerations, the Troubles at Frankfort must necessar- ily be used with care in Spite of the scarcity of other sources of information. Yet a careful use of the pam- phlet and relative information make it possible to ana- lyze the ideological character of each party. The primary ideological problem which divided the parties was the prOper character and necessary applica- tion of the adiaphora theme. Cox was no stranger to this idea, and neither were the Puritans; but though both accepted the idea that orders of worship were "indiffer- ent matters," the Prayer Book party found it imperative to accept and enforce one form at the eXpense of all others. Hence, Cox pursued the establiShment of the second Edwardian Book of Common Prayer until all oppo- nents were defeated.5 The first reason for Anglican loyalty was the very thing they were accused of ignoring, church discipline. Such discipline was preCisely what “Below, pp. 283-286. 5D. Whitehead, 22 2;. to J. Calvin, September 20, 1555, O.L., II, 755 ff. According to this letter, some changes were made in the Anglican order after Cox's party won its victory. 198 Protestants had supported during the late rule of Edward VI, and the Anglican party was basically continuing that policy.6 Though Puritans charged that Anglicans had no disciplinary principles, they were wrong. Instead, the real issue was the exact kind of discipline which should be adopted. The Anglican choice was based on the human- ist realization that any principle which Christians wished to resurrect as the basis of discipline was neces- sarily historically conditioned. They were therefore willing to rely on national church traditions rather than return, as Puritans wanted, to first-century practices. Puritans saw no validity in church tradition; Anglicans saw the Puritan ideal itself as tradition. Unfortunately, Puritans did not challenge their own traditions as they did Anglican tradition. The Anglican view was that Prayer Book unity was the only form of unity possible during the reign of Edward VI; for instead of depending on deduced doctrines, the English had chosen to write these doctrines into a liturgy. Those who became exiles therefore did have a positive statement around which they could rally in a unified way. More importantly, the exiles felt that they could not set aside a system of worship for which 6Objections to the book were maintained by Knox and the foreigners' churches, but there is no evidence of widespread Protestant opposition. 199 their former colleagues were being persecuted. In their letter of November 28, 1554, the Strasbourgh exiles clearly expressed the Anglicans' goals. They maintained that to give up the English service would amount to a desertion of their comrades who had remained in England, for many of those who remained had been members of com- mittees which had written the Book of Common Prayer.7 Changing the service, therefore, could be interpreted as admitting that the Prayer Book was corrupt. In Short, it was argued that what some Englishmen were being martyred for should not be changed without impelling reasons.8 Also, the Strasbourgh exiles re-asserted the theme that the Prayer Book promoted keeping the English united in "one congregation, that with one mouth, one mind, and one Spirit they might glorify God . . . ."9 The Anglican party, though it accepted the relativities of the adiaphora idea, felt that unity was possible only when a common English form of worship was observed. Another important factor in the early Anglican- Puritan difficulties is that Puritan ideology itself was in the process of evolving, and was not as static as the 7Strasbourgh exiles to Frankfurt exiles, November 28, 1554, Troubles, 22. 8Ibid., 22. 9Ibid., 22. 200 Puritans claimed. The documents contained in the Troubles at Frankfort do reveal changes in the Puritan stance. At the beginning of the struggle the English exiles, including Puritans,apparently accepted the French order of worship for a very practical reason: "lest they should . . . minister occasion of offence."10 In such a statement no appeal is made to the ancient church or to biblically necessary forms of worship. But the French were not the only ones who served as models for the Puritans. In describing the order of worship of other reformed churches, the churches of the Dutch, Italian, Spanish, and Scottish Christians were held up as ideals.11 Further, in defending the order adopted in Frankfurt, the author of the Troubles SXplained that many ceremonies had been omitted "for that in those reformed churches [Dutch, Italian, 22 cetera:]such things would seem more than strange."12 He also claimed that the Frankfurt order was "framed according to the State and the times."13 In spite of such relativistic talk, it is apparent that the Puritans conceived of themselves as members of a world-wide rather than a national Refor- 10Troubles at Frankfort, 6. 11"Description of the Worship Service," Troubles, 7. 12Ibid., 6. 13Ibid., 7. 201 mation; but in their attempt to sell the new form of wor- ship to other English exiles they adopted a rhetoric of perfection. They described their Service as "being sub- ject to no blemish, no, nor so much as the evil of sus- Ifigimq (from the which few churches are free) we may preach, minister and use Discipline, to the true setting forth of God's glory and good example to others."14 It was only when such rhetoric was used that it became neces— sary to claim purity on the basis of scripture, and it was regarding this latter claim that the natural Opponents of the Puritans Should be the Strasbourgh intellectuals. As one of the intellectuals with humanist training, Richard Cox had Spent most of his life arguing against the idea that Christianity could be reduced to prOpositional forms. Though his former opponents on that very issue were Catholics, during the exile they were Puritan Protestants. As the Puritans were called upon again and again to defend their position, they completely abandoned their earlier reliance on arguing from the principle of conformity to other reformed Christians. Instead, they progressively adopted terms such as "purely" andfltruly" to describe their methods.15 They ultimately concluded that the 14Frankfurt exiles', "General Letter," November 28, 1554, Tgoubles, 8. 15Frankfurt exiles to Strasbourgh exiles, December 3, 1554, Troubles, 29 ff. p 202 Genevan order of worship which they had adopted was the "most godly and farthest off from superstition."16 In a sense, therefore, one of the major principles of the Reformation scholars was allowed to die a rather unnatural death during the troubles at Frankfurt. The doctrine of adiaphora, which seemed a way to avoid radical differ— ences actually proved the basis for the Anglican party's solidification around the Book of Common Prayer, while the Puritans did the same regarding the Genevan order of worship. Of course, subsequent dialogue between the two parties did not build on the idea that the adiaphora had been abandoned. Rather, it was simply ignored, and each party went its own way to gather support for its particu- lar position. The first source of support was close at hand, for both Puritans and Anglicans turned to their reSpective congregations to provide authoritative guidance; and it was in this context that each faction developed opposite concepts of the Christian community. In accounting for these different concepts it has been customary for twen- tieth-century scholars simply to identify different sociological origins and material interests in each group and thus discount the ideological differences as mere rationalizations. Such an approach is most clearly -16Troubles at Frankfort. 27. 203 exemplified in Christina Garrett's study of individual exiles. She accounts for the Frankfurt incident by claiming that the Strasbourgh exiles, who were "notables" under Edwardian rule, were directed by the former bishop, John Ponet, to maintain control over the English of lower status at Frankfurt.l7 The major difficulty with this interpretation, aside from its unoritical acceptance of the views eXpressed by the Puritans themselves,18 is that it reads seventeenth-century politics into sixteenth- century religious and ideological differences. Even the terminology of the later period is used: "Independency at Frankfort, whiggery at Strassburgh, found each a fer- tile soil for growth in the freedom of exile."19 In addition, Garrett's description of a conSpiracy is ques- tionable. Neither documents nor biographical information gives evidence of the social groupings identified by Miss Garrett. Cox's followers were generally not members of any ecclesiastical or social hierarchy. According to Miss Garrett's own description of those who signed Cox's first letter against Frankfurt practices, eight were simply students. If there was a conSpiracy it surely 17Garrett, 27, 329. 18Troubles, 1. In the "Preface" the author alludes to a conSpiratorial attempt to discredit the Puritans as frustrated office seekers. 19Garrett, 329. 204 failed, for five of these students were eventually won over to whittingham's side.20 By the same token, the Anti-Prayer Book party was hardly a conglomeration of democratic individualists. All those identified as the core of the Frankfurt party are classified by Garrett herself as "Gentlemen."21 In the subsequent history of F“ the conflict the names of many additional members of V the congregation appear, but as a group they defy defi- nition. Rather than peOple with a unitary background, ; the Frankfurt congregation was made up of many types of individuals. In all probability the wealthy gentlemen held the real power, but they probably shared it with the man who gave the greatest amount of financial sup- port to the exiles, the Duke of Nurttemburg. Virtually every exiled student who resided in Frankfurt or came with Cox and switched to the Puritan party received financial support from him.22 ZOBiographical data is found in Miss Garrett's work for the following men: Michael Reniger (269), Augustine Bradridge (96), Arthur Saule (284), Thomas Steward (299), Humphrey Alcoson (70), Thomas Lakin (216), John Huntington (19b), and Thomas Crofton (137). Reniger, Bradridge, Saule, Steward, and Crofton all left Cox's party eventually. 21Miss Garrett summarizes their lives: Edward Sutton (310), William Whittingham (327), Thomas Wood (343), William Williams (334), John Stanton (297), William Rammon (175), and Michael Gill (162). 22This information can be found in the biographies as contained in the Exiles. 205 By turning their appeal to authority back to the church itself the exiles necessarily develOped differ- ent concepts of that institution. The Frankfurt exiles, aside from their desire to discipline the congregation according to creedal loyalty, develOped a concept of lay control of the church's policy.23 By contrast, Cox's party was largely made up of intellectuals, a fact which contemporaries recognized but many historians have ignored. The author of the Troubles always referred to the Strasbourgh immigrants as "the learned men of Strass- burgh," and did not give a favorable connotation to that label.24 In referring to the course of events after the Prayer-Book troubles were concluded, the same author created the impression that the intellectuals acted as they wished in Spite of the will of the congregations which had welcomed them: The learned men . . . returned again from whence they came, and some to other places, where they might have charges, and not to be either burdened or bound to the exercises of the con- gregation, so that, the exile which was to many a poor man full bitter grievous and painful, was (to some of the great- est persecutors of their poor brethren) 23Troub1es at Frankfort, 13, 61 ff. Whittingham's followers continually appealed to the belief that the congregation should select its own leaders and its own order of worship. The later troubles at Frankfurt were almost entirely devoted to the problem of lay control. 2”Ibid., 12. Also see the letter written to Zurich and addressed to "The students of Zurich." (Ibid.. 20 . 206 as it were, a pleasant progress or recrea- tion. The real distinction, then, was between intellectuals and laymen, not between economically determined classes. The ideological differences which this distinction eSpoused surely did foreshadow an important phase of the Anglican- Puritan Split. Richard Cox was willing to use his learn- ing as a critical tool and as a means of suggesting solu- tions to problems. Puritans used their learning to identify an ideal in the past and to work towards that ideal without wavering. In an important way Cox's brand of Anglicanism encouraged Christian humanism, for learning was a tool, and a relative one at that. Puritan learning, though rooted in the same Christian humanism, became a tool for creating judgemental pr0positions, and thus was a death knell for humanistic scholarship. The troubles at Frankfurt provided a living example of the early states of Protestant anti-intellectualism, for the Frankfurt Knoxians refused to accept any leadership from the "learned men" led by Richard Cox. As each party looked to its own church for support, each created a unique idea of who should have authority, laymen or intellectuals. A second source of authority for both groups of exiles was the Genevan reformer John Calvin. From the Puritan pamphlet one can deduce the fact that Calvin was 25Troubles a2 Frankfort, 59. 207 the whole-hearted supporter of Knox and Whittingham, but that vieWpoint is not entirely true. The Prayer Book was initially described to Calvin in such prejudicial terms as "these follies who can suffer?" and "a certain kind of pity compelleth us to keep close (quiet);"26 but Calvin's reSponse was not entirely negative. Instead he encouraged unity, and though he did not like many of the ceremonies, he still indicated that he found "no manifest impiety."27 Cox's fellow Anglicans were not averse to using the reformed method of discipline, that is, discipline admin- istered by the clergy and leading laymen. The lay leaders later were called "elders" in the presbyterian system, but on the Continent they were referred to as "seniors;" and Cox was not at all averse to relying on these men. For example, when Knox had been expelled Cox proceeded to set up a church which included a head pastor, "Ministers, Seniors, and Deacons,"28 and in explaining their actions to Calvin the Prayer-Book party made it clear to the Genevan leader that they had not altered the basic form of church government.29 As Calvin relied on elders in 26Frankfurt congregation to John Calvin, Troubles, 33. 34. 27Calvin to the Frankfurt congregation, Troubles, 35. 283. Cox, 22 El- to J. Calvin, April 5, 1555, 9.;., II, 753 ff; Troubles, #7. 29Ibid.. 753. 208 Geneva for the administration of discipline, so Cox's followers were willing to use the same system when they gained control of the Frankfurt congregation. Calvin's main suggestion regarding this topic was that the English should allow an equal vote for all ministers, but beyond this he found nothing wrong with the church's organiza- tion. Further, he did not request that the Anglicans install a system of elected leaders as the Puritans had.30 Calvin's own Geneva was more an example of clerical con- trol than of lay leadership. His view of polity was hardly the same as that of the followers of Knox and Whittingham. John Calvin proved to be a source of authority for both Puritan and Anglican parties, and in an important way was relied upon more by.Anglicans than by Puritans. As Puritans grew more confidant of their biblical scholarship, they shed all appeal to the authority of other scholars, John Calvin included.31 Richard Cox, on the otheriunui was willing to use Calvinist ideas as well as Calvinist church discipline.32 30J. Calvin to the Frankfurt exiles, May, 1555, Troubles, 53. 31This was eSpecially apparent in the later quar- rels between Bishop Whitgift and Thomas Cartwright in the 1570's and 1580's. See P. Collinson, Puritan Movement, 120 ff. 32Appeals to Calvin by Anglicans were eSpecially strong once the troubles passed. R. Whithead, R. Cox, gtflgl. to J. Calvin, September 20, 1555, Q,£., II, 755 ff. 209 Aside from the ideological differences implied by their theological diSputes, the warring factions developed different political ideologies. The Coxian group, true to its leader's long history of political subservience, sustained the idea of complete obedience to the secular ruler. Knox's followers refused such conformity and consequently some of them rejected the idea of political submissiveness. John Knox was will- ing to question the theory of obedience and to imply that active disobedience was necessary in some instances. It was because of these ideas that the Puritans were dis- credited before the Frankfurt magistrates.33 The back- ground to Knox's new political ideas lies in the insta— bility of English and Scottish rule and in his desire to create a theoretical basis for persecuted Christians to resist oppression. In order to develOp a new theory, in March of 1554 he questioned Henry Bullinger regarding the right to revolt. Bullinger forwarded Knox's questions and his own answers to Calvin for his perusal.3)+ Knox had advanced four questions. First, he queried whether a young ruler, "by reason of his tender age," deserved obedience by divine right. The reply cited the example 33J. Knox, The First Blast 93 the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment 2£_women (Geneva, 1558). 34H. Bullinger to J. Calvin, March 26, 1554, Q.£., II, 543-547; Knox, Works, III, 21o—226; cited below as "An Answer." 210 of Edward VI, and indicated that obedience was neces- sary.35 Secondly, Knox asked whether a woman could rule by divine right and transfer the same authority to her husband, an obvious reference to Queen Mary and her husband Philip. The answer was both vacillatingznui straight-forward at the same time. Bullinger recognized that divine right of a monarch and the rights of one's husband depended on the laws of the particular king- dom.36 He also maintained that scripture demanded obedience: God demanded obedience and would "in his own time destroy unjust governments by his own people, to whom he will supply prOper qualifications for this purpose."37 Thirdly, the Scottish reformer touched on critical points in the Swiss reformers' political theory: the issues of the right of revolt allowed to lower mag- istrates and the right of passive disobedience. He asked whether obedience was due the ruler "who enforces idolatry and condemns true religion," and whether local political and military authorities had the right to "repel this ungodly violence."38 Bullinger replied that martyrdom was better than obeying evil, and that magis- trates could revolt against "ungodly" rulers.39 He was 35"An Answer," 222. 362219" 223. 37%, , 223. 38;p;g.. 223. 39Ib1d., 224. 211 quick to add that circumstances required different answers. Fourthly, Knox asked whom citizens were to follow in the case of "a religious Nobility resisting an idolatrous Sovereign."4O The evasive answer must have been dissappointing to Knox, for Bullinger simply encouraged piety and suggested letting the issue "be decided by the judgement of godly persons, who are well acquainted with the circumstancesf’l John Knox was apparently influenced by the views of Bullinger, for his ensuing pamphlet to the English Protestants did not call for an immediate, violent political revolution. It is difficult to imagine that the work inSpired anything but discontentment among Queen Mary's Protestant subjects.42 All the epithets which could possibly condemn the English monarchy in the eyes of Protestants were brought against the govern- ment of Mary and Philip. Enforcement of the use of the mass was condemned as idolatry.”3 The monarchy was classified as a tyranny rather than rightful government: "those bloody tyrants within the Realm of England doth kill, murder, destroy, and devour man and woman, as “O"An Answer," 225. ”lIbio., 226. 42John Knox, g Faithfull Admonition, works, III, 257-330; hereafter referred to as fin Admonition. 43Ibid., 261. 212 s."44 ravenous lions now loosed from bond Queen hary was compared unfavorably with "Jezebel, that cursed idolatrous woman;" for the queen was accused of hanging twice as 45 many Englishmen as Jezebel had killed among the Israelites. The peOple were exhorted to view their government as a Spanish one rather than English: the queen was referred 46 to as one who "beareth a Spaniard's heart," and Bishop Gardiner "and the rest of his pestilent sect" were asked, in absentia of course, why they "would have a Spaniard to reign over England."u7 Knox's broadest condemnation of L England's government, however, was that England was repeating the history of Israel. Throughout the pamphlet he continually applied Old Testament prOphecies to contem- porary English life, and continually referred to Jewish heroes who had risen up as rebels to overthrow evil, idolatrous conquerors. The sum total of his condemnation was succinctly stated in a prayer: "Oh God! the Heathen are entered into thine inheritance: They have defiled thy holy temple and have profaned thy blessed ordinance.“+8 While he never invoked the cause of Open rebellion, anyone 4%én Admonition, 286. 45;2££,, 294. 46;g;g,, 296. “7gpgg.. 297. 48;2££., 327. It was the continued use of such prophecies that caused Queen Elizabeth to condemn Puritan prophesyings. 213 who wished could easily have considered himself God's instrument for overthrowing evil. Knox ended his pamph- let with a prayer which could have produced little else but hatred for the monarchy: "Thou hast brought to ruin the palaces of tyrants; and therefore shall the afflicted magnify thee and the city of the tyranfull nations shall fear thee."49 It is easy to understand why Knox and his party were discredited as being conSpirators for sedition, for the pamphlet obviously heroized Jewish rebels and con- demned tyrants, including England's rulers. That most contemporary Calvinists subsequently were also labelled as seditious persons is one of the ironies of the period, for the political theories of the right to revolt against tyrants, the necessity of tyrannicide when the ruler is evil, and the belief in the political contract as the basis of the state were actually not ideas derived from John Calvin himself. He, along with Bullinger, sanctioned revolt by magistrates only when they had the constitutional right to check the monarchy.50 Also, Calvin consistently refused to alter his political conservatism, for he main- tained that even though the Christian could refuse to do “9&3 Admonition, 329. This argument was invoked by French rebels in their Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (London, 1924). 50Calvin, Institutes, Bk IV, chapter xx. n—rn_m"- ual " . 214 evil, he was always required by God to give strict, unalterable political obedience.5l Richard Cox's posi- tion in condemning John Knox's political ideology was therefore more in line with Calvin's political ideas than were Knox's, ChristOpher Goodman's, or William Whittingham's.52 Cox's eXperience at being submissive in politics was an old habit which had helped his sur- vival and progress in the past, and he was not prepared to abandon it. The theme that the Puritans were sedi- tious citizens became an idea around which Anglicans could unite, and already during the exile the Puritans were labelled as conSpirators who were not to be trusted. Though conSpiracy is not clearly demonstrable, the Puritans did attempt to eXpand their party. Whitting- ham wrote to Calvin that he was trying to recruit a fol- lowing at Basle and that he wanted Calvin's counsel and aid.53 In reacting to this move, the English leader at Basle, John Bale, did not hesitate to condemn the politics 51Calvin, Institutes, Bk VI, chapter XX. 52C. Goodman, How superior powers ought to be obeyed (Geneva, 1558). This pamphlet defended tyrannicide, and its preface was written by Whittingham, who injured his career by writing it, for he never rose above the position of Dean of Durham when he returned from the exile. 53w. Whittingham to Calvin, n. o., wood ms, The Life 23 'Nilliam Whittingham. froma LS of Anthony wood, hary E. Green, ed., Camden hiscellany, VI ILondon, 1870), 'l“ K'V"! nl'u’ 215 of Whittingham's followers. In reviewing their activ- ities he completely rejected their contention that the English service was "pOpish." Rejecting the idea that the English were "popish," he questioned the real motives of the Puritan party in a rather strongly worded way: "What then may be thought of our unnatural and bastardly brethren?"54 He answered his own question by further ' labelling the "bastardly brethren" as "a seditious fac- tion."55 Both charges were over-simplifications, but it was true that some of the Puritan leaders had produced seditious pamphlets. Lore important from the perSpective of intellectual history is the fact that the different political theories implied a different ideological framework for each party. The Anglicans were willing to accept what history had given and use their religion to account for their complete obedience to the state. The Puritans used their theology as a device for judgement and for returning to a point in history when Christianity was "pure." When Anglican and Puritan political ideas are compared, it is clear that Anglicans were much closer to Calvin than the so-called "Calvinists" themselves. Before turning away from this point, it should be indicated that another of Miss Garrett's contentions 54John Bale to Thomas Ashley, n.d., Strype, §,fi,, III, ii, 314. 55Ibid., 315. 216 seems faulty. Though she indicates that Anglican ide- ology emanated from a Strasbourgh clique headed by John 56 Ponet and that its ideology was Spread among all Anglicans, she has not taken into account the difference between the politics of Ponet and Cox. As author of the Treatise of Politike Power, Ponet clearly allied himself with the new politics of belief in social contract and the right of revolt.57 As already demonstrated, Cox, whose political thought was close to that of Calvin and Bullinger, would have nothing to do with such ideas. In fact, by condemn- ing such ideas he got Knox exiled from Frankfurt. Nor would many other Anglicans join a party which brought their political loyalty into question. The reaffirmation of Anglican political subservience was clearly eXpressed at the end of the exile period by John Aylmer. In a political tract he completely repudiated Knox's political ideas and in addition asserted a political theory opposed to Ponet's.58 Aylmer's work condemned seditious peOple as being "among these ugly monsters and broods of the 56Garrett, 253 ff. 57J. Ponet, Treatise 22_Politike Power (1556). If he was the head of an Anglican conSpiracy, as Miss Garrett contends, he held political ideas which were anathema to most Anglicans. 58J. Aylmer, Ag Harborowe for the faithful and true subjects against the late blown blast, concerning the ggvernment of women, where in he confuted all such reasons ag'a stranger 2: late made in that behalf with a brief exhortatlon :2 obedience (Strasbourgh, 15595; cItedIheiow as An_Harborowe. 4.". ...-as 217 devil's brotherhood,"59 and upheld the principle that 60 obedience was to be preserved at all costs. By com- paring Ponet's tract with Cox's actions and Aylmer's pamphlet, one can hardly come to the conclusion that Ponet was directing an Anglican conSpiracy. If he was, he failed. The Anglicans reaffirmed their political loyalty to the crown, whatever its character was, and in addition protected the only device which had been successful in giving English Protestants some form of unity, the Book of Common Prayer. With these credentials they clearly demonstrated that they were ready to assume leadership at the accesSion of Queen Elizabeth. Before the death of Mary, however, Cox made his ecumenical excursion through Germany. Though nothing is known of his relations with the Lutheran, Wolfgang Weidner, beyond the fact that Cox resided with him at Worms and later reported English affairs to him, Cox's attachment to Cassander remains as a significant clue to his ideological loyalties. It is not difficult to imagine the dislike Cox must have harbored for what the Puritans had done with their religious knowledge, but in Cassander he found a kindred Spirit. George Cassander, like Richard Cox, had been edu— cated in the Erasmian humanist tradition, which meant 59J. Aylmer, Ag Harborowe, A3. 601bid., Bi. 1.1:.“ . ' 218 that his scholarly interests lay in church antiquities and.that his contemporary emphasis was on reform com- bined with unity rather than on establishing a new church. As an Erasmian Catholic he attacked church corruption, but at the same time he was critical of Protestants, and they reciprocated.61 As humanists both Cox and Cassander felt that tradition played an impor- tant role in religion. It was precisely at this point that Anglican thought veered away from Puritan thought and towards the moderate Catholicism of a man like Cassander. In his letter to Cassander, Cox had no qualms about eXpressing his cool feeling towards "pap- ists," and evidently did not classify Cassander as being among them. The eXplanation for the apparent agreement between the two was that they both disapproved of "pap— ists" and desired to restore the church to its ancient condition. In fact, Cox's question to Cassander involved church antiquities, in this case the use of the crucifix. What is more important than his question, however, is that 61G. Cassander, De officii pii appublicae tran— quillitatis vere amantiE—viri in hoc religionis dissidio TBasle, 1565). This work, though an attempt to create unity, was attacked by John Calvin and placed on the Lisbon Index in 1581. His eXperience was quite like Cox's role in working for English Protestant unity. See icfiaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia pf Religious Knowledge, II, 3 -36. 4 62R. Cox to G. Cassander, March 4, 1560, §.£., I, l. 219 the Cox-Cassander rapprochement reveals much about the Cox-Puritan antagonism. As Richard Cox became influential in the estab- lishment of the Elizabethan religious system, his eXperi- ences on the Continent, combined with his past administra- tive experiences and education, assumed a great deal of importance. On one hand he used his knowledge to try to restore the church to its ancient condition, while on the other he was willing to accept the church as an institution capable of change over the centuries. Puri- tans accepted the first proposition, but not the second. From these Opposite ideological positions, Cox's Anglicans and Knox's Puritans were to struggle for control of English religion and ultimately for control of English society. CHAPTER VI THE FIRST DECADE OF THE ELIZABETHAN RELIGIOUS SETTLEMENT PART I: Anti-Catholicism and Submission to the Crown Though the greatest amount of material available for Richard Cox's life is that which reflects his career under Queen Elizabeth, the period from 1558 to 1581 is both anti-climactic and confusing. It is anti-climactic because the new government did little that was unique in terms of religious policy. The problems dealt with were old ones; the solutions were not new either. Con— fusion also characterized the period because the queen herself lacked a definite, positive policy. Though she clearly conceived of herself as the head of the church, she had no positive policy regarding the form the church had to take. To complicate matters, she could not act independently, for both international and domestic affairs guaranteed neither survival nor success. Queen Elizabeth therefore had to create a policy which, in Spite of many historians' attempts to identify a unify- ing principle, remained confused and subject more to chance than to a grand design. The resulting religious settlement has been pOpularly labelled via media, but contemporaries could have viewed it as little more than 220 M‘s 'Tf‘lt‘Ea-i" : ' r v' 221 a patchwork created out of varying circumstances. The queen's secret of success was that she could change policy and let others take the blame for failures. By the same token, the government could draw its ecclesias- tical leadership from a party which also lacked a broad unified plan, the returning Prayer-Book Anglicans. The new ecclesiastical leadership was largely made i up of exiles who had remained true to the Prayer Book, but who were of varying opinions as to just what England's future religion should be. This variety became a cause for trouble among the leaders themselves, for no unitary Anglicanism emerged in the English church until the gen- eration represented by John Whitgift and Richard Ban- croft.1 Bishops like Richard Cox and Robert Horne, along with Archbishop Cranmer, admired Continental ideas, but were not willing to defend them at all costs. On the other hand, Bishop Grindal was entirely willing to use his influence to press continually for more change, even to the point of alienating the queen. Outside both groups stood Puritans and Catholics, for though Queen Elizabeth was unsure of what she did want she obviously did not like the potentially seditious character of both of these groups. Conscientious Catholics could not clearly 1Both of these leaders were chaplains to Cox early in their careers. 222 accept the state's dominance in religion, and neither could the Puritans. In addition, during the exile the latter group had demonstrated that it considered "English" rites to be "pOpish," and some of its leaders had even produced seditious pamphlets.2 Elizabethan religious policy was consequently a product of what the queen, the Coxian exiles, and conforming Protestants who were not exiles could patch together. Because of his reputation as a scholar as well as his prominent role during the exile, Richard Cox was destined to play an important role in re-establishing and enforcing a religion which would be both reformed and uniquely English. Initially he served as a preacher exhorting the English to leave Catholicism. Contempor— ary records reveal several appearances by Cox as court preacher soon after Elizabeth became queen.3 Further evidence of Cox's importance is seen in the fact that he was given the honor of delivering the Opening sermon to the Parliament of 1559. Il Schoifanoya, the Venetian ambassador, recorded that Cox, "a married priest who has hitherto been beyond the sea," delivered a fiercely anti- Catholic sermon which lasted for an hour and a half, "the 2Above, p. 185. 3Machyn, Diar , 189 (February 8, 1559), 190 (February 25, 1559 , 192 U éarch 28, 1559). r... r ,’ l' K '15" I! .5 i 223 peers standing all the time."u Reportedly, the sermon was an attack on the persecutions suffered at the hands of monks and also encouraged the English to destroy images which had been erected to saints.5 That this strong advice was not immediately adopted as official policy is clear from Cox's correSpondence with Wolfgang Weidner. Cox reported that he had been "thundering forth in our pulpits and eSpecially before the queen, that the Roman pontiff is truly antichrist, and that traditions are for the most part mere blaSphemies," but the govern- 6 In ment was slow to move to eXpel Catholic influence. Cox's Opinion, "many" nobles were being won over and "vast" numbers Of people became Protestant supporters also, but he blamed the clergy, eSpecially the bishOps in Parliament, for successfully blocking the reformers' cause.7 As the foreign issues faded in the Spring of 1559, Cox and his associates had reason to be optimistic, for the queen seemed ready to make a move to promote Protestantism. The "Coxian" party (so called by Sir John Neale)8 “p31, VII (1558-80), 23. 511231., 23. 53. Cox to w. weidner, hay 20, 1559, g,;., I 27 ff. 7_I_bgc_i_., 27. 8Sir J. Neale, Elizabeth and Her Parliaments (London, 1953), I. The same label is used by P. Collin- son in his Puritan Movement, 33. 224 and Cox himself survived the first year of the new queen's reign with a great deal of success. With the passage of the Supremacy Act and the queen's long-delayed acceptance of the Edwardian Prayer Book, the Coxians could see progress, for both policies reflected the ideas which Er they had defended during the exile.9 The Book of Common Prayer, again produced by a committee on which Cox served, was modified by the queen herself to include A'~.\..om7;7_.-:L I , -_ more ritual: but its establishment was a victory for those who desired Prayer-Book discipline rather than con- fessional discipline. The Supremacy Act ensured political support of a national church, and this again was exactly what the Coxians had hoped for. Both policies were the exact issues over which the Marian exiles had struggled. By contrast to the Prayer-Book party, the old "Knoxian" party had made its loyalties clear; for at the end of 1558 the Knoxians had sent a circular letter to the English exiles, urging that they all unite to create a church modelled after Continental Calvinist churches rather than after the older Edwardian model. They wanted a united front which would "teach and practice" as "seen in the best reformed churches."10 The exiles at Arrau, 9Dugmore, The Mass, 208-215; Sir John Neal, Parlia- ments (London, 19535, I; P. Collinson, Puritan Movement. loGenevan exiles, "Circular Letter," December 15, 1558, Strype, Annals, I, 152, 225 led by Thomas Lever, agreed to COOperate,ll but Frankfurt again defended the existence of different ceremonies for different churches even though they all might share a common doctrine.12 Given their political and religious views, the Knoxians could hardly have eXpected support from Queen Elizabeth, and though little is known of her religious principles, they surely were not the same as the Puritans. Further, given the extremely precarious r J" __" international position of Continental reformed Protes- tantism, the queen surely could not adopt so radical a course as the Puritans hOped for. The Coxians in Parlia- ment and among the returning exiles were the natural allies for the queen to choose. In contrast to Puritan intransigence, the Coxians affirmed their loyalty and united behind documents such as William Cecil's oft-cited "Device for Alteration of Religion" and Edmund Sandys' and William Grindal's state- ments which re-affirmed the orthodoxy and loyalty of Cox's party. Sandys' document was actually a COOperative 'paper which cleverly identified those who abused princes' jpowers as "false prOphets," an obvious allusion to Knox's followers.13 Grindal's statement suggested that the 11Arrau exiles to Genevan exiles, January 13, 1559, Strype, Annals, I, 153. 12Frankfurt exiles to Genevan exiles, January 3, 1559, Strype, Annals, I, 152. 13B. Sandys, 2.12 __1_., "Conference of Faith," Strype, .Annals, I, 167. 226 returning Protestants avoid harsh disagreements regarding the doctrine of predestination, and Speak of that doctrine only "Sparely and circumSpectly."14 He further reaffirmed the necessity of political obedience, the right of women to rule, and the need for obedience even to a tyrant, which he identified as a "power ordained by God and . . . to be honored and obeyed."15 William Cecil's "Device" also exemplified the less radical Protestant position. Besides making practical suggestions regarding international and I domestic alliances, Cecil also suggested a religion built on a new Prayer Book.16 This was again the major theme of the learned exiles, and many of them, including Richard Cox, were suggested by Cecil as members of a committee to construct a new book.17 By identifying themselves with such Opinions the Coxians were the only Protestant party Elizabeth could turn to; however, the Catholics seemed an alternative choice as late as the Spring of 1559. That Catholics were allowed to remain in office and were granted the right to diSpute their views in public 14E. Grindal, "Articles," Strype, Annals, I, 152. 151bid., 172. 16H. Gee, Elizabethan Cleggy (Oxford, 1898), 7. Gee maintains that Cox's views were prominent in writing this. 17w. Cecil, "A Device." H. Gee, Elizabethan Prayer Book (London, 1902), 15. Gee claims that Cox "knew more of the history of the prayer book than any living man." 227 colloquy was another policy which Queen Elizabeth had_ learned from Edwardian example. The Elizabethan variety of Catholic-Protestant confrontation took place in harch of 1559, and Cox was again at the center of activity. The details of the diSputation are confusing in the extreme, largely because the Catholics used stalling techniques to avoid answering questions in writing. Basically, however, the eight Protestant diSputants, including Whitehead, Aylmer, Grindal, and Horne, all of FL. whom were supporters of Cox's views during the exile, produced answers which satisfied the government and the proéProtestant audience: they rejected the use of Latin jJIIWDrShip service; they rejected the church's claim to exclusive control over rites; and they rejected the sacrificial character of the mass.18 Again the Anglican intellectuals excelled in negating the religious posi- tion of others. Cox, who also participated on the Protes- tant side, of course expressed glee with the results. He indicated to Weidner that the struggle was "like David and Goliath," and that the audience and the pre- siding officer, the Lord Keeper Bacon, declared the Protestants victorious.19 Two of the participating Catholic biShOpS were subsequently imprisoned, and the 18"Westminster DiSputation," Burnet, II, 11, 411 ff. 19E. Cox to w. Weidner, hay 20, 1559, 9;. I, 27 ff. 228 rest were ordered to make daily appearances before the Privy Council and to remain in London.20 AS summer approached in 1559 all looked bright for both parliamentarian and ecclesiastical Coxians. The queen added to the adoption of the Supremacy Act and the Edwardian Prayer Book a set of injunctions which were virtually the same as those enforced under Edward VI. These injunctions were to be enforced by clerics, and again set up Erasmus' Paraphrases as well as the Bible. Only article twenty-nine hinted at the queen's conserva- tism, for it stated that clerics had to get permission from their bishop before they could marry.21 The only other indication that the queen would impede further reform was that she unilaterally changed the Prayer Book, but even those minor changes would upset Puritans only. As the summer of 1559 deepened, however, it became clear that Queen Elizabeth had no intention of turning the theologians loose as independent ecclesiastical leaders. Upon appointing Cox and his allies the queen adopted the old Tudor custom of stripping the church of the secular land holdings. The wealth involved created the possibil- ity of the church's having an independent establishment, 20Cardwell, History 2£_Conferences, 25 ff. 21Injunctions, 1 Elizabeth I, Cardwell, Documentary " m I t, .' Annals, 211 ff. 229 a possibility which the government wanted to avoid. A state paper of the summer of 1559, indicated that Cox's appointment, and the appointments of others as well, was held up while the government worked out the trans- fer of holdings from the church to the crown.22 As the harian bishops were deposed for refusing royal supremacy, Coxians took their place.23 But each in turn had to pay the price for his clerical advancement. Cox himself was 24 but at elected on June 23, 1559 to the See of Norwich, the deprivation of BiShOp Thirlby he gained the Diocese of Ely.25 It was over the issue of Ely's temporalities that Cox first met head on with the queen. The royal policy was to take new biShOps' temporal holdings in return for a rebate on the bishOp's contribu— tion of tenths. Bishops were also to receive sundry run- down prOperties. As an additional compensation the departing bishop was to leave the equivalent of one-third the see's property value to his successor. Cox was the first Protestant to object to this policy, and addressed 2203p, Dom (1547-1580). 135- 23Burnet, III, 617, gives a complete list of deposed bishops. 2L"I*-1achyn, Diar , 201; Leneve, Fasti, II, 469. LeNeve gives June 22 as the correct date. 25CPR, Eliz, I, 453. ‘neh - 230 both personal letters and a document Signed in conjunc- tion with the other bishOps—elect to the queen. After beginning his initial letter by flattering the queen's ego, Cox proceeded to cite ten past examples, largely taken from Jewish history, to prove that it was the monarch's duty to support the church rather than to attack it by annexing properties.26 Though his biblical evidence was rather strained, the arguments based on contemporary considerations are Significant. First, he argued that Henry VIII had never confiscated properties which the church needed for the support of the ministry.27 It has already been shown that Cox had proposed that Henry VIII use the confiscated prOperties to aid the indigent,28 and Cox himself was generous in using bishop- ric monies to support scholars. In almost every letter he exchanged with foreign scholars he indicated that a monetary gift accompanied his correSpondence.29 Secondly, Cox pointed out that the land exchange policy was an insult to the new clergy.30 By submitting to the indignity 263. Cox to Queen Elizabeth, 1559, Strype, Annals, I, 114 ff; cited below as "Letter" by article. 27HLetter," Article VIII. 28Above, p. 41 ff- 29See Cox's many letters in the two volumes of Zurich Letters. 30"Letter," Article IX. lfi-.m"‘i.“«‘1:9 . i. ‘ 231 oftmingiewarded with less than previous prelates, they umrezmmntthag, at least in worldly terms, that they were inferhnn Thirdly, Cox indicated that the source of the poliqylay in Parliament.31 The fact that secular leaders saw Unachurch as an easy means of profit plagued Cox conthnmflly, and it was already clear to him during . i 1. ”-mfivc. vl- ' HI. .. .Ehwuflls reign that the lay leaders were not at all ready tb be disciplined. They wanted land, and there was little the bishOps could do about it as long as the crown found a greater source of power in the nobility than in the church. Cox's second paper was actually an eXpansion on the articles of the first epistle.32 He maintained that bishOps had been left with the duty of maintaining col- leges, and that if they lost their prOperties, learning 3 would no longer be rewarded and would consequently decay.3 He argued, and correctly so, that Henry VIII had closely Inlited religious reform with English education. To this ennymnent Cox added the claim that "true" ministers should 'be givewizat least as much as Catholics had received in the Ixast.:fl+ In addition, Cox maintained that the queen's 31"Letter," Article x. 32R. Cox, "Considerations why bishOps' temporal- itixas skleld not be taken away," Strype, Annals, I, 147- 149. 33Ibid.,iu7. 3“Ibid.,ius. 232 policy was comparable to none on the Continent, and that if bishops' properties were taken the crown would auto- matically lose an important source of revenue.35 That Cox was not alone in the desire to establish a church with an adequate source of income is seen in the state- ment produced by Archbishop-elect Parker, and the bishops-elect of London, Chichester, and Hereford. Basically they maintained that they were reSponsible for supporting education, and urged that the queen aid them rn—_¢.Agflu;"‘?‘ ‘ in that venture as had Henry VIII and Edward VI. By means of compromise they offered to make annual cash payments to the queen if she would in turn allow them to retain their temporal holdings.36 The queen refused, and the bishops, Cox included, were forced to give up their temporal holdings and any hOpes for independence as well.37 Though determined to maintain her property rights, Queen Elizabeth was willing to aid Cox both fiscally and in terms of granting him power in making ecclesiastical decisions. Already in July she had acted to get Thirlby, Ely's deposed bishOp, to surrender "dilapidation" money 35E. Cox "Considerations why bishOps' temporal- ities should not be taken away," 149. 36M. Parker, CorreSpondence, 97 ff; J. Bentham, Ely, "Appendix," 37-38. 37CPH, Eliz, I, 453. This document described the exchange made by Cox when he took Ely. 233 to Cox of over seven hundred pounds,38 and she remitted the first-fruits due from all newly appointed bishops.39 Though LeEeve reports that Cox was restored to his tem- poralities, this is not true; for a land exchange was 40 made in accordance with the Elizabethan statute, and Cox suffered along with the other bishops. The queen E. was apparently determined to leave the bishops econom- l ically dependent, and was willing to let them keep only enough to furnish hOSpitality to visitors;41 however, 1htl'._§._"? uf the bishOps were given the authority of administering the government's religious policies. Cox, as bishop- elect of an important see, was appointed to significant commissions. First, educational visitors were appointed to investigate Oxford University and the grammar schools, and Cox served on both committees.42 It should be noted that the educational injunctions enforced were largely duplicates of Edwardian policy, eSpecially in terms of re-establishing the Primer and Grammar produced in King 38%. 222. V. 135. 39;pgg,, VI, 141. ”OLeweve, Eaéti, I, 343; gag, Elli: I, #53. “leueen Elizabeth to the Lord Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer, 1559, Parker, CorreSpondence, 101. 42Parker, Correspondence: Strype, Parker, I, 95; Simon, Tudor Education, 305; Gee, Clergy, 130. 234 Henry VIII's reign.LL3 The duty of overseeing education soon was left to a more important institution, the queen's ecclesiastical commission, and Cox was again honored with a significant appointment. He became part of this well-known body in October of 1559.1+4 The court's power was continually renewed throughout the reign and in effect it provides an important key to understanding Elizabethan religious policy. The queen neither wished to interfere directly in religion nor t wanted to let the church be independent. As a result ‘ the Court of High Commission, and eSpecially the bishOps who served on it, had to carry out royal policy and suffer the disdain of the English people. If the bishOps had any hope for independence after their defeat on the question of land exchanges, those hopes were completely destroyed in the disagree- ment between Cox and the queen over images used in the queen's chapel. Elizabeth proved that she could defy a bishOp who was enforcing her own religious injunctions-- and get away with it.45 Though the queen's religious 46 injunctions continued Edwardian iconoclasm, the queen 43Parker, 95; Simon, 305. ”“CPB, Eliz, I, 28. 45Injunctions, 1559, Article IV, forbade the use of lights. 46John Strype cites Cox as the author of the Elizabethan injunctions (Annals, I, 236), but there is no further evidence than his claim. Also, see Burnet, History, II, 616. For the iconoclastic stance of 1559 see Frere, New History, 97. 235 introduced candles and a crucifix into her private wor- ship service. This practice was already in evidence in October of 1559,)+7 so Cox must have known of it when he was consecrated bishop of Ely in December.48 That he waited until he was officially a bishop is significant, for he apparently planned to bring the full force of that office to bear on the queen. He clearly saw him- self as God's appointee, through the medium of the queen, for he wrote that "God by your majesty hath placed me, and placed me to admonish, to exhort, and to call upon, opportune, importune."u9 He then proceeded to build a case for his refusal to serve in the queen's chapel, "the lights and the ggggg remaining."SO He defended his position by means of a five-point argument to prove that such practices amounted to a violation of the second commandment and that they violated both old and new Testament practices.51 His basic position came close to the Puritan teaching that the church should avoid human inventions for worship: "For our religion ought to be certain, and grounded on God's word and will. Quod non 47Sir Francis Knollys to Fatthew Parker, October 13, 1559, Strype, Parker I, 92. uaLeNeve, Fasti, I, 342. 493. Cox to queen Elizabeth, 1560, Strype, Annals, I, ii, 500, 501. 5OIbid., 500, 501. 51Ibid., 501-503. 236 est gxifide peccatum est."52 Theologians might wish to study Hwaintricate biblical arguments, but of equal imporhmnxais Cox's idea of his role over against that of the secuhxr ruler. He had long ago learned political submission, but he also had apparently accepted John Calvin's idea of theology's role in giving proper direc- tion to secular leaders.53 Cox wrote, And your highness knoweth, that in this thing, and in all other matters of religion, the judgement of the ministers of God's word ought to be heard. Neither would godly Constantine, in the council of Nice, take upon him to be judge over the fathers, but was content to stand to their judgement an determination in matters of religion.5 One can imagine the queen's reaction to the new bishOp's argument, for he even claimed his position to be anala- gous to that of the church fathers at the Council of Nicea! Cox clearly saw it his duty to tell the queen what her policy had to be, and this was not only a per- sonal affront but a threat to her divine-right status. She saw her appointment as God's will and the bishops' ‘policies as her will, and nothing was to cloud those jprinciples. Queen Elizabeth was therefore determined to 52R. Cox to Queen Elizabeth, 1560, Strype, Annals, I, ii, 502. .53Calvin, Institutes, Book IV, chapter h; Commen- tary 9g Psalms, I, 305. fflfil. Cox to the Queen, Strype, Annals, I, ii, 501. 237 force Cox's submission. He reported to Peter martyr that the Protestants were constrained, to our great distress of mind, to tolerate in our churches the image of the cross and him who was crucified: the Lord must be entreated that this stumbling- block may at length be removed. His wish was not fulfilled, and Cox was forced, in true Anglican fashion, to submit to royal power. Bishop Jewel reported in February of 1560 that Cox and Parker were to participate in a diSpute as defenders of the queen's crucifix.56 BishOp Cox had done a complete about face and was defending in Narch what he was abhorring in January. It was in the context of his submission that he wrote to his Catholic friend, George Cassander, to inquire into the prOper use of images.5'7 William Haugaard has recently emphasized the importance of Cox's submis- sion largely from the point of View of the ensuing divisions among the reformers, for it is rather signifi- cant that Protestants who in larch of 1559 were united against Catholics were one year later disputing among themselves.58 Though the Protestant divisions became 55R. Cox to Peter Martyr, 1560, i.;., I, 66. 56BiShOp Jewell to Peter Lartyr, February 4, 1560, §.§., I, 67 ff. 57E. Cox to G. Cassander, harch 4, 1560, £.;., II 41 ff. Cassander replied with a learned treatise on the prOper form of the crucifix (§,;., II, 42). 58H.P. Haugaard, Elizabeth and the English Befor- mation (Cambridge, 1968), 196; w. Southgate, John Jewel and the Problem.2£ Doctrinal Authority (Cambridge, hass., 53272-475? 238 important in the ensuing Puritan-Anglican struggle, Cox's submission is also significant from the point of View of the subsequent role of Anglican theologians in relation to the crown. Cox's surrender signalized the defeat of the principle that theologian idealists had a right and a duty to give direction to royal policies. Queen Elizabeth {P made it clear that Anglican leaders were to be adminis- trators. They were not to create policy. As a result , the Anglican party retreated to a defense of royal ; religious policies and contrived to revise them in indirect, * administrative ways rather than by directly confronting the queen. PART II: Early Elizabethan Anglicanism BiShOp Cox, along with others forced into submis- sion, seemingly changed from idealist to administrator quite successfully. Minor tiffs with the queen did fol- low, such as in the case of clerical marriage1 and the queen's marriage,2 but the clerics seemed to understand their new role quite well. Though Cox continued to preach before the queen, his correSpondence was usually directed to Parker or William Cecil rather than to the queen her- self. On the matter of clerical marriage, for example, Cox made his strongest appeals to Parker rather than to the queen.3 He pointed out that if the queen enforced her prejudice against married clergy, his diocese would be shot through with more vacancies than already existed. He argued in a cynical vein that "doves and owls" would simply take over the livings.LL The year 1561 did prove 1E. Cox to Queen Elizabeth, October, 1561, CSP, Dom, 187. He cited ancient examples of priestly mar- riage, and maintained that marriage was therefore "not forbidden to priests." 2Parker, Grindal, and Cox to Queen Elizabeth, 1561, Strype, Parker, I, 164. They wrote, "we crave at your hands to see you entied into this blessed state of wedlock . . . ." They warned the queen of the Devil's plans, and Cox added in the margin, "For Satan is no sluggard, nor Judas no sleeper." 33. Cox to M. Parker, August, 1561, Parker, CorreSpondence, 151 ff. “Ibid., 151. 239 240 highly critical for the bishops, however, for they pro- duced the first purely clerical attempts to extend the Reformation. The first document, the BiShOps' "Inter- pretations," was an attempt to formalize the queen's vagaries and contradictions into a practical policy. William Kennedy suggests that Cox himself drew up the document,5 but more important than its exact author- ship is the fact that it presents a Parker-Cox entente for solving the quandary in which the bishops found Tynan-.4..- themselves. Simply stated, they chose to return to an Edwardian-type standard of conformity; but along with the Prayer Book, vestments became a standard of judge- ment. The idealists became utter pragmatists. One would be hard pressed to find a simpler standard of discipline than vestments, but it was the one safe route for the bishops. The queen had violated her own published regulations regarding ornaments, and diSputa- tions over doctrine were unthinkable due to the great variety of Opinions. By choice of the bishops, vest- ments became the means of discipline, for better or for 7 worse.6 After agreeing to enforce the "Interpretations," 5w.P. Kennedy, The "Interpretations" 23 the BiShOps and Their Influence 2n Elizabethan Episcopal Policy (London, 1903), 7. 6J. Primus, The Vestments Controversy(Kampen, 1960). 7"Lambeth Articles," Frere and Kennedy, Visitation Articles and Injunctions (London, 1910), III, 95-67' Strype, Parker, I, 194-195; cited below by Article. 241 the bishOps in the main established both the form and the means of further Reformation. Since the worship service was to be conducted according to the 1559 Prayer Book only, it was ordered that "all old service books be 8 To defaced and abolished, by orders in visitation." this traditional Tudor policy was added a call for a new catechism.9 The means of carrying out conformity to these policies was close control over and examination of readers and ministers.10 Readers were to be "once again by every Ordinary reviewed, and their abilities and man- 11 Curates and ministers were not to serve ners examined." "without examination, and admission of the Ordinary, or his deputy, in writing" and were not to be allowed to 12 From move without their former diocesan's approval. these two major documents it is clear that at least Cox and Parker had a policy for the careful government of the church. It is also apparent that these policies were the same as those used in Edwardian times. The fact that Puritans had gone far beyond the Edwardian example was to be a major problem for the rest of the Elizabethan period. 8Article I. 9Art1o1e VI. 10Article VII. 11Art1c1e II. 12Article V. 242 The vehicle for the Puritans' reSponse was pro- vided in the Convocation of 1562, for the Puritan party in the Lower House of Convocation chose to attack the very things which Parker and Cox had chosen as guide-lines for discipline, the order of worship and vestments. The lower clergy undoubtedly felt left out of the Reforma- tion, for they never had been given the power to initi- ate changes. The action they introduced in the new con- vocation took the form of six articles which attacked {IL-.Lm-m '. A many.Anglican customs. In general this was a return to the Spirit of the Puritans whom Cox had purged from Frank- furt. Upon their return these exiles had been refused admittance to or had rejected the more lucrative offices in the church, and thus filled the ranks of the lower clergy. Their attitude is nicely summarized by John Strype as being for "those platforms which were received in the reformed churches where they had little before sojourned."13 Their model was the order of worship of the Continental reformed churches, and consequently they were as unacceptable to the bishops who were as enamored of English traditions as the Puritans were of Continental ways. The narrow defeat of the Puritan articles by only one vote indicates the wideSpread clerical support they had.1u A broader concern of the 13J. Strype, Annals, I, 502. 14Cardwell, Conferences, 40. 243 lower clergy was discipline, and the bishops joined them in this concern. In their "Interpretations" and Lambeth Articles the bishOps had provided a workable form of discipline according to outward conformity; however, they were sympathetic to a stronger enforcement of English Protestantism. The results of the united concern were the E Thirty-Nine Articles, the production of a new book of . homilies, and a movement to give the church a legal sys- tem of its own. Again, all three products were motivated '3. -‘.\ 'l.’ r’" by the desire for discipline, though the first document 3 fared well with the government while the second was sus- pect and the third failed to gain the queen's support. The articles and homilies reflected the Calvinist theology of the entire church and the homilies by them- selves represented the bishOps' solution for the lack of learned clergy. Cox's role was prominent in the formula- tion of both documents. For example, article twenty-five of the Thirty-Nine Articles was a description of the nature of a sacrament which was based on the teachings of both Calvin and Zwingli, that is, it was characterized by vagueness. This approach is precisely the one used by Cox in the 1540's.15 Again, on a critical sixteenth- century issue the Elizabethan church was acting in a context of long-term continuity and an attachment to 15Above, p. 67 ff. 244 Continental theologians. Cox's earlier relativism pre- vailed. Though in 1562 Elizabeth excluded the article which defined the sacrament, it was re-introduced in the 1571 version of the Thirty-Nine Articles.16 The homily on the sacraments also expressed Cox's view, for it defined a sacrament as "anything whereby an holy thing is signified."17 Cox's important role in formulating the second book of homilies is apparent from the fact that he was chosen to write its preface.18 Though he claimed for it as much authority as had been granted to earlier homilies,19 that is, royal authority, the queen for some unknown reason did not give the book her full support.20 She did not require that the homilies be read, but again left that order to the discretion of the bishOps; and again they would have to take whatever unpOpularity attended the new book. The last paragraph of Cox's original preface indicated the standards of unity he eXpected to be enforced: homilies, injunctions, and articles.21 His aim was that 16Haugaard, 250-252, 263. 17Second Book of Homilies, 316-317; of. above p. 68;icf. Calvin, Institutes, IV, xiv, 18. 18J T Tomlinson The P . . , rayer Book Articles and Homilies (London, 1897), 246. 19R. Cox, "Preface," The Second Book of Homilies, Strype, Annals, I, 11, 516-517; cited below as "Preface." 20Haugaard, 273, 274. 21"Preface," 517. rt—Mlhflfi 1n; _’._ ‘u! I! 245 all her peOple, of what degree or condi- tion they be, may learn how to invocate and call upon the name of God, what they have professed in their baptism to believe, and what duties they owe both to God and to man. So that they may pray, believe, and work according to knowledge while they shall live here . . . .22 This was written in the context of Cox's long-standing rm emphasis on the Christians' life as the measure of his ! religion, an idea which he had assimilated from Martin Bucer.23 This emphasis implied a broader meaning for the idea of discipline, one which the queen did not V accept. To further advance discipline the Convocation of 1562 also pr0posed that Parliament officially adopt the canon law which had been prepared during the reign of Edward VI by Cranmer, Cox, and six others. Convocation's plan had the support of the bishops. Again, however, the queen resisted innovation and the establishment of the church as a separate entity with its own law structure. The canon law became an issue again in 1571, when its adoption was pressed by Puritans in Parliament and it was published by the martyrologist John Foxe.24 It has 22"Preface," 517. 23Above, p. 65 ff. 2"’Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, John Foxe, ed. (London, 1571). For its history see The Canon law 22.522 Church of En land (London, 1947). In_f840 Edward Cardwell re-puEITEhed Foxe's edition (Oxford, 1850). This later edition is used below and cited as Reformatio. 2n6 generally been conceded that the queen rejected the new law because she disliked the fact that the great push for its adoption came from the Commons, which she thought had no business meddling in church affairs.25 This eXpla- nation is inadequate, for previous Tudors had in fact supported the reform, and the queen herself had allowed laws to be passed which called for a new ecclesiastical law.26 Rather than political prerogatives, what was at stake was the queen's view of discipline based on confor- mity to rites versus the Puritans' and bishOps' ideal of t discipline of Christians' lives. In the 1571 "Preface" to his edition of the Reformatio Foxe cited St. Augustine to the effect that strong discipline was necessary if the church was to survive and flourish.27 The bishops also saw in the pr0posed new laws a system of discipline which governed all life, for the new law gave great emphasis to excommunication28 and established a thorough system for applying discipline by means of the office of rural dean.29 This official was to oversee individual morals, from fornication to perjury, in much the same 25Cardwell, "Preface," Reformatio. xii. 261 Elizabeth c 2; 13 Elizabeth 0 12. 27Beformatio,. 2. 28m. , 167-177. 292.13.19- , 100. 247 fashion that Continental seniors and elders supervised their congregations.30 In one sense the Reformatio is significant because it represented one of the last attempts at Anglican-Puritan unity. By promoting its acceptance in the Parliament of 1571 the Puritans were I1 .l by implication accepting the hierarchical form of church ; government which they disliked. At the same time the bishops accepted the most outSpoken of the Puritan demands, the demand for discipline on the basis of j Christian living, not just acceptance of church exter- t nals. Cox was important in the entire episode, for he had helped write the new canon law and had accepted the Bucerian and Calvinist system of local enforcement when he was at Frankfurt.31 The queen's action to delay accepting the new canon in 1559 and 1562 and her ulti- mate rejection of them in 1571 thus drove Anglicans and Puritans farther apart, for Anglicans were determined to follow the queen wherever she led. A ticklish problem was left for the Anglicans, however, for any attempt at independent action could be interpreted as a breach of praemunire. In 1571 the bishOps were again left in a politically inferior position. This fact led the bishOp- historian, Gilbert Burnet, to trace seventeenth-century 30Above, p. 207 ff. 31Above, p. 207. 2n8 Anglican problems back to the failure of the government to provide the church with an independent legal struc- ture. Upon reflecting on the lack of a canon law sys- tem, he wrote that "our Reformation is not yet arrived at that full perfection thatijsto be desired."32 For an Anglican bishOp to write such a statement is sig- nificant, for it is precisely the point which most Puritans were making in the sixteenth century. 32Burnet, III, xvii. I fla- Wl- —_—vi-‘. A PART III: The Application of Anglican Ideals in Ely As BiShOp of Ely, Cox found himself in the position of an administrator with mundane duties rather than the duties of a reforming idealist. In 1562 he did write to William Cecil and encourage the acceptance of Jewel's Apologia, which Cox was evidently asked to peruse before it received official approval,1 and in the same letter he promoted the editing of a new translation of scripture, a suggestion which did ultimately bear fruit in the 1570's.2 In addition to these significant acts, Cox participated in the formulation of the bishOps' "Advertisements," which, like their "Interpretations," was a document which promised enforcement of the queen's desire for liturgical conformity.3 In Ely itself Cox had plenty to reform, for only one-third of his cures were served by clerics. According to his report to ArchbishOp Parker, of Ely's one hundred fifty-two cures, thirty-four were vacant, fifty-three were held by non-resident clergy, and thirteen 1§g, 2gp, 192. T.H.Iu Parker suggests that Cox was a possible contributor to Jewel's famous work in his ‘English Reformers. Library 2: Christian Classics (London, 1966), xxvi, 8. Zgg, Dom, 192; below, p. 302 ff. 35trype, Parker, I, 313—319; Tomlinson, 53 ff. The 1566 "Advertisements" were eSpecially concerned with enforcing the use of vestments already prescribed in the Prayer Book and the queen's injunctions. 249 250 had neither a rector nor a vicar.4 In 1562 Cox was able to make his first full visitation of his see, and was quite appalled by its lack of conformity to Anglican standards. Several churches lacked service books, and some even lacked a Bible, the Book of Homilies, and Erasmus's Paraphrases.5 Even at this local level of administration the new bishOp's Reformation ideals met resistance, largely in the form of apathy. Ely was a rather unique bishopric in that the 1.1%. ‘\&;t- Viv-1‘. 4 Isle of Ely was actually a palatinate over which the bishop presided as a lay as well as religious ruler, and in a sense Cox found himself in an early medieval situation. He was eXpected to be a secular overseer as well as a religious leader, but he was also expected to administer policy rather than formulate it. Thuskmawas appointed to Ely's commission of the peace,7 and was required to serve on similar commissions in Cambridge8 and Huntingdonshire;9 he was ordered to serve on Ely's commission of sewers;10 and was required to keep musters ”R. Cox to M. Parker, January, 1561, Parker, Corres- pondence. 5R. Cox, Com tera, 1562 as quoted in Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely (London, 1938), II, 178. 63 and 4 Edward VI c 1; Cambridgeshire, IV, 16. 7ggg, Elie. III, 29. 8;§;Q., III, 20. 9;2;g., III, 22. 101bid., IV, 215; AFC. IX. 134: 522, XI. 191- 251 of Ely's men fit to bear arms.11 This last duty was per- formed in conjunction with Roger Lord North, Ely's lord lieutenant.12 From the above list of duties it is apparent that BiShOp Cox was deluged with a flood of duties which were hardly of great ideological significance. When these duties are added to his role on the Court of High Commission and his unusually consistent attendance in the House of Lords,13 one cannot help but conclude that Cox was threatened with losing any leadership function he had hoped for. That the Privy Council intended to use the bishOps rather than follow them is clear from its behavior as it pursued its anti-Catholicism. In 1564 the bishops, Cox included, were required to forward a list of potential justices of the peace and indicate the position of each regarding anti-Catholic legislation.14 Cox approved of the government's move as necessary, for he viewed the church as "dangerously declining."15 He returned a list of candidates for justices with apprOp- riate labels: g_for godly, g for conformable, no sign 16 for unfavorable, and q for those best suited to serve. 11APC, VII, 242. lzgg, Dom, 460, 485. 13Lords' Journals, vol. I. 143, Cox, Letter to Council, October 17, 1564, The Camden fliscellany (London, 1895), IX; cited below as R. Cox, "Ketter to Council." 15Ibid., 23, 161bid., 24. 252 It is interesting to note that Cox had not lost his pref- erence for giving intellectuals positions of leadership, for of the four men he recommended for the Cambridge com- mission, three were masters of colleges in Cambridge University.17 It was in his relations with the university that BiShOp Cox must have felt most at home, but his role regarding it also mirrored contemporary political and religious problems. Cambridge University lay within the See of Ely and thus was under the ecclesiastical jurisdic- tion of Cox. The head of the university was William Cecil, and early in the reign of Queen Elizabeth he was faced with a radical student body and conservative faculty. In the face of factionalism, Cecil attempted to resign. He cited the warring factions and the fact that he had no power to change the institution as reasons for his resignation;18 however, he was persuaded to remain.19 In August of 1564 the queen herself, accompanied by Cox, visited the university in an attempt to get some sem- 20 blance of unity, and she was greeted with overwhelming 17R. Cox, "Letter to Council," 26. 18w. Cecil to the University, June, 1562, C. CoOper, Annals, II, 173; both reasons are very reminis- cent of Cox's problems at Oxford; above, p.108 ff. 19The University to w. Cecil, June 15, 1562, COOper, Annals, II, 174. 20Baker, Histor of the Colle e 231§§. John the Evangelist, Cambridge iCambridge, 1 9), 157. 253 oratory: Well Nature well, now mayest thou daunce, And pastime for a tyme; For never shalt though creature worke So devoyed of crime 0 may not we full rightlie terme That sacret ryal brest A paradise where chast advise And godliness wilhe reste. 21 In Spite of such praise, the queen's visit apparently had little effect, for in 1565 university radicals began ignoring the government's standard of discipline: vest- ments were discarded and iconoclastic sermons were preached. William Cecil's reaction was to give Cox the reSponsibil- ity of solving the problem: I am inwardly afraid, that if fear shall not stay this riotous insolvency, these rash young heads, that are so soon ripe to climb into pulpits, will content themselves with no limits, either in church or in policy.22 Cox replied that the disorder was found in several col- leges,23 and proceeded to visit the university in 1568 and 1569. Along with John Whitgift, the university's vice-chancellor, and the heads of the colleges, Cox was determined to succeed where Cecil and the queen had failed.24 The ultimate solution selected by Cox and his colleagues was to propose new university statutes, which E 21"Oration," COOper, Annals, II, 1888. 22W. Cecil to R. Cox, 1565, Cooper, Annals, II, 223. 23R. Cox to W. Cecil, 1565. Copper, AQEElE- II, 223' 24Baker, 163. 254 took effect in 1570.25 The university was reformed to the extent that diSpensations regarding time for working on degrees were ended, but the existing division between administrators and students was not ended: the senate of college heads was given more power over the univer- sity in general, but colleges were given exclusive con- E trol over their own proctors.26 In a sense the factions were strengthened rather than weakened. The sum result of the bishOp's eXperience symbolized the nature of the Elizabethan settlement: the clergy was disciplined . according to religious formalities, not religious belief or social behavior; the state used bishops to carry out rather than formulate policy: the bishOps did what they could to avoid harsh remedies, eSpecially when faced with young Puritans. These exact problems and solutions characterized Cox's dealings with Cambridge. In the 1560's Bishop Cox's ideology was thus reflected more in his actions than in his institutional- izing or creating new ideas. Though reSponsible for helping create the Elizabethan principle of discipline according to a form of worship, he clearly desired that the laity be disciplined also, and in this desire he maintained his loyalty to the views of Bucer and Calvin. As a firm believer in obedience he necessarily conformed 25Heywood, 334, and "Appendix," 5, where the statutes are given. 26"Statutes," 1570, Cooper, Annals. II. 257-260- 255 to the queen's policy, however contradictory it was. His submission on the issue of images in the queen's chapel demonstrated his complete surrender to secular power. That Cox had not given up his long-term ideals is seen in a letter written in 1569, for it reflected the social concern which he had eXpressed in 1534.27 The letter was discovered by James Bentham in December, 1786 and was submitted to The Gentleman's Magazine as an argument for poor relief, the same cause for which it had been sent by Cox to his clerical subjects of Ely.28 Besides his concern for the poor, Cox also demonstrated that he surely had not given up his belief that the clergy should direct the morals of the laity. His basic argument was one which Calvin had used, namely, that "God sendeth riches to men . . . to help their poor and needy neighbors," and Cox added the practical argument that aiding such people would provide relief from "wicked and ungodly beggars."29 To enforce this idea Cox required that the minister of the church, the church wards, and collectors for the poor, to certify to me, or my chancellor, within one month after the receipt hereof, of the names of them that give weekly to the poor, and also the sums; and further 27Above, p . 38 ff. 28R. Cox to the clergy of Ely, I‘Relitef of the Poor," Jllly'12, 1569, Gentleman's Magazine, lvi (2), 1041: cited below as R. Cox, "Relief." 29Ibid., 1041. 256 the names also of them that are able, and yet will depart with giving nothing.30 Clearly Cox had not given up his Christian humanist con- cern for social injustice. A second view that Cox main- tained was that in Spite of the queen's concern over vestments and the Puritans' conformity, the real threat came from Catholics. Perhaps this opinion was shared by all the bishOps and explains why they generally were not very eager to enforce government pronouncements against Puritans. As seen above, there was in fact a common ground which both Puritans and bishOps could accept. In a characteristically relativistic way Cox's view on con- formity was eXpressed in a pamphlet which John Strype attributes to either Cox or Jewel: Why consider you. Puritans not the cir- cumstances? Why weigh you not in every- thing the time the person and the place?31 And again, But something you say is amiss. And say, some things ever will be amiss.3 Out of fear of Catholicism Cox appealed for unity among all Protestants, and in this vein he wrote to ArchbishOp Parker that the archbishOp should be moderate 303. Cox, "Relief," 1041. Big brief and lamentable consideration 2; 222 Apparel now used by the Clergy; set out for the Instruc- tion _o_f _‘t'r'1_‘e: _Weak 321 _a_ faithful sergant (1566) , Strype, Parker, II, 44 ff. 321bid., 148. lgic" I1‘1R‘..’ 1'65. ‘4 . 257 . . . lest our royal Mistress be dis- couraged, or offended with the little warts of a few and wink at the greated sores of many. Ours are guilty of a wild zeal, but the madness of gapists do more harm than any plague.3 With such a view in mind Cox and the Elizabethan bishOps avoided concern with "the little warts of a few." Though we the queen continually tried to enforce uniformity, the administrators' desire for Protestant unity prevailed. ." . As Bishop of Ely Cox reached the high point of his career as far as ecclesiastical rank is concerned, and on i the basis of his early contests with the queen it is clear ' that he intended to enforce the ideas he had acquired as a Christian humanist and as a disciple of Continental theolo- gians. On the level of official policy the queen prevailed. On the level of administration the Coxians avoided strin- gent application of her will. With the 1570's, however, new conditions deveIOped. First, the queen was condemned by the pOpe, which reduced Cox's concern that she might turn back to Catholicism. Secondly, the ideological dif- ferences between Anglicans and Puritans came into full view. William Cecil's fear "that the rash young heads" would "content themselves with no limits" came true.34 Cox was won over to Elizabeth's anti-Puritanism, but not because of a sudden conversion to her Opinions. Cox and 33R. Cox to M. Parker, May 3, 1566, Strype, Parker, I, 455, 456. 3“Above, p. 253. 258 the queen were united in their dislike of Puritans, but remained divided as to their reSpective View of what Anglicanism should be. Conditions changed; the protagon- ists did not. CHAPTER VII ANGLICAN AGAINST PURITAN PART I: Creation of a Unified Anti-Puritan Policy Though 1571 proved a turning point in the Anglican settlement, the policies of the entire decade can only be understood against the background of the 1560's. The deep fear of Catholicism which Richard Cox and his fellow bishops shared did not dissipate, for the distress over Catholic power which Cox had eXpressed to Peter Martyr as far back as 1562 was still present.1 As Bishop of Ely and member of the Court of High Commission, Cox con- tinued to provide the government with anti-Catholic ser- vices. ‘Already in 1565 the government had initiated the policy of housing Catholic recusants with bishOps of the 2 Church realm, and Cox was eXpected to do his share. leaders apparently approved of this policy, for Archbishop Parker wrote that he encouraged the diSpersal of the Catholic prisoners among the bishOps "to school them, or else at least to have them out of London."3 Rather than IR. Cox to Peter Martyr, August 5, 1562, é.£., I, 112, 113. 2Council to R. Cox, 1565, APC, VII, 183. 3M. Parker to M. Haddon, June 6, 1566, Parker, CorreSpondenge, 284, 285. 259 260 disappear when attentions turned to Puritanism, the policy of housing Catholics among bishOps was apparently eXpanded after 1571, for the Privy Council indicated to Cox that it intended to use the Castle of Wisbech, on the Isle of Ely as a prison.” This was one of Cox's hold- ings as Bishop of Ely, and he was expected to donate its H :II-FL"ntfll use to the government. Though Cox never did convert the castle into a complete prison,5 he did provide services as a ward of several Catholic leaders. Privy Council records indicate that in 1577 three Catholic leaders, ; Drs. Feckenham, Young, and Harpsfield were all being held in Cox's custody.6 Dr. Feckenham proved eSpecially troublesome to Cox, who in 1579 reported that the prisoner had Openly criticized the queen. Cox was ordered to change the moderate treatment accorded the religious prisoner in the past, and to keep Feckenham "a close prisoner."7 Though it is apparent that Cox was still as ”Council to Cox, March 11, 1571, AFC, VIII. 73. 5Council to R. Cox, August 8, 1580, ggg, XII, 142. Apparently the bishop used the same device with the Coun- cil as he had with the queen, and simply avoided follow- ing orders, for in 1580 the Council was again ordering him to do what it had already commanded in 1571. 6APC. IX. 358. 7Council to R. Cox, APC, XI, 290. He was trans- ferred from Cox's custody to that of Thomas Gray in June, 1580 (AFC, XII, 68). 261 complete an anti-Catholic in 1580 as he was in 1562, external conditions had changed. After 1570 Cox, with other Anglican bishops, realized that enough changes had occurred to necessitate the creation of new domestic religious policies, eSpecially regarding the more radi- cal Protestants and even toward the queen herself. On the surface, at least as far as Richard Cox's ... . ‘ role is concerned, no sudden, Spectacular Changes occurred in his relations with either the queen or the Puritans. He continued to send advice to the queen, though he also continued the careful policy of sending it through either Parker or William Cecil. Strype has preserved an interesting exchange between Cecil and Cox concerning the queen's study habits. Cecil reported to the bishop that Queen Elizabeth was very fond of reading the works of the church fathers, whereupon Cox replied that he hOped that the queen pursued such study only in her "Spare hours," for the church fathers tended to become heretics.8 As he had done earlier, Cox also con- tinued to have problems with the queen over marriage of the clergy, for he himself had taken a second wife upon the death of his first. In 1568 he married the widow of the Puritan leader William Turner, an act which was an affront to the queen's prejudice against clerical marriage.9 —_.~ 8R. Cox to w. Cecil, Strype, Annals, I, 540-541. 9Above, p. 239. 262 The bishOp wrote to Cecil and asked him to defend his remarriage.10 Other duties of the bishop's also contin- ued as they had in the past. He and Lord North continued to serve as the government's census takers;11 he contin- ued to administer Ely as a palatinate, and to serve as a secular overseer for the benefit of Ely's inhabitants as a sewer commissioner and caretaker.12 Continuity is also apparent when Cox's basic views of the Puritan party are considered. Of all the clerical leaders Cox was best qualified to understand the ideological gulf between ~ Anglican and Puritan, and when pressed, as in the case of the vestarian diSputes at Cambridge, Cox was willing to intervene against the more radical Protestants. Similarly, when urged by the queen he willingly joined Parker in writing disciplinary statements such as the "Interpreta- tions" and "Advertisements," and later the church canons of 1571. As pointed out in Chapter Six, however, Cox was as lax as any of the bishops in pressing the anti- Puritan cause when it came to daily administrative action. Having emphasized the point of continuity, it remains to develop a more significant side of the Eliza- bethan Settlement: a maturing of a unified Anglicanism as opposed to Puritanism. The foreign and domestic events ‘ 10R. Cox to W. Cecil, December 29, 1568, SP, Dom, 324. 11§3, Dom, 460, 487. 121bid., 628. 263 which surrounded this deve10pment are well known, but require a short summary. Catholic aggressiveness was led by a papal condemnation of the English queen, and this was soon followed by the publication of Nicholas Saunders' book, The Monarchy g: the Church.13 This work was a violent attack on the Protestant thinkers as a heretics and, as its title indicates, on the Tudors' creation of a new church. Parker referred the book to Cox, who suggested that a few Anglican leaders each take parts of the work and attack Saunder's views.14 " Events in France did not help the English Catholic cause either, for the massacres of 1572 thoroughly discred- ited Catholicism in the eyes of the English, Queen Elizabeth included. On the Puritan side there were also strong signs of obstreperous behavior. The young Puri- tan radicals at Cambridge continued their iconoclasm and were a constant problem. Thomas Cartwright advanced his famous Admonition £2 Parliament, and when attacked by John Whitgift he refused to moderate his position in any way.15 In addition, it is apparent that the Puritans' 13N. Saunders, The Monarchy g; the Church (1572). 1AM. Parker to Lord Burghley, November 22, 1572, Parker, CorreSpondence, 409 ff. 15A.P.s. Pearson, Thomas Cartwright and Eliza- bethan Puritanism (Cambridge, 1925): The 1572 edition of the Admonition, according to Pearson, was not Cart- ‘wrighfls; however, the subsequent verbal barrages exchanged between Cartwright and Whitgift, and the original Admoni- tion, were Cartwright's. 264 following was growing. Parker and Cox had originally seen Puritanism as a movement of radicals who mainly had success in London only, for Parker wrote to Cecil in 1566 that My lord of Ely did write me a letter wherein he did signify, that if London were reformed, all the realm would soon follow, as I believe the Same.16 That this was an erroneous conclusion was soon driven home by the Cambridge disturbances. In fact, Cox's bishOpric, which included all of Cambridgeshire, became an important center of the Puritan cause. The deve10p- ments within both the Puritan and Catholic causes had significance because they removed previous impediments to Anglican unity. Catholics, whom Cox feared might gain the queen to their side, were discredited when the pope condemned Elizabeth. By the same token the Puri- tan position, with which the bishOps had been willing to unite previously, now alienated Anglican leaders. The queen and the Anglican bishOps were drawn together even though there were basic differences between them. Together the bishops made a concerted effort after 1570 to unite with the queen against the Puritan party. The basic tools were Cox's and Parker's "Advertisements" of 1566, which included an eight-point list of "Protesta- 16M. Parker to W. Cecil, March 22, 1566, Parker, Qprrespondence, 270. 265 tions to be made promised and subscribed" by whomever the Court of High Commission desired.17 Though intended as a means of disciplining lax clergymen, which Puritans were not, the "Protestations" contained articles which were apprOpriate to dealing with Puritan activities. Article one forbade preachers to "preach or publically interpret" other than what was prescribed in official policy,18 and thus condemned prOphesying, the favorite Puritan preach- ing device. PrOphecy simply was a means of making scrip- tures, especially the Old Testament literature, applicable and relevant to sixteenth-century society, but it also meant that current government and religious practices became the object of condemnation. To prohibit prOphecy was to take the heart out of the Puritan approach. Articles five and seven were Specifically designed to encourage formal unity. The former Specifically ordered preachers to encourage unity and quietude among their parishioners,19 while Article seven upheld the uniformity imposed by Anglican rites.20 The primary means of enforcing the 17"Protestations to be made promised and subscribed," Frere and Kennedy, Articles and Injunctions, 179, 1803 cited below as "Protestations," by Article. 18"Protestations," Article One. 19Ibid., Article Five. 2°Ibid., Article Seven. 266 "Advertisements" and other Anglican statutes was the Court of High Commission, and it too was the creation of an earlier age. Founded and described in Tudor law as an "Ecclesiastical Commission," this institution had been used by both Henry VIII and Edward VI.21 By 1571, with the re-editing of the Thirty-Nine Articles and the A passage of a brief set of canons, the tools for attack- 22 ing the Puritans were complete. Finally the bishOps of the Anglican party had acquired the type of aggres- siveness the queen had pressed for since her accession. . Bishop Cox assumed a position of leadership in the new antiePuritan policies. As a member of the High Commission he proved eSpecially useful to ArchbishOp Parker. Parker wrote to Cecil, who had become Lord Burghley, to the effect that he wanted Cox and the three other bishops on the court to aid him in the examination of several Puritan leaders, including Christopher Good- man, Thomas Lever, and Thomas Sampson, all former exiles of Puritan leanings.23 In a concerted effort the court issued a letter to the church wardens throughout England, and ordered them to strictly enforce Anglican discipline. They were charged "in the Queen Majesty's name" to stop 21J.S. Burn, The High Commission (London, 1865), 1-4. 22Strype, Parker, II, 54-57. 23M. Parker to Lord Burghley, June 4, 1571, Parker, Correspondence, 381. 267 all services not administered according to the Book of Com- mon Prayer and ecclesiastical statutes, and they were not to allow anyone to preach unless he had been licensed to do so within the last month.24 These actions obviously pleased the queen, who wrote a letter in August which com- mended Parker, Cox, and Sandys for so diligently pursuing her orders.25 A second service performed by Cox was win— ning the approval of the Swiss reformers, Rudolph Gualter and Henry Bullinger. It has already been pointed out that Cox had relied on these theologians for ideas as a young man and for their hOSpitality as an exile, and his relations with them proved important in buttressing the Anglican cause. It was in 1572 that a crisis occurred in relations between Anglican and Swiss Reformation leaders. Cox had correSponded with Bullinger in 1571 and 1572 in a very friendly manner by promising to promote the Zurich leader's works before Queen Elizabeth and by promising aid to students and sending cash gifts to Bullinger himself.26 Cox had also eXpressed his concern about Catholicism to 2“Ecclesiastical Commissioners to Church Wardens, June 7, 1571, Parker, CorreSpondence, 382 ff. 25Queen Elizabeth to M. Parker, August 10, 1571, Parker, CorreSpondence, 386. 263. Cox to H. Bullinger, July 21, 1571, §.;. I, 243 ff; R. Cox to H. Bullinger, June 6, 1572, §,L.. 268, 269. HC (Dam)- -' < as in .. mt" - 268 Bullinger, for in reaction to the bull of 1570 which con- demned the queen he wrote, Anti-Christ, relying on the authority of his church and councils, contends that faith is not be kept with heretics, that is, with those whom he judges to be such. He arrogates to himself the authority of recalling, and with removing, and absolv- -1 ing subjects from their fidelity and ‘ obediengg to their princes and magistrates By 1572, however, the new problems raised by Puritan aggres- siveness had become prominent; and in their desire to add authority to their cause the Puritans had appealed to Con- A tinental theologians. As Gualter reported, already in 1566 English Puritans had visited the Continental leaders and had claimed that the bishops were persecuting them, with the result that Gualter had criticized the Anglican cause to Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich.28 Other Continen- tal reformers had taken the Puritans' side and had united in 1571 to write to Elizabeth and encourage tolerance regarding vestments. This letter was carried by Gualter's own son.29 Similarly, the Puritans had claimed Continen- tal support by including seemingly pro-Puritan letters by Bullinger and Gualter in the 1572 edition of Cartwright's Admonition. Thus the early stages of the Puritan-Anglican struggles of the 1570's in part revolved around the question 27E. Cox to H. Bullinger, July 10, 1570, g.;., I, 221. 283. Gualter-to R. Cox, June 9, 1572, g.;., I, 364. 29Strype, Annals, II, 144. 269 of whom the Continental reformers supported, and the Puri— tans seemed to have the upper hand, at least until Cox intervened. Though other bishOps wrote the same types of letters he produced, they seemed to have less influence with the Zurich leaders. On February 12, 1571 Cox wrote to Gualter and objected strongly to the letter which Gualter had written :5 I. ~-. 9 -.. 2 to Parkhurst which was published by the Puritans: "I wish indeed you had not lent so ready an ear to a few of our 1""— somewhat factious brethren."30 He then proceeded to explain that Bucer and Peter Martyr had approved the rites set up by the Prayer Book and further maintained that "we know that this book ordains nothing contrary to the word of God."31 This was of course the very issue the Puritans and Anglicans struggled over, for the Puritan party wanted to allow only what was practiced in the church described in the New Testament. Cox then proceeded to defend the queen as being "exceedingly scrupulous in deviating even in the slightest degree from the laws prescribed," and also defended English vestments as not being "out of the pope's kitchen" but based on the ancient practice "that order and decency may be preserved in the ministry of the word and sacraments."32 Cox's general condemnation of the Puritan 303. Cox to R. Gulater, February 21, 1571, g,;., I, 234, 31Ibid., 235. 3ZIbid., 236. 270 party was that its members were "obstreperous, conten- tious, and rending asunder the unity of a well-consti- tuted church."33 These arguments, plus many others recited by Cox were so convincing that Gualter replied in a conciliatory way. Though he did not know Cox per- sonally, Gualter confessed that Peter Martyr had Spoken very highly on the bishop, and then proceeded to explain that the letter to Parkhurst had been written in the heat ; of the vestments controversy and was not meant for publi- ; 34 a cation or as a general condemnation of Anglican bishops. He further accused the Puritans who had come to Zurich of outright lying and of propounding an inadequate idea of discipline; and he clearly indicated the contemporary status of the Puritans with the Zurich reformers: Since that time we have certainly had nothing to do with those vain brawlers, who neither at any time wrote us, nor had it in their power to boast a letter from us.35 Gualter added more weight to the Anglican cause by dedi- cating his 1572 homilies on the book of Corinthians to four bishOps, including Cox. Having won Gualter over, Cox pressed his case against the Puritans by summarizing their demands in nine articles and asking Gualter, with the advice of Bullinger, 33R. Cox to R. Gualter, February 21, 1571, ZAL., 1. 237. 34R. Gulater to E. Cox, June 9, 1572, Z.L., I, 362 ff. 35Ibid., 364. 271 to "consider and decide upon them."36 In a style reminis- cent of the Frankfurt Puritans' prejudicial description of Anglican worship,37 Cox listed nine Puritan goals: abolition of hierarchical titles, election of ministers by the congregation, abolition of form prayers, preach- ing to accompany sacraments, father and child only to participate in the baptismal service, equality of all ministers, abolition of confirmation by laying on of the hands, and sermons at burials, and scripture reading in the church, and "other things really too absurd."38 Cox concluded that Satan is envious of our prOSperity. It is not enough to have the papists our enemies, without stirring up men of their opinion who are laboring to bring about a revolution in the church.3 On these bases Gualter was invoked as follows: "It is therefore both your concern and mine, to cut off the heads of this hydra."l"'o Cox also wrote a separate letter to Bullinger in the same year, but it is of a much milder tone than the one to Gualter. He recited a few Puritan innovations and requested Bullinger's support.""1 36E. Cox to R. Gualter, February 4,1573. §.L I, 279 ff. 37Above, p. 20?. 38B. Cox to R. Gualter, February 4, 1573, §.§., I, 280, 281. 39Ibid., 281. 40H. Cox to R. Gualter, February 4,1573, Z. ,I, 282. 413. Cox to H. Bullinger, 1573,z .L., I, 282, 272 Cox again wrote to Gualter in June of 1573 and made two broad charges, that the Puritans wanted to restore "the ancient presbytery of the primitive church" and that they wanted "to establish such an equality among all ministers that they may be deSpised and rejected even by the church itself; so that it is to be feared lest Christ himself should be banished by little and little."L’2 That Bishop Cox had great success in his efforts to gain the support of the Zurich leaders is evident both from correSpondence and from public actions. Gualter produced a paper, as requested by Cox, in which he refuted each of the nine points Cox had presented as Puritan views. His general judgement of all the points was that "they are scarcely deserving . . . that any divine Should be occupied in the refutation of them."43 Gualter's posi- tion is interesting, for it is one of the few examples of consistent application of the adiaphora idea. Puritans and Anglicans professed belief in the same idea, but neither practiced it; however, Gualter's view was that relative customs should be put up with "so long as purity of doctrine and liberty of conscience remain inviolate."uu To Anglicans and.Puritans their differences were no longer mere customs; rather, what had emerged was a battle for 42E. Cox to R. Gualter, June 12. 1573, §.g., I, 285. 22 ”3E. Gualter to H. Cox, August 26, 1573, ;.;., II, 7. ”4Ibid., 228. 273 survival. Realizing this, Cox wrote to Parker to warn him to be vigilant, that these godless schismatics over-run not the realm, nay deface the religion of our godly and well reformed church. They are bent against us toto. 45 BiShOp Cox was also active in attempting to stir the queen's own Council to anti-Puritan activity. In Spite of the queen's policies the<30uncil had freed and re-installed a Puritan preacher named Edward Dering. Cox vehemently objected to the Council's action, and quoted Bullinger to the effect that the secular government should rely on the church for advice: Sacerdotium proprium est officium, de religione ex verbo Dei constituere. Principium autem est, juvare Sacerdotes, et proverhere, tuerque verram religionem. 46 He further cited examples from church history, and con- cluded that guoties g3 religione agitur, Episcgpos £23- zgnit_agitare.u7 Such thinking was of course unaccept- able to the government, for biShOpS were expected to follow, not to lead. Whatever they were eXpected to do, Cox clearly was important in participating in and gain- ing Continental support for the Anglican position. In his rather zealous activity he was trying to enforce 45R. Cox to M. Parker, December, 1572, Strype, Parker, II, 193. 463. Cox to Burghley, August 5, 1573, Strype, Parker, I, 333. “7Ibid.. 333. A *TIIL".~< . ~_Zl” . w.- 274 the queen's own views, but this would continue to be a problem for all Anglicans who tried to give the state moral guidance. By the end of 1573 Cox was ready to turn to purging Puritans from his own diocese. Though he began in an optimistic mood, his task proved nearly impossible; and additional trouble awaited him as the queen's courtiers attacked the biShOpric's land hold- ings. PART II: The Bishopric of Ely, 1571-1581 "Touching my diocese, I trust to find it in better order than London, the Universities, and many counties besides"l were the words with which Bishop Cox described his feelings to Parker as he turned to deal with Ely in 1573. The basis for judgement which Cox applied to his diocese was a set of injunctions which he had issued in 1571. When compared with the standards produced by Elizabethan convocations and parliaments, Cox's injunc- tions provide an important insight into just what kind of administration the Anglican biShOp envisioned. Cox's injunctions were directed to the clergy and to Ely's 2 and in effect were a workable alterna- church wardens, tive to Puritan discipline, the only difference being that Puritans demanded extensive lay participation and equality among ministers while Anglicans allowed neither. In Cox's Ely injunctions the clergy were ordered to observe Anglican rites as described in the bishops' "Advertisements,"3 but more importantly Cox attempted to enforce the very things the Puritans worked for. The 4 clergy were to give instruction in the catechism, and 1R. Cox to M. Parker, December 5, 1573, Strype, Parker, II, 349. 2E. Cox, "Injunctions and Articles for Ely Diocese," C._1571, Kennedy, Injunctions and yisitation Articles, 296-302; cited below as "Injunctions," by article. 3"Injunctions," X. “Ibid., II, III. 275 276 discipline was to be practiced by keeping unacceptable peOple away from communion. Adult persons who had not learned the Ten Commandments, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the Lord's Prayer by heart, and those between the ages of twelve and twenty who did not know the catechism by heart were also to be barred from communion.5 The clergy were also commanded to discipline those who "be Openly known to live in any notorious sin without repen- 6 In tance, or any person that is out of charity." effect, Anglicans were to be disciplined according to their beliefs and their practical expression of Chris- tianity in their lives, and these are precisely the kinds of discipline the Puritans envisioned.7 In addi- tional injunctions to the clergy Cox ordered them to preach at least once a quarter and to hold no more than one cure unless they had "Special license."8 Perhaps of more importance than orders to the clergy were the injunctions "For the Church wardens and Inquirers," for these persons were given duties outlined in the canon law which the queen had rejected earlier,9 and which were performed in the Reformed Churches on the Continent by 5"InjunctionsJ'V, 6Ibid., IV. 7Above,245 ; M.M. Knappen, Puritanism, 248, 285. 8"Injunctions," VII, VIII. 9AbOV9 , 2 “'5 - A'J’v :" a 277 elders and seniors. First, the Church wardens were required to present a quarterly report to the biShOp's chancellor that the clergy were performing their duties as prescribed by the biShOp's injunctions.10 This device gave the bishop a means of applying discipline beyond his ordinary control of the clergy, and this was in principle exactly what Puritans demanded when they demanded the use of the office of elder. Secondly, Cox's injunctions made provision for eXposure to the documents which he considered essential for proper Christian direc- tion. In addition to the Ten Commandments, which were to be hanged on "the east wall of the choir," each par- ish was to be supplied with a Bible of their own, the Book of Com- mon Prayer, a Psalter, the two books of homilies, the book called the Para- phrases of Erasmus, or rather the Com- monplaces of Musculus, and other books requisite, as Injunctions . . . .11 The setting up of Musculus' book was unique to Cox's diocese, but the other documents were products of earlier phases of the Reformation. A third aSpect of the injunc- tions which is of great importance is Cox's attempt to overcome the Puritan complaint that Anglicanism did not discipline its laymen. Strangely this contention has _‘ 10"Injunctions," XI-XVIII. llIbid.. XXVI. 278 12 but Cox's orders been accepted by many later historians, made it very clear that the church wardens were to exer- cise discipline over the life of Christians as well as over their doctrinal confessions.13 Those who acted irreverently in church or absented themselves from ser- vices were to be fined twelve pence, which was to go to E“ the poor.14 Taverns were to be Closed and gaming was to be stopped during the time of worship services on Holy days and Sundays.15 Lastly, the Injunctions approached the system of Calvinist discipline in that all those 9- considered to be generally immoral were to be reported. They included all swearers, blasphemers of God's holy name, drunkards, adulterers, fornicators, ribalds, incestuous persons, bawds, or receivers of such incontinent persons, or of strange women with child, whose hus- bands are unknown, or any persons that be not of good name and fame touching such crimes and faults, and all sowers of dis- cords between negghbor and neighbor, with- in your parish.1 On the basis of Cox's 1571 Injunctions it is clear that he was not at all adverse to Puritan aims. His demands on the clergy were as great as any which the Puritan idealists would make. Also, he was willing to 12Haugaard, 341. 13"Injunctions,"XIX,.XX- 14%,, XX. 15:923. , XXIII. 1611251., XXIV. 279 use the same kind of discipline Puritans wanted, that is, according to ideas and life. In acceptance of doctrinal discipline he had in fact moved closer to the Puritan party, for during the exile he had adamantly Opposed such an approach. Not only had Cox accepted the Puritan ideal, __ but he also accepted the Puritan means of administering E A it, for the church warden's role was essentially the same as that of the Puritans' elders and seniors.17 The real i differences appear in terms of Opposite concepts of the 9.5" ' church. “" In Cox's View the clergy necessarily played the leadership role, for they were properly trained intellec- tuals. With this in mind he naturally resisted any intrusion by laymen as well as what he considered infer- ior thinking on the part of clerics. In Ely as well as in his past eXperience, he met many examples of both. Cox's attack on unlearned clergy had begun with his out- cry against Catholic priests, was eXpanded to an excoria- tion of "Arians, Pelagians, or Free-will men,"18 and was consistently applied to the Puritan prOphesiers. In 1576, when Grindal was attacked by the queen for being too 17F. Collinson, "Episcopacy and Reform in the later Sixteenth Century," Studies lg Church History, III 108, 109. Collinson traces Cox's use of rural deans to Bucer's disciplinary ideas. The evidence in Cox's injunc- tions demonstrates an even stronger emphasis on discipline than Collinson points out. 18Historical Commission Report, Cecil MSS, pt. 1, 308; H.O. White, Elizabethan Bishopg, 86. 280 tolerant of prophesyings, Cox wrote Grindal and advised him to execute severely the orders which are already established.19 The editor of Grindal's correspondence on this issue, Stanford Lehmberg, incorrectly views Cox as one who "seems scarcely to have understood what the exercises were,"20 for the bishop had faced prophesiers often in his career, most notably at Frankfurt. PrOph- esying was the technique used by Knox and his fellow Calvinists to make biblical literature applicable to con- temporary society, but to a classical scholar like Cox such preaching was simply "new fangles and fancies."21 Though Cox opposed their use when he suggested a course of action to Grindal, he also saw the value of the right prophesying, prephesying based on sound learning. Dur- ing the same controversy in which he condemned prophesy- ing to Grindal he recommended their proper use to Burgh- ley. By suggesting that Burghley influence the queen to deal kindly with Grindal, he also maintained that the clergy were characterized by laziness, immorality, and ignorance.22 Though he saw the problems created by 19E. Cox to E. Grindal, July 30, 1576, Historical Magazine, XXXIV, 125. 20$. Lehmberg, "Archbishop Grindal and the Prophesy- ings," Historical Magazine, XXXIV (June, 1965), 90. 213. Cox to Burghley, June 12, 1577, Strype, Annals, II, ii, 611. 221bid., 611. 281 prophesying, he also saw it as a means to force the clergy "to some travel and exercise of God's holy word."23 In advising both policies Cox was acting neither as a poli- tique nor as a seventy-seven-year-old man who had lost his moorings. Rather, he was trying to promote his ideal of a clergyman: a learned, adequately financed leader; learned so he could avoid heresy and well financed so he could avoid allying himself with selfish lay interests. In his letter to Grindal, Cox urged that ministers' liv- ings be protected and that clerics be encouraged to pur- sue sound learning, for in his view if bishops earnestly see to the ministers, that they do their duties . . . you Grindal shall need little any new orders, saving that Cathedral churches would be brought to some better Efiame touching exercise of learning In Cox's view it was eSpecially necessary that church liv- ings be protected simply to keep the lower clergy loyal, for when financial backing disappeared he saw one result: "Let poor ministers have livings, that they shall not need to flatter the gentlemen."25 Though Cox had fought out the issue of lay control in Frankfurt and had himself eXperienced problems in dis- ciplining rubles” his relations with Elizabethan lay 23R. Cox to E. Grindal, 1576, Historical Magazine, :nuuv, 125. 24E. Cox to E. Grindal 1576 Historical Magazine mm, 125. ' ' _____ ' 251bid., 125. 282 leaders were particularly embittering. Roger Lord North, High Steward of Ely, and Sir ChristOpher Hatton, courtier to Queen Elizabeth, were the laymen who proved difficult for Cox. They attempted to relieve the biShOp of temporal holdings which he had been able to retain in 1559. John Strype indicates that Cox was the only bishop who retained a home in London for his residence while attend- ing Parliament.26 Also, as one of the wealthiest bishops, Cox was automatically a target for land-hungry lay leaders. To add insult to the already unpopular fact that his see was wealthy, the bishop had been aggressive in defending his economic status. For example, he continually reminded Burghley about the fact that he had never received the "dilapidation" money owed him by Thirlby, and in the 1560's he had consistently resisted the Privy Council's attempts to force his contribution to the rebuilding of St. Paul's Cathedral. In 1563 Cox had claimed that he could not contribute because he was in debt and had never received his money from Thirlby,27 to which excuse the Privy Council replied that he was required to pay anyway and that he should force the clerics under his jurisdic- tion to contribute also.28 With this unpleasant exchange 26Strype, Annals, II, 358. 273. Cox to Council, June 12, 1563,quoted in w. Dugdale, History g£_§£. Paul's Cathedral (London, 1818), 100. 28Council to R. Cox, June 27, 1563, Ibid., 100. 283 as a background, Cox could hardly expect a great deal of sympathy regarding money from either the queen or her counsellors. Sir Christopher Hatton, a captain in the Queen's Guard, chose Cox's estate in Holborn as his prize, and he was supported by Queen Elizabeth. Cox tried to resist Hatton and wrote to both Burghley and the queen and requested that they aid him; however, Hatton prevailed and received the estate's buildings and acreage in return for ten loads of hay, ten pounds rent per year, twenty-one bushels of roses yearly, and giving the bishop the right of walking in the garden.29 Ulti- mately Hatton got the estate from the queen as a free- hold in Spite of a repetition of Cox's objections.30 Cox claimed that his office and its holdings came from God and Should not be alienated by the secular ruler.31 He again revealed an idea of the Church's role which was entirely different from that maintained by the govern- ment. Action by the steward of the Isle of Ely, Roger Lord North, was more significant for Cox's career, for though it began as an attempt to sieze the manor of Somersham, North's attack soon developed into a broad 29"Lease," 1575,quoted in E. Brooks, Sir Christgpher Hatton (London, 1947), 149. 3OBrooks, 150; R. Cox to the Queen, August 20, 1577, Strype, Annals, II, 11, 564-566. In his letter the bishop claimed that the queen was condoning expropriations from the church which Henry VIII had never permitted. 31R. Cox to the Queen, August 20, 1577, Strype, Annals, II, ii, 565. 284 plot to completely discredit the biShOp. In the summer of 1575 the queen had ordered the biShOp to grant her the manor which North wanted, but the biShOp replied with a rejection of North's claims.32 Cox and the high steward subsequently exchanged charges in December of 1575,33 and in the process Lord North's agents gathered a great array of allegations against Cox's government of Ely.34 North charged that the biShOp retained a large retinue of horses and men, was "extremely covetous," and was guilty of extorting money from the poor Clergy; however, Cox replied that his forty men with horses were hardly a retinue, that covetousness was an inner feeling which could not be imputed so easily, that money was taken from the poor clergy only upon the queen's orders, and that rather than being guilty of robbing the lower clergy he had actually made yearly gifts to poor vicars "on some, four nobels; and upon some, forty shillings."35 A second letter of objections from Lord North was sent near the end of 1575, and included charges of general condemna- tion. The biShOp was accused of being a harsh landlord 32R. Cox to the Queen, 1575, Strype, Annals, II, 11 9 567-5690 339.82.. 22:1. 507- 34Roger Lord North, "Complaints," Strype, Annals, II, 11, 570-574. These are contained in documents XLIX and L, and will be cited below as "Complaints," by docu- ment number and article number, and "Book of Articles," by article number. 35NComplaints," Doc. XLIX, Art's V, VII, IX (November 20, 1575). 285 who never released a man from his duties, of not punish- ing Catholic recusants, and of giving many Ely inhabitants reason to complain.36 Cox's reply was simply to demand exact proof for each charge, but North did not stop with letters. Having failed to frighten the bishop by claim- ing the queen's support and by threatening praemunire charges, North proceeded to issue a book of thirty-five charges against Bishop Cox. Appended to the book were several charges by Charles Balam, an Ely gentleman; another gentleman named Radcliffe; a servant named Hasyl, who had served Cox for seven years; and another servant, Laurence Johnson. According to Strype, the thirty-five articles were composed for North by Austin Syward, who had lost a farm because of a suit pursued by the bishop.37 The articles themselves reveal that their author had an extensive knowledge of the biShOp's affairs, for they were generally based on Specific examples of alleged mismanagement and covetousness: claiming poverty, the biShOp refused to donate to collections for the poor, though in reality he was putting money into accounts for his sons, John and Roger; the bishop converted parks into dairies, which were in turn leased out; Austin Syward and a chaplain, Peter Tye, were mistreated after they 36"Complaints," Doc. L, Art's II, III, V. 37Strype, Annals, II, ii, 587. 286 discovered that Cox had turned one of his Chapels into "a milkhouse;" the bishop deprived a widow and her children of their legacies; the biShOp's wife mistreated a tenant named Sharpe; as sewer commissioner the bishop had placed extraordinary taxes on poor townships; the biShOp resisted Hatton's lease of the Holborn estate because he had already leased the prOperty to his own brother; the bishop "gave orders in a common ale house at Erythe to fifty or sixty persons;" and the bishop instigated more suits over land in seventeen years than any of his . predecessors Since the times of King Edward 111.38 BiShOp Cox's answers dealt with each charge Specifically, and evidently were acceptable to the Privy Council, for North had no further success. One charge which Cox was entirely willing to admit to, however, was that he had been aggressive in defending the biShOpric's properties. His reason was that he wanted to recover that which his predecessors, eSpecially Thirlby, had lost in previous administrations.39 From the evidence it appears that Cox's primary interest was not his own or his family's aggrandizement. Rather, he desired for the church a status of independence, and was aware that freedom and independence from lay control 38Roger Lord North, "A Book of Articles," Strype, Annals, II, 11, Art's IV, VII, XI, XIII, XIX, XXVI, XXVIII, xxx, XXXIV. 39R. Cox, "Answer," Art. XXXIV, "Book of Articles." 287 could only come if the church was independently wealthy. He therefore pursued a policy which was acceptable neither to greedy courtiers nor a queen who was jealous of her power. During his troubles with the queen's courtiers he had tendered a list of "Reasons" for his actions to Burghleyf‘LO Citing St. Paul's letters as his source, fir” and John Calvin's commentaries as further authority, Cox excoriated those who attacked the clergy's wealth. At this day some men pinch God, in withdrawing double honor from his minis- ters: and not only not communicating, ; but plucking from their catechizers. They pinch God in withdrawing things from a godly use to a profane use: wherewith God was never pleased . . . . They pinch the ministers by wringing away part of their livings, against God's eXpress commandment . . . .1+1 In Cox's Opinion the lay leaders were both ignoring religious Observances and taking from the church property that was to be used for good purposes. In an important way Cox's struggles with the government over church prOperty stand as one of the last attempts at keeping the Anglican church not only reformed and uniquely English, ”OR. Cox, "Reasons," Strype, Annals, II, ii, 569- 570. ”11bid.. 569-570. Cox wrote, "It may please you at your convenient leisure to read Mr. CalVin upon this place of St. Paul, I Timothy V." 288 but also independent.42 This aim could be achieved only by resisting lay control either outwardly when facing Puritans or administratively when facing the queen. Cox's conflict with North and Hatton was his way of legally attacking the government's religious policy; but as bishop he also had to continue to face the aggressive Puritans. Puritans in both the rural clergy and Cambridge University provided the challenge to Cox. Richard Green- ham, Puritan minister of Drayton, was one rural cleric whose exchanges with Bishop Cox reflect the conflict; and a record of their troubles has been preserved in A BEEEQ 2: 5 Register, one of the more famous Elizabethan Puritan documents.43 Cox had disciplined Greenham, who replied with a short paper, an Apology,u4 in which he outlined his reSponse to Cox's attempts to enforce 420. Hill, Economic Problems 23 Egg Church (Oxford, 1956). Hill gives a survey of the church's problems from the time of Whitgift to the Revolution. For Hills refer- ence to Cox's problems, see Hill, 150. “35 parte 2: g register, containing sundry memor- able matters written by divers odl and learned ig our time, w ich stand for and desire he reforma ion 2; our Church, ig disci line and ceremonies, accordin 32 the law 93 our land Edinburgh or Middleburg, 1593). 44R. Greenham, Th2 Apology 2; answer 2: Master Greenham, master 2; Dra ton, unto the Bisho g; Ely, bein commanded £2 suBscriEe, Egg EEIEES £22 Romish habi , with alIowance of the communion book, 5 parts 2: 3 Register, 86-93; citEE below as Apology. 289 Prayer—Book discipline. After thanking Cox for treating him kindly, Greenham refused to explain his reasons for rejecting rites set up by the Book of Common Prayer, for he claimed that "Dissention of resons, doth cause aliena- tion of affections."45 Without further eXposition he simply refused to "subscribe to anything but the Word of i God, and things manifestly gathered out of the Word of ' God."46 From this proposition he quite naturally refused to accept the advice of all reformers who invoked confor- l M4131“ mity to the Prayer Book for the sake of convenience. He rejected by name Bucer, Bullinger, Gualter, and, strangely enough, Theodore Beza; for Greenham felt that his con- science only was worthy of obedience: "He that buildeth not in conscience, buildeth in hell.“+7 Being thus informed that he might be "building in hell," Cox's reac- tion to Puritanism was quite naturally one of immense dis- like, but he did Share with Greenham an idealistic concern for the survival of the church. Cox saw the real threat as the lower clergy's naive alliance with laymen: they [PuritanS] bawl out to those harpies who are greedily hawking after plunder and Spoil, that prOperties and revenues of the cathedral Churches ought to be diverted to I know not what other uses.48 45R. Greenham, Apology, 86-87. 461bid., 88. ”7Ibid., 91. 48R. Cox to R. Gualter, February 3, 1574, Z.L., I, 298. 290 He further saw that the alliance would produce the destruc- tion of the Puritans themselves: more blind than moles, they do not per- :eige :Eatdthey will‘siogsbg9swallowed p y* e evour ng vo v . Greenham's perSpective was quite the opposite, for in true Puritan style he longed for a return to the first century. He saw the Anglican conformists as the truly greedy leaders: "some with the vizar of order, do cover their ambition."5O To Greenham, Anglicans were the party of power and corruption in the guise of Christianity; to Cox, Puritans were allied with corrupt laymen and simply created confusion within the Christian connnunity.5l Cox's position was in part documented by occurrences at Cambridge Univer- sity. New troubles were precipitated at the university in 1572, when students petitioned that the statutes of 1570 be removed. As seen earlier, Cambridge's constitu- tional difficulties were actually based in the radical students' objections to Anglican rites and vestments.52 Cox and his fellow visitors rejected the students' chal- lenge to the statutes,53 and censured the students for AL9R. Cox to R. Gualter, February 3, 1574, Z,L., I 299- 50Greenham, Apology, 92. 2 51R. Cox to R. Gualter, February 3, 1574, Z._,, I, 99- 52Above, 252 ff. 53COOper, Annals, I, 304. 291 using "disordered means;"54 however, this action hardly ended the university's or the biShOp's problems. The Puritans at St. John's College found a perpetual opponent in Vice-Chancellor Whitgift, and Cox himself was contin- ually plagued by university disorders. Though the admin- istration of the university supported the biShOp's press Fm“ for conformity,55 the student radicals at St. John's con- tinued to press for Change. In 1573 they attempted to i depose their master, who was kept in office only by 5 Bishop Cox's intrusion.56 Because of continued conflict, Cox proposed to Burghley that a new commission be created to resolve the troubles which remained at St. John's,57 and this action resulted in giving the college a new set of statutes in 1580. Strangely enough Cox consented to new statutes which reduced his power, for he lost his unlimited visitation rights and surrendered most of his power to the college's master and to the state.58 This latter fact is eSpecially interesting, for though he was jealous of his control over Ely, Cox was entirely willing 54Visitors to the University of Cambridge, May, 1572, Parker, CorreSpondence, 131. 55Burghley was Chancellor, Whitgift was vice- chancellor, and John Ithell, Cox's chancellor for Ely, was Burghley's University Commissary. 568trype, Annals, I, 450. 57§21 22g, February 19, 1576, 516. 58Baker, pp. Johns, I, 175. 292 to leave university problems to the one person who could still force the Puritans into submission, the queen her- self.59 There are other examples of Cox's intervention, as in his role in keeping Robert Browne, founder of the Brownist sect out of St. Benet's College, Cambridge;60 but for the most part the queen, Burghley, and Whitgift were left to solve Cambridge's problems. Cox had other difficulties to cope with. As an agent of the state he continued to enforce national laws, and as a bishop he faced a new, more 5" radical religious sect than the Puritan party. The government, in true Tudor style, had attempted to con- trol the corn trade, and Cox had received orders to enforce the government's policies in Ely.61 As a pro- moter of learning Cox had an interest in the corn laws' success, for universities received part of the income from fines levied on convicted smugglers; but in his enforcement of the regulations in 1578 he revealed his continued concern for the indigent. In reporting his capture of some corn smugglers, Cox wrote to Burghley. He eXpressed support for the government's policy as a boon to the poor, for he maintained that prices rose in those areas out of which the corn had been smuggled, thus 59Baker, §_1_:_. Johns, I, 176. bOStrype, Parker, II, 2M4. 61APC, VII, 297. This order was first issued on November 25, 1565. 293 causing the price of food to rise.62 He ignored the fact that the smuggling could help the poor in areas into which the grain was being smuggled. Enforcing corn laws, however, was not Cox's only duty. A new sect had appeared in Ely called The Family of Love, a group which based its beliefs on the writings of a Dutch Anabaptist, Henry Nichols. According to John Strype, these Protes- tants had a convert among the queen's "menial servants," who had written.Ag.Apology for the sect in 1575.63 Cox's reaction to the new group is recorded in the preface he wrote to a 1579 work by William Wilkinson. This was a pamphlet designed to warn of The Family's errors: Perusing over this little treatise of Master Wilkinson's, I could not but allow his diligence and painful travail in this heretical and schismatical world, and I heartily wish of God, that our Church of England might be well weeded from to to E§6EJ gross errors, for it is high time. Wilkinson's work was dedicated to Cox, and was designed to aid Ely's clergy in refuting the new radical heresy. Apparently the new sect had some success, for in Wilkin- son's words, "daily those swarms increase."65 To counter- 623. Cox to Burghley, 1573, Strype, Annals, II, ii, 182. ""'""" 63Strype, Annals, II, 556. The Apology was re- printed in 1656 during, in Strype's words, "the times of libertarianism." 643. Cox, "Preface," w. Wilkinson, g Confutation of Certain Articles Delivered unto the Family of Love Eondon, 1579) , i ; cited below as 5 Confutation. 65w. Wilkinson, A Confutation, iv. ‘1 "in D! .' K! i‘E:Y‘-V- ‘51-. 1“.” .~ ‘ 291+ act the "swarms" the pamphleteer presented no scholarly treatise on doctrine, for the new sect apparently had no unique heretical position.66 The new sect was condemned in terms which Cox must have appreciated. The leaders were labelled as "unlearned" men, travelling salesmen, 6? “:7 weavers, basket-weavers, musicians, and bottle makers; and they were summarily written off as men who "sought by a more easy trade to get their living."68 In a sense The Family of Love's leadership was accused of following ’~;' ‘ '4 _ __~. {Ir-A? .4! l ' the same "unlearned" course imputed to the Puritan party, L- but in addition they were considered heretics. Attack- ing new movements as lacking scholarship did develop into one of the characteristic devices on which Anglican intellectuals relied, for as more and more sects deve10ped and all resorted to the scriptures as their one authoritative source it became commonplace to attack their biblical scholarship. As a proponent of thorough humanistic scholarship and an Opponent of lay leadership Richard Cox acted with diSpatch to purge Ely of the new radicals. He probably had completed his actions by early 1580, for though the queen's Privy Council thought it necessary to encourage him to suppress and punish the new sect in early October of 1580,69 in the same month 55w. Wilkinson, 5 Confutation, IV. 67Ibid., K iv ff. 681bid., K ii. 69Council to Cox, October 10, 11, 1580, AFC, XII, 232. 295 the Council was congratulating Cox for his expeditious handling Of The Family.70 Cox was also requested to for- ward a list of the sect's heresies, describe their status after they were reformed, and eXplain his procedures so others could be advised how to deal with the new radicals.71 It is interesting to note the slowness with which news Of this new group travelled; for one year after Cox had written the preface to Wilkinson's pamphlet,72 the Council seemed to think it was relaying new information, namely, that the group existed. As Cox ended his career, he maintained an interest in the issues which had always held his attention, unity for Christianity, a major role for the church in determin- ing national policy, and the creation of a uniquely English form Of Protestantism. His position as a leader in estab- lishing this last goal is seen in both his role in shaping national policy and his activity as a diocesan administra- tor in resisting both Catholicism and radical Protestantism. Cox's correspondence in his later years also reflected his long-standing desire for Christian unity. He corres- ponded in 1578 with Rudolph Gualter regarding attempts to create Protestant unity. Gualter blamed Zacharias Ursinus, 70Council to Cox, October, 1580, APC, XII, 250. 711bid., 250. 72The tract was published in 1579, and initialed by Wilkinson on September 30, 1579 (Confutation, iv). 296 one Of the creators Of the Calvinistic Heidelberg Cate- chism, for blocking the attempts to create a united Protestant confession of faith.73 Cox bemoaned Ursinus' failure to Burghley, and indicated that he continued to hope for the Protestant unity which "I did not sluggishly wish in my sermon, some years ago, preached publicly F“ before the queen."74 As a leader of the English Refor- % mation Cox, along with all the bishOps, had to be content 6 to mirror the activity expected Of all Tudor administra- tors. They were eXpected tO conform and not to lead. c Cox the administrator excelled in fitting into this pat- tern, but he also excelled in institutionalizing his ideas in an effective way. By 1577 Bishop Cox was apparently ready tO remove himself from public life. He sent his son-in-law, John Parker, son Of the late archbishOp, to work out the details Of his retirement with Burghley, but stated his intentions in a separate letter. Cox complained that he was hardly able to write because of his infirmities, and begged to be relieved Of his duties;75 however, no posi- tive action to fulfflj.his request was made until 1579. 73R. Gualter to R. Cox, March 4, 1578, Strype, Annals, II, ii, 106. A conference Of Protestants was held at Frankfurt, Germany, but Ursinus refused to write a creedal statement. 743. Cox to Burghley, May 16, 1578, Ibid., 118. 753. Cox tO Burghley, November 10, 1577, Ibid., 118. 297 Meanwhile the aged bishOp continued to try to guide the queen. In 1578 he urged that she purge the church Of bad clerics as Constantine had,76 and in 1579 he sent her a secret letter advising her to avoid marrying a Frenchman.77 Though Cox continued to serve in Ely, he did remove him- self from national prominence, for he was absent during the Parliament Of 1580.78 In 1579 Cox again pressed for permission to resign, complaining of exprOpriations and ! troubles caused by North and Hatton.79 For himself he I requested the use of Donnington manor, one of five estates Le owned by the bishop, and he also asked that he be allowed to give up only one hundred pounds in dilapidations money because he had never received his money from Thirlby.80 He pressed his economic interests to the end! The main trouble finding a replacement for Bishop Cox seems to have been economic, for the queen apparently wanted to further strip the bishopric of its wealth.81 Though she granted Cox permission to retire in December Of 1579,82 76R. Cox to Queen Elizabeth, 1578, Strype, Annals. II, ii, 118. 773. Cox to Queen Elizabeth, April, 1579, Lansdowne MS no. 179, British Museum, Aberswyth, 124. 78Lords' Journals, II, 21 ff. 79R. Cox to Burghley, April 26, 1579, Strype, Annals, II, ii, 259-260. 80Ibid., 261. 813trype, Annals, II, ii, 261. 823. Cox to Burghley, December, 1579, Ibid., 261. 298 he pressed for better terms. He requested a pension for life, Donnington manor, dilapidations Of only one hundred pounds;83 but in February Of 1580 he eXpanded his demands to include a complete release from all dilapidations pay- ments.84 Cox resigned his bishopric in the same month, but continued tO serve as bishop until his death in 1581. He succeeded in keeping rich Ely out Of the queen's graSp, but at his death she could do with Ely as she wished. Sir John Harrington, who claimed to have been present at the bishOp's burial, reported that Cox's funeral was "the Funeral Of the BishOpric as well as the Bishop."85 Queen Elizabeth left Ely vacant and used its revenues for royal eXpenses. According to Harrington, "the Profits thereof . . . were employed to relieve the poor distressed king of Portugal, who was called, by some Scholars, Bishop Of Ely."86 Cox certainly had made few friends at Ely, for a monument erected in his honor was defaced dur- ing the Puritan-Anglican troubles which continued tO plague the bishopric after his death.87 83R. Cox to Burghley, December, 1579, Strype, Annals, II, ii, 261. 8L‘Ibici” 659-660. 85Sir John Harrington, Brief View quoted by F. Peck, Desidegato Curiosa (London, 1732}, II, 45. 86Ibid., #5. 87Ibid., 45. PART III: Anglican Idealist Against Puritan Ideals During the last ten years of his life Richard Cox's role as an institutionalizer reached a high degree of ful- fillment. Though he created little that was new during this period, he continued to Oppose all challenges to his ideal of what English Christianity should be. As a scholar Cox continued to oppose Puritanism on an ideologi- cal as well as on a practical level; and he also developed stronger ties with the Swiss Reformation. As a proponent of an independent church he continued to Oppose any secu- lar intrusion into matters which he considered sacred. Cox's former role met with success, and his views became part of Anglicanism's victory over Puritanism. However, his continued frustration at the hands of secular leaders evoked a deep cynicism. In his contentions with Puritans, Bishop Cox con- tinued to rely on the ideas of Continental Protestant leaders, but his requirement that Ely's clergy set up the Commonplaces of Wolfgang Musculus was unique.1 Musculus is a theologian whom few modern historians have credited with importance, and only one non-European historian has given him any attention.2 In the sixteenth century, how- 13. Cox, "Injunctions, 1571," XXVI. 2P. Schwab, The Attitude 22 Wolf an Musculus Toward Religious Tolerance {New Haven, 19§g) 299 300 ever, Musculus was apparently highly regarded by English Protestants, for during the Marian exile he was named as one Of the leaders to whom the English had promised to submit their controversies; and during the Edwardian period he was one of the Continental scholars invited to teach in England.3 After studying under Martin Bucer, Musculus had gone to Augsburg as a preacher, and he ultimately settled in Berne, Switzerland to study and teach theology. It is significant that Cox chose Musculus' work as the one to officially set up in Ely, for he had adopted Calvinistic theology: however, Musculus' applica- tion of that theology to life was much different from the Puritans' application of the same theology. Musculus' close relationship with Bucer is also important. Cox's selection of the work of Bucer's most important student demonstrates an important re-emphasis of Anglican ties with Bucerian ideas as well as those of Zwingli, Calvin, and Bullinger. The Commonplaces served Cox's purposes well, for they dealt in a very succinct way with the problems which he was trying to solve: an uneducated clergy: church— state relations; and Puritan idealists. Musculus him- self explained his work as a device by which unlearned clergy could make use of the greater amount of reading 3Above, 157, 186. 301 and work done by "Learned men,")4 and this was exactly what Cox wanted; for he was intensely aware that the English clergy,like the clergy on the Continent, was not made up of first-rate scholars.5 Cox's obvious plan was that taken together, the Bible, Erasmus' Paraphrases, and Musculus' Commonplaces would be enough to instruct any interested person in proper Christian thinking. Regarding the correct relationship between church and state, Musculus emphasized the necessary role of the Christian magistrate in enforcing true religion. By cit- ing Jewish history he maintained that God's magistrates ’1 were first in the order of power and His priests were l?fi second.6 He also upheld the magistrate to select preachers.7 Such views were of course very compatible with English practices; however, Musculus did not rule out the idea that the clergy could play an important role in determin- ing policies, and he condemned princes who meddled in church affairs, eSpecially when they had economic motives. He maintained that princes "do also commit sacrilege which take away the goods Of the Church from Prelates and clerks and convert them to their own private uses . . . ."8 4W. Musculus, Commonglaces of Christian Religion, 15 ' 1 J. Man, trans. (London, 3 . v. 5a Cox to E Grindal 1576 Historical g . . i , , Ma azine, XXXIV, 122. 6 Musculus, 554. 7Schwab, 11 ff; Musculus, 17o. 8Musculus, 92. 302 He also eXpected magistrates to ensure the freedom of clerical elections9 and submit to discipline, for it was the clergy's duty to Obtain "the redress Of men's morals."lo This was also Cox's view, for the ideal of moral disci- pline, eSpecially of lay leaders, was one of his constant frustrations.11 The most important idea which Cox wanted to insti- tutionalize was the Old adiaphora doctrine as applied to church practices.12 Though both Anglicans and Puritans gave lip service tO the adiaphora concept, neither really practiced it. Puritans claimed rites were relative, then demanded a full return to primitive religious practices; Anglicans also professed that no one system of rites was pure, and then enforced discipline on the basis of proce- dures ordained in the Book Of Common Prayer. Neither party admitted their own contradictions, but Anglicans were at least willing to admit to the possibility Of future changes. Musculus was quite useful to Cox in this regard for he opposed any return tO the church's primi- tive status: the same which is itself Apostolic, lawful, accustomed, and agreeing with the free Church, might do well in the first times, 9Musculus, 169. 1°Ibid., 174. 11R. Cox to H. Bullinger, October 25, 1552, O.L., I, 123. "'— 12Above , 89 . ‘viva——~_ 303 but not so in our times. For then the faithful peOple were not Of so great num- bers . . . . 3 As humanist scholars, Musculus and Cox recognized the first-century church as one which had adapted to its environment, and they eXpected the sixteenth-century church to do the same. John Man, who edited the ver- sion of the Commonplaces set up in Ely, was quick to emphasize its author's acceptance Of the relativity of rites. He wrote a preface to the work, and explained it in terms which must have been pleasing tO Anglicans. He indicated that Musculus had plainly and learnedly set out the sub- stance Of God's word, with the form of celebration of sacraments most agreeable to the practice Of the primitive church, which yet in Rites and Ceremonies is not so precisely to be followed, but is free to all Churches to diSpose them indiffer- ently to make to edification.1 Having placed rites in the category of the "indifferent," Musculus turned to another standard according to which discipline could be administered. Again his thinking was an expansion on ideas which Cox accepted. Musculus avoided grounding discipline on the acceptance Of dogma, for he maintained that ideas were not central to faith. To him, measuring faith by means of an individual's acceptance Of a given idea was "vulgar and common."15 13Muscu1us, 169. 1LLJ. Man, "Preface," Musculus, iii. 15Husculus, 195. 304 Instead, he thought faith should be measured by how a man lived.16 Thus discipline shifted from the acceptance of ideas, as emphasized by Puritans, to living an acceptable life, the standard which Cox had always advanced as the ideal. The source Of this approach was Martin Bucer's theology, but it was also characteristic Of John Calvin rm” to emphasize the same thing. By contrast, Puritans demanded a system Of ideas as the basis Of discipline. It was also in the context Of the Anglican-Puritan division that Cox made his main scholarly contribution to 1— the English Reformation. William Whittingham, the man whom Cox had Opposed at Frankfurt during the Marian exile, had remained in Geneva to complete the Puritan version Of scripture. This version appeared in 1560 and subsequently became popularly known as the Genevan, or "Breeches" Bible. Its quarto size made it an handy tool for any literate Christian, and to add to its usefulness Whitting- ham provided the reader with a System Of ideas in the form Of voluminous marginal notes. The result Of Whittingham's efforts was an immensely pOpular work, but it also pre- sented a Puritan theology which, in one scholar's words, "appears in both the notes and in chapter headings."17 16Musculus, 206 ff. 17H. Pope, English Versions 93 Egg Bible (St. Louis, 1952), 227. Strype, in his Annals, II, 11, 213, complains Of the problems created by including so many notes Of a particular view. 305 It was against Puritanism and the fruits of its unique application Of humanist scholarship that Cox reacted, for already in 1561 he proposed to Cecil that a group Of qualified men be appointed to produce a new translation Of scripture.18 ArchbishOp Parker seems to have resisted this prOposal for a time, for in 1565 in a letter to Cecil he approved the licensing of the Genevan Bible and indicated that he would not interfere with its being used in English churches;19 however, Bishop Cox continued to press for a unified version for public use.20 Cox pre- vailed, and the project must have been well under way by the summer Of 1566, for the Spring Of that year he wrote advice to Parker as to the kind Of work he preferred: I trust your Grace is well forward with the Bible by this time. I perceive the greatest burden will lie upon your neck, touching care and travail. I wish that such usual words as we English peOple be acquainted with might still remain in their form and sound, so far forth as the Hebrew wéll bear; inkhorn terms tO be avoided. Parker concurred with this advice and subsequently supported a translation designed for exclusive English use. In his own 18R. Cox to W. Cecil, January 19, 1561, Records 2; the English Bible, A. Pollard, ed. (London, 19115, 287; cited below as Records. 19M. Parker to W. Cecil, March 9, 1565, Correspon- dence, 261-262. 20Pollard, 29. 21R. Cox to M. Parker, May 3, 1566, Parker, Corres- pgndence, 282, “‘——"' ‘96; .‘c 306 eXplanation tO the queen Of the need for the Bishop's Bible he attacked the Genevan Bible as being both slanted and non-English: as for that in certain places be publically used some translations [Genevan Bible] which have not been labored in your realm, having inspersed divers prejudicial notgg A which might have been also well Spared. In short, the Genevan translation was considered inferior because it did not meet the archbishOp's scholarly stand- ards and was not an English product. In order to produce Ff‘fquul‘iq aw”; - a better version Parker set down guidelines, which included at least one Of Cox's suggestions. The new work was "to follow the Common English Translation" except "where it varieth manifestly from the Hebrew or Greek original:" it was also to avoid words "as soundeth in the 01d Trans- lation to any Offence Of Lightness or Obscenity;" and, most importantly, translators were "to make no bitter notes upon any text or yet set down any determination in places Of controversy."23 The prohibition Of making "no bitter notes" is extremely important, for in one way it epitomized the dif- ference between Anglican and Puritan outlooks. Whereas Puritans applied their Renaissance scholarship tO scrip- ture in order to produce definitive doctrines, such as 22M. Parker to the Queen, Records, 293-291;, 231bid., 297-298. 307 Whittingham had included in his notes in the Genevan Bible, Anglican scholars were humanists of a different variety. They accepted the relativity Of their scholarly conclusions, and thus were ordered not to write their interpretations into the Bishop's Bible. Richard Cox's role in applying this principle is interesting, for he was called upon to translate two of the most important books of the New Testament, Acts and Romans.24 The lat- ter book was Of course the very one on which Luther had relied in making his break from Catholicism, and every major reformer was expected to write and speak exten- sively with a model according to which they could both attack other churches and build new ones. Puritans eSpecially were enamored of the apostolic church as the model to which they wanted to return, at least when it was feasible; however, Anglicans were willing to accept later cultural forms Of Christianity. A comparison of the two different translations of 'the book of Romans bears out the above generalizations, and also reveals similarities and differences between Anglican and Puritan thought. Cox did obey Parker's directions by avoiding the wholesale inclusion of notes to explain the meaning Of St. Paul's statements. In 2“Parker to the Queen, Records, 293-294; Parker to Cecil, October 5, 1568, Corregpondence, 334 ff. ...... “V‘s“ I 308 this omission he was apparently willing to allow scrip- ture to stand as it was and not attempt to explain every significant statement. TO a great degree the two trans- lations present a picture Of two very compatible theol- ogies, to the extent that Cox plagiarized some Of Whit- tingham's notes. In many instances he neither changed PM the wording Of the explanation nor cited Whittingham's 5 version as the source of his statement.25 Identical theologies are also apparent in both translators' treat— ment Of difficult theological concepts.26 Whittingham if found it necessary to explain in detail whenever he could just what St. Paul's doctrine Of election was, but Cox clearly accepted the Calvinist idea of double predestin- ation just as strongly as his Puritan counterpart: The will and purpose Of God, is the cause Of the election and reprobation. For his mercy and calling, through Christ, are the means of salvation: and the withdraw- ing 03 his mercy is the cause Of damna- tion. 7 The Puritan version put the same doctrine in more compli- cated terms by eSpousing the idea Of "chief cause" and "inferior cause."28 It also dedicated more Space to the 2SRomans XIV:5; XII:20; XII:1,3; X:6; v:16. 26While this is true, it does not necessarily fol- low that subsequent differences were simply the product of material or selfish interest. 27Bishops Bible, Romans IX:11. 28Genevan Bible, Romans IX:14. 309 doctrine,29 but Cox clearly incorporated a belief in pre- destination, and double predestination at that, into the Bishops' Bible. A similar parallel is apparent in the translators' approach to the great difference between Christians and non-Christians. Puritan emphasis on the 7 superiority Of the chosen peOple in Spiritual matters is Often emphasized by scholars,30 but Cox conveyed the same impression in his denigration of those who dO not E act from prOper Christian motivation: For no zeal nor no good intent can be 1— acceptable unto God, but only that which is grounded upon faith and the knowledge of Cod.31 Cox emphasized the same idea in his notes on Romans I:14, in which St. Paul eXpressed indebtedness to Greeks and "barbarians;" for Cox explained that all those who are not Christians are heathen, the only difference among them being that some are learned while others are savages.32 Similarly, in his explanation Of the statement, "whatsoever is not Of faith is sin," Cox cited both Augustine and Origen to claim all works were bad, "what- soever they be which proceed not of a right conscience 33 and unbounded faith, grounded upon the word Of God." 29Genevan Bible, Romans IX:7. 3ONew, Anglican and Puritan, 9. He classifies Puritans as being uniquely "hard line" believers in total depravity. 31Bishops Bible, Romans Xz2. 32Ibid., 1:14. 331bid., XIV:23, 310 With this evidence in mind, the distinction Professor New makes between Anglican and Puritan theologies of man, his election by God, and the nature of man's knowledge are not in evidence in Cox's ideas as expressed in the Bishops' Bible.3“ Both Anglican and Puritan assumed a "hard line" regarding man and his abilities. Cox and Whittingham also shared a strong emphasis on the role Of sin. Cox saw it as tossing and tormenting the whole man and plucking him from good, whereby plagues and injuries are heaped on and mag liveth as he were in the midst of death. 5 Whittingham expounded in a more ordered way on the process by which evil rules man: The mind first ministreth evil motions, whereby man's will is enticed whence burst forth the lusts, by them the body is provoked, and the body by his actions doth solicit the mind: therefore he commandsgh, at least that we rule our bodies. A final example of similarity appears in a strange way, for though sixteenth-century reformers placed great empha- sis On historical-grammatical exegesis, both Cox and Whittingham relapsed into the allegorical method tradi- tionally used by medieval Catholics. The first and second verses of Romans VII Speak of man's subjection to the law 34New, 25, 28. 35Bishops' Bible, Romans V:24. 36Genevan Bible, Romans VI:12. 311 and woman's subjection to her husband, but both transla- tors interpreted the contents of the verses as an allegory Of the human race's marriage to sin.37 Whittingham's ver- sion eSpecially emphasized this approach: Both in the first marriage and in the second, the husband and the wife must be considered within ourselves. The first husband was Sin, and our death was the wife. Their children were the fruits of the flesh. In the second marriage the Spirit is the husband, the new creature is the wife, and their children are the fruits of the Spirit.38 Thus in several ways Cox's work was similar to Whitting- ham's. Both were willing to use allegorical exegesis and both shared the same theological outlook; however, some differences are apparent. In keeping with his own advice, Cox did convey texts in eXpressions which were "usual words as we English peOple be acquainted with."39 Two examples Of his more direct style are as follows: Whittingham: For I count that the afflic- tions Of this present time are not worthy . . . . Cox: For I am certainly persuaded that the afffiéctions Of this present time Whittingham: For Christ, when we were yet Of no strength, at his time, died for the ungodly. Cox: For when we were yet weak, accord- ing to tfle time, Christ died for the ungodly. 1 37Romans VII:1, 2. 38Genevan Bible, Romans Viki, 2. 39R. Cox to M. Parker, May 3, 1566, Correspondegce, 282. 40Romans VIII:18. “115-..-..“ _ 11‘. [ 312 These are only two of many examples of Cox's clearer style, but it is apparent that if the English were look- ing for a better literary version, the Bishop's Bible would have been the correct choice. However, their real aim seems to have been to be presented with a thorough system of thought, for the Genevan transla- tion far outstripped the BishopsI Bible in popularity. Aside from style, the two versions did differ on some matters Of substance. St. Paul's description of the early churches did provide both translators with points to emphasize regarding the primitive church. Cox, with his emphasis on unity, seemed particularly anxious to stress St. Paul's condemnation of those who caused church divisions: There are two marks to know the false apostles by. The one is, when they leave Christ and serve their belly. The other, when they regard no holy ScriptureuEut preach lies and their own fancies. These were precisely the charges he aimed at the Puritan party,43 and one cannot help but rank this note among those "bitter notes" which the translators were supposed to avoid. Whittingham eXplained the same verse in a dif- ferent way: Mark them diligently which cause division and offenses, contrary to the doctrine “zBishops' Bible, Romans XVI:17. 43Above, p. 271 ff. . _ _-_‘___ 313 whichuze have learned, and avoid them. This was Of course the main theme Of the Puritans in Opposing Anglican rites which they thought were "offenses and contrary to . . . doctrine." Another difference is seen in Cox's willingness to call attention to the use of women in the early church as deacons; however, Whitting- ham, in spite of the Puritan emphasis on a complete return to the church of the first century, made no comment on the same passage.45 They reversed roles on passages which described the office Of prophet in the early church. Whittingham included eXplanatory notes, in keeping with Puritan emphasis on prophesying as a necessary method of preaching. The queen, however, disliked prophesyings, and Cox simply made no comment on the same verses on which Puritans relied.L"6 'It was regarding the nature of the apostolic church that a comparison of both translators' versions of the book of Acts is also important. Little can be added to what has already been indicated as to the general similar- ities and differences between the authors, for Cox con- tinued to produce a clearer translation and to avoid including explanatory notes. He also continued to plagiar- ize entire statements made eight years earlier by Whitting- ““Cenevan Bible, Romans XVI:17. 45Romans XV:1. "6Romans XII:6, 8. 314 47 ham, and together both versions drew attention to a fac- tual error in Acts VII:16. It was necessary for some dif- ferences to appear, however, for many practices described in Acts posed a problem for Puritan thinkers. In Spite of their desire to resurrect the primitive church, Puri- tans were forced tO realize that some of that church's E‘ practices were simply not acceptable in the sixteenth century. Whittingham interpreted early Christian communism .”,). "'7 "o' as Simply ensuring a decent living to all Christians and 48 I: W»! not as a literal practice Of mass pooling Of resources. In Cox's version there is simply a recording of the fact, and commentary is lacking; however, regarding church organization Cox was willing to present an alternative view to Whittingham's. The latter writer referred to the early church's organization as consisting Of "priests, elders, and governors," even when the text he was dis- cussing merely expounded Christ's role as the head Of the 49 church. Whittingham also preferred to use the label "superintendant," while Cox insisted on using "bishop."5O In addition, Whittingham found it necessary to eXplain away the fact that St. Paul approved the early Christian practice Of shaving one's head after taking a vow. Since 47Acts VII:48; XIIzis; XV=39z XVII=7: XXVIDZ“; XXVIII:4, 6. 48Genevan Bible, Acts 11:44, 45: IV:32. 33. 49Ibid., VII:11, 12. 50Acts XXI:18. 315 he had no desire to return tO the Apostolic period, Cox accepted both examples Of head shaving as contemporary practices, and let them pass as historically conditioned; however, Whittingham explained them as customs retained from Jewish culture "partly Of ignorance and infirmity."51 For his part Cox also revealed his Anglican perSpective in a more positive way in two instances, though it must again be emphasized that it was within the Anglican per- Spective to avoid comments and conform to Parker's orders. In commenting on the centurion's saving Paul, Cox revealed the Anglican reliance on the state to sup- port the church: "God Often times approveth his magis- trates to deliver his faithful ministers from all dangers Of their enemy."52 Cox also included a harsh note when referring to St. Paul's conversation with king Agrippa: He [Agrippaj knew much, but he failed in the right application of his knowledge as they do which be wise in their own con- ceits only, and have the zeal Of God, but not according to knowledge.53 Knowing Cox's troubles with both Puritans and the govern- ment, one can clearly detect a ringing indictment Of the bishop's Opponents. Having given a few examples tO compare the Puritan with the Anglican Bible, one can conclude that the docu- 51Acts XXI:24; also see Acts XVIII:18. 5ZBishops' Bible, Acts XXI:32. 531bid., XXVI:3. 316 ments reveal important facts about their reSpective ideol- ogies. Theologically little difference is apparent, for both versions were characterized by doctrinal unity rather than diversity on such topics as man, God, and election. Regarding the nature Of the church there were some differences, mainly in that Puritans found some early church practices impossible tO implement and there- fore explained them away or simply ignored them. The greatest ideological difference revealed by both writers appears in the notes which accompanied, or failed to accompany, the work of each. Cox's outlook represented one type Of Christian humanism, a type which allowed him to leave a bare translation without directing the reader to the one correct interpretation. It also permitted him to describe the primitive church without explaining away its untransferable practices. Whittingham's type of Christian humanism had deveIOped into an entirely differ- ent approach. By surrounding scripture with extensive eXplanatory notes he was presenting a system Of thought which readers could either take or leave. In a sense the Genevan Bible epitomized a religious system in which faith was incorporated into a set Of statements. Of course such a system was exactly what Whittingham had tried to set up at Frankfurt just two years before he began working on translation. By contrast, in Cox's Anglican ideology faith was a person's commitment to simply believing,5l+ 54Musculus, 195, 206. 317 and leaving most dogmas Open to at least one or two addi- tional choices. In such a perSpective discipline was meted out according to practice more stringently than according to belief; and it was for such a view that Cox had successfully waged war on Knox, Whittingham, and their Puritan comrades during the Frankfurt troubles. In an important way, Cox revealed as much by what he did not include in his translation as Whittingham revealed by what he did include. Another important way Of documenting Anglican ideology in the 1570's is by examining Richard Cox's exchange Of ideas with the Swiss reformers, for out of this exchange came the formation Of a wide-Spread anti- Calvinist bloc. Cox described the Puritans to Gualter as "unruly men" who had "burst by their reckless attacks the barriers of law and of religion."55 The label "unruly" stemmed from the Puritans' two basic demands; namely. that the church be governed by equal ministers and that the bishops Of the Anglican church be deposed.56 In Cox's view both demands were completely uncalled for, eSpecially that which advocated the abolition Of bishoprics. He correctly maintained that the Elizabethan bishops had never zealously pursued a policy of persecu— tion: "none of the bishops interfere in any matters but 55R. Cox to R. Gualter, February 3, 1574, §.L., II. 297. 56Ib1d., 299. 318 the ministry Of the word and sacraments, except when the law requires them, or at the command Of the sovereign."57 Cox's extensive knowledge of the primitive church led him to believe that bishops had traditionally been part of the Christian ecclesiastical structure. When defending the hierarchical system in 1571 he had written, "Let the practice Of the holy church be referred tO;"58 and contem- porary scholars could not debate the truth Of his posi- tion. Both Cox and Gualter viewed the primitive church as one whose Spirit should be re-captured, but whose practices were a matter of convenience. Gualter hoped that the Puritans would think about reviving that simplic- ity Of faith and purity of morals, which formerly flourished, and not attacke the commonwealth, the ancient rights and con- stitution or which Christ does not change!59 By contrast, the same author viewed the government Of the primitive church as being historically conditioned by its hostile environment. He further saw political protection as a boon to the church: God has given kings for nursing fathers and queens for nursing mothers; who, in fine, have magistrates well affected towards religion, who are enabled to establish and maintain moral discipline with far greater authority, and conse- quently more abundant benefit, than if 57R. Cox to R. Gualter, February 3, 1574, gr;., II, 299. 58R. Cox to R. Gualter, February 12, 1571, g,;., I. 234. 59R. Gualter to R. Cox, March 16, 1574, §.;., II, 251. 1" W- 'V‘c 1 319 they appointed ten presbyteries in every church. 0 Cox would have been hard pressed to find a better defense for his idea of the church's relationship with the English government, for his actions in Ely and his role in aiding the formulation of a national religion were based on the assumption that the queen and the magistrates favored and would enforce a strong religious establishment. He there- fore had no desire to return to conditions which character- ized the apostolic church. He saw plans for such a return as a plot hatched by nobles and Puritans to reduce us to beggary, that they may bring us back to the condition of the primitigf church and the poverty of the apostles. Such a charge moved Anglican-Puritan difficulties beyond scholarly arguments and theological diSputations. Politi- cal ideology replaced religious ideas as the main topics for contention: Anglicans argued that Puritans were revolutionaries who would ultimately create a tyranny; and the Cox-Gualter correSpondence helped bolster the Anglican position. Again Gualter supplied supporting arguments, but the Puritan party had also placed itself in a precarious position. Its leaders had condoned and even produced seditious pamphlets in the past,62 a fact which was well 60R. Gualter to R. Cox, March 16, 1574, z_.;., II, 251. 61R. Cox to R. Gualter, 1576, 5;” I, 319. 62Above, p. 209 ff. 320 known to the queen. Cox had Often charged the Puritans with sedition, and had in fact gotten Knox eXpelled from Frankfurt on that claim; but with the increased pressure brought against him by nObles and the continued Puritan demand that laymen should run the church, Cox feared for the preservation Of order. Gualter supported him by E‘“ writing, ’ I greatly fear there is lying concealed under the presbytery an affection to oligarchy, which may at length degener- ate intO monarchy, or even Open tyranny.63 Gualter's argument was based on the assumption that no group of individuals ever had the right to change the constitution Of the state for only God possessed such power,64 and both correspondents believed that Calvin- ism had already produced tyranny On the Continent. In his letter tO Cox on June 9, i572 Gualter indicated that the Calvinists who had travelled through Switzerland and had elicited the anti-Anglican letter from Gualter him- self were the same men who were reSponSible for changes in the Palatinate "which have inflicted such a blow upon the churches in that quarter."65 What in fact had been established was a disciplinary system which the Puritans wanted for England. Gualter also condemned the Heidelberg 63R. Gualter to R. Cox, March 16, 1574, §.L., II, 251. 64R. Gualter to R. Cox, March 16, 1574, _z_._L_., II, 251 65R. Gualter to R. Cox, June 9, 1572, Z.L., I above,fp.268. 321 Calvinist discipline system in a letter tO Bishop Sandys. In Gualter's view, even though the system was based on a theory Of presbyterian democracy it had degenerated in Heidelberg into a "new tyranny."66 Thus the Swiss leader not only charged the Heidelberg leader, Zacharias Ursinus, with impeding Protestant unity,67 but he also cited the f“” Calvinist center at Heidelberg as a city in which, after this form Of discipline had been introduced, within the Space Of three years were exhibited such instances of 68 tyranny, as would put Romanists to Shame. Fearing ecclesiastical tyranny, both the Swiss leader and Richard Cox were entirely willing to rely on the state to enforce morality and to defend the church's independence. Richard Cox was thus important in formulating and bolstering anti-Puritanism. AS a humanist scholar he could point out the Puritans' lack of consistency, for they really could never recreate the church of the first century A.D. As a scholar he also was willing to accept the form Of religion best suited to English culture, and it was with such an aim in mind that he served faithfully on ecclesiastical commissions and as a loyal bishop. It was also as an idealistic Christian scholar that he desired a more influential role for the church in national 66R. Gualter to Bishop Sandys, October 8, 1573, §,§., I, 238. 67Above, p. 296. 68R. Gualter to R. Cox, March 1574, 9;,” II, 251. 322 life. Late in life, at the age of seventy-nine, he still complained that "the ministers Of the word" were not admitted into the Council Of Queen Elizabeth.69 It was also as an idealist that Cox hoped to apply discipline to powerful laymen as well as to clerics, but in this he was frustrated. He wrote to Gualter, We retain in some measure the moral disci- pline which you make mention of in your letter, but Should anyone seek to compel our great men to submit their necks to it, it would be much the same as Shaving a lion's beard.70 Such "Shaving" became completely impossible because of the queen's own policy Of keeping bishops in line, and this turned Cox into a cynical as well as a faithful bishop. The great difference which is easily identified between Anglican and Puritan was also characteristic of Queen Elizabeth's ideas when compared with the Anglican idealism of Richard Cox. While he conceived of the good society as one which received moral direction from well- educated Christian clerics, the queen saw herself as being God-appointed and therefore the ultimate human source Of truth. The royal outlook was nicely captured in the govern- ment's edition Of binding penal statutes which appeared in 1581. The work was edited by Ferdinando Pultion, and his introduction captured the royal outlook: 69R. Cox to R. Gualter, February 26, 1579, 4;... II. 329. 70R. Cox to R. Gualter, July 12, 1574, '_2_;_._L_., I, 306. 323 SO that our worthy Princes have played the parts Of God's good Lieutenants in these their regions, they have layed a foundation Of all their statutes and decrees, the word, and everlasting Tes- tament Of the Almighty . . . .71 Having conceived Of herself as diSpensing "the everlast- ing testament Of the Almighty," Elizabeth eXpected come plete Obedience from her bishops. Thus her policies Of eXprOpriating their prOperty and of expecting them to serve secular governmental ends and strictly to enforce E 3 her religious policies, however contradictory they were, were consistent with her vision of her function. The total effect of her policies on churchmen was Often demoralizing to say the least. Archbishop Parker, for example, reSponded in a deSpondent way by writing, "we be the stiles over which men will soonest leap over."72 BiShOp Cox had made some feeble attempts to block the queen in 1560, but his only success came in administer- ing his own diocese as he saw fit--in Spite Of royal will. But the frustration Cox experienced did find eXpression in his poetry, poetry which conveyed an image Of the queen which was much different than most contem- porary popular and nationalistic views. Cox's poem, "My Derling Dere," is so obviously an attack on the queen 71Ferdinand Pultion, ed., An Abstract 2:.All the Penal Statutes (London, 1581). 72M. Parker to W. Cecil, April 7, 1565, Correspon- dence, 237. 324 that it is a wonder the message has been missed by the editor Of Cox's poetry, James Goodwin. Goodwin simply passes the poem Off by stating that "the meaning . . . is not very clear;"73 however, the poem clearly damns Queen Elizabeth as an intruder into ecclesiastical matters. This was eSpeCially true regarding the queen's attack on Cox's prOperty, which attack left him econom- ically dependent upon the state: Hy dere She putteth me to great charge, She must have maners and parkes at large. Wold Christe I had her neuer known hy dere beloued hath me downe throne. Hy derlyng dere long haue I sowght; Lost is my labour, she ys clere nought. My goods, my woods, my landes, my rent, Ry dere to pleas all haue I Spent. Yet is She enemye euer to me; O derlyinge dere, what eygfith the? My derling dere . . . . These lines are allusions to the economic troubles which had plagued Cox from 1559 until his death, and he Obvi- ously held the queen reSponsible for his difficulties. However, he also went on to attack the queen's character: Hy dere is Of a skyttysh brayne; Nowght can hold her, nor rowgh, nor playne. I me repent that euer I came Into thy company, O deere dame. My derlyng dere . . . . 73J. Goodwin, "Introduction," Ballads, 9. 74R. Cox, "My Derlyng Dere," Ballads, 9, 10. 325 Dame, damage great thou hast me erWght; My dere, thow art to derelye bowght. Nowght hast thou dere, but they dere skynne, Dere fayre withowt, dere fowle withynne. My derelyng dere . . . . Though in his public acts and his correSpondence Cox held up the facade of complete loyalty and dedication to the queen, underneath beat the heart Of an Anglican idealist. AS such an idealist Cox had envisioned an independent church as well as one which was reformed and uniquely English, but Elizabeth's policies clearly militated against such a goal Of independence. Though Cox was beaten into conformity, he saw the queen as "fair without and foul within;" but he had no way to work toward his own aims than tO apply them in his role as an administrator. AS seen in this study Of Richard Cox, what he conformed to were political realities; what he institutionalized were his ideals as a Christian humanist. CONCLUSION Richard Cox's ideals as a Christian humanist had their origins in Renaissance learning as adOpted by Christian reformers in the Sixteenth century, and these ideals were relevant to all phases of life. On the level Of scholarship they meant thorough training in original classical languages and in classical culture. In religion they meant the desire to reform the Catholic church by returning to the pure Christianity possessed by the earliest Christian churches. In secular life the new idealism meant social concern for the indigent and reli- ance on the state tO provide justice. As an Anglican idealist Richard Cox was an acitve participant on each Of these levels. His concern for solid scholarship was in evidence early in his life as a schoolmaster and grammarian, but it was also apparent as he neared death. At Eton, as tutor to Prince Edward, and as Chancellor Of Oxford Uni- versity Cox had attempted to institutionalize sound scholarship; and this had placed him in the unique posi- tion, at least during the Reformation, Of being a unifier. Because Of the common bond Of scholarship he could feel at home with Calvinists, Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Catholics, he was Often called on as a reconciler. As 326 5 4h. Winn-.2? . ' 327 the religious positions of the century hardened, however, Cox was in reality disliked more than appreciated. Dur- ing his career each group could find reasons for Opposing Cox's activities and Opinions. It was only with the Zwinglians that he maintained a close formal relationship, for Rudolph Gualter and Heinrich Bullinger were compatriots ”MB to Cox in both scholarly interests and religious opinions. With Cox they Shared an important acceptance Of many Of the ideas Of Zwingli, Bucer, and Calvin. With.Zwingli and Bucer, Cox was always willing to leave the question Of sacraments Open to debate. With Bucer and Calvin, Cox placed great emphasis on Christian living as the standard for religious discipline. That Cox's scholarship as a theologian came close to the basic position Of John Calvin is Significant, for it is a point which contemporaries admitted, but which historians have interpreted quite dif- ferently. Some have minimized the difference in order to impute economic or political causation to Reformation religion. Others have attempted to find basic differences on the level Of doctrines. The evidence provided by Cox's life and ideas, however, shifts attention to another point: that there was a common scholarly bond which united the reformers who were trained in the methods Of humanist scholarship. This training evoked a common challenge to Catholic- ism, a challenge with which many Catholic leaders were 328 sympathetic; however, critical divisions occurred when the reformers were forced to create positive statements as to just what should replace the traditional church. Cox's Catholic friend, Cassander, Obviously wanted reform on the basis Of the criticism levelled by idealis- tic scholars, but he was willing to work within existing institutions. Cox's Puritan Opponents were motivated by the same kind Of idealism, but applied their scholarship with the aim Of re-establishing first—century institutions. The Puritan demands were not negotiable since they were imputed to pure biblical scholarship, and they included as their most important themes presbyterian organization with its emphasis on lay leadership, the necessity Of allowing prOphesying, and the abolition Of Anglican rites and ceremonies. The constant effort to achieve these ends has been labelled by Professor M.M. Knappen as "A Chapter in the History Of Idealism," and that it was; but it does not follow that Anglicanism owed its origins to politigue compromises. As a Spokesman for and originator Of Anglicanism as a particular religious outlook Richard Cox was an idealist in his own right. His idealism had its origin in the same scholarly training possessed by both Puritans and Catholics, but it advanced to different conclusions. Richard Cox's religious ideology was based on the belief that religious eXpression originated in contempor- __H-JL '1‘”- ' - r OW.‘ “‘ 329 ary conditions even though religious belief was based on eternal truth. Thus one will look in vain for doctrinal distinctions between his Anglicanism and the doctrines pr0pounded by Puritans. Their basic differences came in terms Of consistency with the points Of view assimilated from the great scholars of the Sixteenth century, and was E“ based on different deductions from Christian humanistic scholarship. With his great emphasis on thorough scholar- ship, Cox's idealism naturally Opposed Puritan confidence Tjfi rJ— —" _——_ “ in laymen and reliance on prOphesying as the correct means of preaching. To Cox, reliance on lay leadership epito- mized a sell-out to selfish, intellectually inferior indi- viduals; and the use Of prOphesyingS was Simply a device to avoid undergoing the harsh discipline required for becoming a sound scholar. It was as a scholar that Cox also found it necessary to reject Puritan ideals regard- ing the early church. In his view Anglicanism did re- capture the Spirit Of early Christianity; and the fact that English Christianity found it profitable to estab- lish bishops, use surplices, and rely on Prayer Books and homilies was a matter of its own freedom Of choice. Puritans could not really eXpect to return to the first century, and Cox could not fathom their insistence on applying standards tO Anglicanism which they failed to apply to themselves. In his translations of Romans and Acts, Cox could therefore treat the early church differ- 330 ently from the way Whittingham did. In Cox's view what was ideal for an Anglican's religion would necessarily differ from other Christians, and in his acceptance of the adiaphora idea he was in a way more consistent than Puritans. Cox was closer to the ideology founded by Zwingli and eXpanded upon by Bucer and Calvin. As soon as he accepted the adiaphora theory, the Sixteenth-century scholar found himself in the chaos which accompanied any acceptance of relativism. In the case of Cox's ideal for Anglicanism it involved deciding i just how far he could go in accepting England's culture as being properly Christian. Early in his life Cox had pointed out the injustices performed against the poor, and he continued to demonstrate this concern as an Anglican leader; however, early in life he also accepted the idea that he should be obedient to political power. This subservience was not characteristic of Puritan leaders, but it clearly was compatible with the princi- ples eSpoused by John Calvin. Regarding politics, Richard Cox was closer to Calvin than later Calvinists, for they advanced theories Of revolution which the Genevan leader never condoned. This fact was used by Cox to condemn Puritans as revolutionaries, but it also gave Cox and Continental leaders another basis for attacking contemporary Calvinists. Both Cox and Rudolph Gualter excoriated Puritanism as a sectarian movement 331 which would produce tyranny, and as an example they cited Calvinist practices in the Palatinate. In reacting to "tyrannical" Calvinism, Cox, along with many Continental reformers, fell back on other ideas. First, they empha- sized religious discipline based on works rather than on ideas. This was nothing new. It was in fact based on Christian humanists' concern for social injustices. Bucer and Calvin had emphasized this kind of discipline, and Cox advanced it throughout his life. It is apparent in his plans for the correct use of property appropriated , by Henry VIII; it appeared in his complaints against both Edwardian and Elizabethan lay leaders, and it was present in his "Injunctions" for the diocese Of Ely. The impor- tant point of emphasis is that Puritan discipline was no more idealistic than Cox's. Though Puritans emphasized discipline on the basis of dogmas, and worked out a thorough, closed ideology, Cox's Anglicanism emphasized discipline on the basis of living. The Puritan solution was more conducive to clarity and was easier to enforce, but that does not make Anglican ideology the product Of expediency. Recognizing Cox's theory and attempted application of discipline, one cannot help but view the Puritan attacks on Anglican practices as being in large part groundless. Both relied on the same basic ideology, but came to quite different conclusions. Secondly, Anglicans were forced to develOp a means 332 of enforcement as an alternative to Puritan aggressive- ness; and here Cox's ideology came into direct conflict with Queen Elizabeth's. Earlier Tudor rulers had found ways to cope with Reformation programs for change. Henry VIII had made Protestant radicals part of the estab- lished authority, to the extent of giving them high posts ‘m»w in education and even allowing his only legitimate son to F be educated by religious radicals. Edward VI adOpted the ideals Of the Protestants, a fact which caused much trouble during his brief reign. In Queen Elizabeth, however, Richard Cox met head on with a willful, self-contradictory ruler who was continually treading a narrow line between her own ambitions and the harsh realities of domestic and foreign politics. Cox failed to appreciate the queen's problems; and She reciprocated by declining to accept his ideal of an independent church which would give moral direction to the secular power. Queen Elizabeth, claim- ing divine right powers, insisted on enforcing her opinions and in the process defeated the independence which Cox idealized. In a broader perSpective than contemporary diSputes with the queen, Cox's career and ideas represent the political defeat which came to characterize Anglican- ism two centuries later, but Cox himself cannot be absolved from blame. He condoned an ideology which per- mitted defining religion in cultural terms, and his belief in political subservience contributed to making Anglicanism 333 withdraw from social relevance into religious concern only. In Short, though he would have objected to such a generalization, he contributed to making Anglicanism just another arm of the English state. Having made such a damning generalization, one must necessarily qualify it by pointing out that in practice Richard Cox did try to save Anglicanism from such a fate. His prime practical role was that of institutionalizing his Christian ideals, which included secular and religious aims based on Christian humanism. His secular goals were a failure, and he retreated into cynicism against all who lacked his determination to keep the church pure by keeping its leaders well educated and by forcing its members to live according to Christian precepts. In failing he formed a deep dislike for Puritans, wealthy laymen, and Queen Elizabeth herself. By contrast to secular failures, Richard Cox's religious role was important in establishing Sixteenth-century Anglicanism. His ideas were in part so successfully carried on by John Whitgift and Richard Bancroft, both of whom owed early promotions to the bishop, that Puritan- ism was suppressed. Cox was also important in a positive way in directing the creation of a branch of Christianity which was both uniquely English and also reformed. In his long life Richard Cox came into contact with and was responsible for institutionalizing Renaissance and 334 Reformation ideals. Thus his intellectual deve10pment is replete with examples of contacts with great thinkers and great issues. As a scholar he accepted the critique established by Erasmus. As a reformer he revered the ideas of great Protestant leaders such as Zwingli, Calvin, and eSpecially Martin Bucer. As a church leader he found it necessary to work toward preserving some kind of independence for his church and still ensure its unique- ness as an English institution. Taken together these factors are part of the ideology formulated and advanced by one of the first Anglican idealists. But Richard Cox also had a unique opportunity for institutionalizing these ideals. In each of his successive roles--school- master, chancellor, exilic leader, and bishop--Cox had Opportunities to establish his ideals as an administrator. Besides demonstrating the complexities of Anglican ideology and the framework of ideas which differentiated it from both Puritan thought and governmental policies, Cox's career also demonstrated a certain continuity for the English Reformation. The basic patterns for changing England's religion from Catholic to Anglican were consis- tent from Henry VIII to Queen Elizabeth. Royal supremacy, canon law, ecclesiastical commissions, and proper relig- ious formulae were the constant problems within which individuals were forced to work; and the rather uniform background of Christian humanism contributed to a general 335 consistency in the solutions advanced by religious leaders. Richard Cox's importance lay in helping to formulate and institutionalize those ideals in an effective way as well as in revealing the intellectual framework of Anglicanism. His successes and failures can be judged on the basis of any number of perSpectives; but the framework within which he worked and which he passed on was clearly that of religious idealism as filtered through one form of Christian humanism. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY Sources for reconstructing the life and ideas of Richard Cox are to be found in English public records and (ya also in the many documents published during the Anglican N controversies of the nineteenth century. In this latter category are the three separate series of letters gathered E from the Zurich Archives: The Zurich Letters, Hastings Robinson, ed. (Cambridge, 1842); The Zurich Letters (second series), J. Robinson, ed. (Cambridge, 18h6); and the Original Letters Relative tgithg English Refgrmation, Written During the Reigns 2£.§l25.§2231.yllln Ring Edward K; gnd'guggn.fl§£y_(Cambridge, 1846). These collections are eSpecially important for Cox's intellectual biography, for they firmly establish his connections with Zwinglian theologians. Cox's correSpondence with Rudolph Gualter is particularly useful in distinguishing between Anglican and Puritan ideologies. Also of importance for Cox's corres- pondence is Matthew Parker's Correspondence, J. Bruce, ed. (Cambridge, 1853), for these letters reveal Anglican troubles when the prelates were confronted by both Queen Elizabeth and the Puritans. Three documentary sources edited by Edward Cardwell are important for providing major insights into the continuity of problems and solu- tions in which Cox was involved: The Reformation 23 the 336 337 Ecclesiastical Lg g 2§.Attempted. n 222 Reigns 2£H§$EE H§n£y_EIII, King Edward 22, and gEggg Elizabeth (Oxford, 1850), which contains the text of Reformatio Ecclesisti- carium.;£gum; Documentary.Annals 2£_£h§ Church g£_England, EEEEE.E Collection 2: Injunctions, Declarations, Orders, Articles 2: Inquiry, 223., 2 vols. (Oxford, 18h9); and.A History 2; Conferences and gthgglProceedings Connected 3232.222 Revision 23 £22M§225.2£ Common Prayer (Oxford, 1849). Two authors are eSpecially important for passing on many Reformation documents: Gilbert Burnet, and John Strype. Burnet's The History 22.3hg_Reformation 23 Egg Church 2: England, 6 vol. (London, 1825, 3.1679) presents an undoubtedly Protestant bias, but he has also preserved a Collection 2; Records and thus saved many documents which might otherwise have been lost. In addition, he has provided the central thesis for'Professor G.R. Elton's England 32923.222 Tudors (London, 1956) regarding Henry VIII's role, or lack of one. John Strype's Eggkg (Oxford, 1822) have provided a whipping boy for modern historians, for Strype's perSpective was also Protestant. However, all of his works are characterized by the inclusion of extensive numbers of documents, including many which are highly important for any study of Richard Cox. Letters by and to Cox which reveal many contemporary problems are eSpecially plentiful in Strype's Ecclesiastical Memorials, 6 vokL.(Oxford, 182d, c 172h-25), which is a survey of the 338 early Reformation, though the same generalization must be applied to Strype's Annals 2£_§h§_Reformatign, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1824, c 1724-25), which is a thorough account of the progress of the Elizabethan phase of the Reformation. Public records also provide sources of information for the entire span of Cox's long life. 22g23_§gy§;;§£gg- f ‘‘‘‘‘‘ lamations: 222.§2£ll Tudors, Paul L. Hughes and James F. a Larkin, eds.. (New Haven and London, 1964), is an eSpecially important work, for it, for the first time, gathers the royal proclamations in an ordered way. It also gives .L-’ insight into royalty's deep involvement in religious affairs. Along with Cardwell's works, the Proclamationg provide the most comprehensive insights into the contin- uity of Tudor policies. Th2 Statutes g£_th£_§§ggm, A. Luders, 22 al., eds.. 11 vols. (London, 1810-28) is the major source for tracing Parliament's religious policy; however, several other public records reveal the more mechanical aSpects of governmental policies. The Acts of t_h_e_ My Council 9_f_'_ England,-J.R‘. Dasent, e_’_c_ _a_)”, eds.. 32 vols. (London, 1890-1907), is useful in identifying Cox's role in the Edwardian period, particularly in his post as almoner to the king and Chancellor of Oxford; and though Cox was not eSpecially prominent in King Henry VIII's rule, he does appear in the standard official sources of that reign: Letters Eng;Papers, Foreign and, Domestic. 21‘. .1022 £252 2!. 1:21.22 17.12. J- Brewer. 21:. an 339 eds.,21 vols. (London, 1900-1920), which is useful for tracing Cox's rise at court and as a recipient of royal favors; §£g£g_Papers, g2§§1_y;;;, R. Lemon, ed., 11 vols (London, 1830-52). Robert Lemon also provides important information in his Calendar 22 Sggtg Papers, Domestic Series, gg’ggg Reigns 2; Edward.yl, 1331, Elizabeth (London, 1856). Cox's role in domestic affairs is reflected in the volumes based on patent role entries: Calendar 22_ Patent Rolls, Philip and Mary, A.E. Stamp, ed., 4 vols. (London. 1937) and Calendar 9; Patent Rolls, Elizabeth, 5 vols. (London, 1939). Cox is referred to only once in foreign state papers, in the Venetian Stgtg Papers, R. Brown and G. Bentinck, eds.. vol. VII (London, 1890): but the reference is important, for it is Schifanoya's account of Cox's sermon to the Opening Parliament of Queen Eliza- beth's reign, a sermon which lasted an hour and a half "the peers standing all the time." Before moving to Specific phases of Cox's life, it is necessary to cite two sources upon which most of the above public and pri- vate documentary sources rely: Concilia Magnae Britaniae gngiberniae, P. Wilkins, ed. 4 vols. (London, 1732—37); and Foedera, convetiones, literae 32 cuiuscumque generis acta publica, T. Rymer,_§t_§l., eds.. 20 vols. (London, 1703-35). Without these basic collection of documents little could be written about the ecclesiastical history of England. 340 Though no full biography of Cox has been written, sources of information are to be found in several primary as well as secondary sources. A laudatory account of Cox is found in Thomas Fuller's seventeenth-century 222 History 2; Worthies 2; England (1662), and to his favor- able account can be added the standard biographical source of information about English clerics, J. LeNeve, Egggg Eccleiae Anglicanae, 23.§ Calendar g£_§Q3_Principle Ecclesiastical Dignitaries lg England and Wales, and the TN gpggg Officers lg_thg University 2: Oxford.§gg Cambridge, T. Hardy, ed., 3 vols. (Oxford, 1854). General informa- tion about Cox's career is also contained in two eighteenth- century works: S. Downes, 222 Lézgg 22 Egg Compilers 22 3Q3.Prayer B225 (London, 1772), and J. Bentham, é Catalogue 23 the Principal Members 3: the Conventual and Cathedral Church 2£_§ly (Cambridge, 1756). The most complete source of biographical information and bibliographical direction is Charles COOper's study of the lives of Cambridge leaders, Athenae Cantabrigienses, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1858-1861). By contrast to COOper's favorable account, Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxoniense, Philip Bliss, ed., 5 vols. (London, 1813-20) has passed on a portrayal of Cox as a greedy landlord and cantankerous cleric. Wood's perSpective as a seventeenth-century Catholic is biased, but his work is the basis of most every account of Oxford's Reformation eXperience. Since Cox was Oxford's Edwardian Chancellor, 341 he naturally has been the object of Wood's attacks. A final source, which bases much of its information on docu- ments and points of view provided in the above works, is F.O. White's _L_iy_e_s_ _o£ £113 Elizabethan BiShOps 2; 3313 Anglican Church (London, 1898). A much similar approach is to be found in the standard source of British biographies, Th§_Dictiona£y_g£_National Biography, vol. XII (London, 1885). Taken together, all these biographical accounts give both biographical and bibliographical information, ‘1»: f“: Qua“: “.“fll- but studies of Specific phases of the English Renaissance and Reformation demonstrate the complex issues of the period. Some of the many surveys of the Tudor period do provide interpretations of Cox's performance as an educa- tional and religious leader. Thomas Fuller's Church History 23 Britain, vol. II (London, 1834, c 1655, 1659), is one of the first attempts to save Cox's reputation from traditional attacks by both Puritans and Catholics, and a nineteenth-century account which contains details useful for tracing Cox's various roles is B.W. Dixon's History 2£.222 Church 2: England, vol. 2 (London, 1881). In con- trast to these favorable accounts is James Gairdner's Th2 English Church Ag Egg Sixteenth Century £32m 2E2 Accession 23.322E1.Xl£l to the Death of Hazy (London, 1924). John Foxe's Acts and Monumentg, vols. 5, 6, 7, 8 (Lendon, 1837- 41), is a useful sixteenth-century source. Though he has 342 a Protestant bias, Foxe's veracity in reporting events is useful; and in Cox's case it is eSpecially useful for an account of the trial of BiShOp Gardiner as well as of the beginning of the Marian exile. For the Prayer-Book con- troversies, F. Proctor and W. Frere, é:§2fl History EEHEEE E22§.2£ Common Prayer (London, 1949), give many insights into foreign influences on English religious formulae; and an older work which is of similar character is J.T. Tom- t linson's The Prayer Book Articles and Homilies (London, 1897). Regarding another important theme, the problem of ;W:‘ defining the nature of the eucharist, C.W. Dugmore, 222 gggg‘ggg Egg English Reformers (London, 1958), identifies the influence of the Consensus Tigurinus, the Bullinger- Calvin eucharistic agreement. A.third problem which plagued the English church was that of the canon law, for it was basic to the church-state relationship as well as church discipline. In addition to the work of Burnet, Cardwell, and Foxe on this subject, a book produced by the ArchbishOp's Commission, _T_1_'_1_e_ gm _I_._a_w_ 93 .1113 Church g£_England (London, 1947), has proved useful. A study of the Henrician period is important for Cox's career, but it also has provided problems for his- torians because royal practices were continually changing. Some scholars have therefore given Special attention to the period. H. Maynard Smith's EEEEI.X£ZI.§E§.EEE.E2223“ mation (New York, 1948) is an important treatment of the 343 relationships between the king and the church. Along with Burnet and Elton, some historians have attributed the king's policies to incompetence, Machiavellianism, or lack of direction. L.B. Smith, "Henry VIII and the Protestant Triumph," American Historical Review, LXXX (July, 1966), attributes to the king a conservatism tempered only by .- 'i a» foreign policy considerations: and J.J. Scarisbrick, Henry VIII (Berkeley, 1968), follows the Burnet-Elton theme that the king simply did not control his own relig- ious policies. By contrast, A.G. Dickens, in Th2 English is Reformation (London, 1964) and Thomas Cromwell'ggdwghg English Reformation (London, 1959), has been willing to see a significant intrusion of Protestant religious thought into royal policy, eSpecially when it came time for Henry VIII to choose tutors for his son. The exact nature of Henrician religion is a problem which has stimulated the study of both Catholic and Protestant parties. In his nggg Prelates Eng Politics (Princeton, 1953), L.B. Smith demonstrates the Catholic prelates' brand of social conservatism, and James Muller's works on Stephen Gardiner, Stephen Gardiner E29.EEE.EEE2£.§2§2? £$gg_(London, 1926) and‘ghg Letters 22 Stephen Gardiner (Cambridge, 1933), provide information relevant to seeing the difference between Gardiner's ideas and role as com- pared to Cox's. The most thorough treatment of Lutheran impact on the Henrician regime is by Neelak Tjernagel, 344 m ELI _a_n_d _t_h_§ Lutherans, A; _S_§1_1c_1_y _ig A_r_15_l_g-Lutheran Relations £522:l23lfi£2&2 (St. Louis, 1965). This work also supplies the important and often neglected Thirteen Articles of 1538. The standard survey of Protestant radi- calism, J. Gairdner's Lollardy'gggpygg_Reformation‘gg England (London, 1908), is important for identifying Cox's f anti-radical activities, even though Gairdner does make ; some factual errors. Since this thesis is a study of Cox i as an institutionalizer of ideas, the most useful work on the early Tudors from the point of view of explaining Christian humanism among them is by James McConica, English Humanists gnQ.Reformation Politics (Oxford, 1965). McConica's work goes far to demonstrate that being a Renaissance humanist did not divorce one from Christian- ity, a point often neglected by historians. In discovering Cox's role during the reign of Edward VI, several primary sources exist which convey the nature of Edwardian rule. Prince Edward's dependence on Cox is demonstrated in the many letters preserved in the Literary Rgmains 2£_§ggg Edward.yl, J. Nichols, ed., 2 vols. (London, 1867). The same work contains Edward's Journal, which documents Cox's official role. The Journal can also be found in Burnet's Collection and in W.K. Jordan's edition of the prince's Chronicle and.PaperS (Ithaca, 1966), a work which includes critical notes and some incorrect information about Cox's life. An incomplete 345 but significant understanding of the young king's support of humanists is found in "The Household Book of Edward VI," Trevelvan Papers 23323.22.§,D. £558, J. Collier, ed. (London, 1857). Additional works which document Cox's activity during the reign and at the beginning of Queen Mary's rule are the following: Henry Machyn, Elegy, J. Nichols, ed. (London, 1848); Charles Wriothesley, Chronicle, W. Hamilton, ed. (London, 1875): and a Chronicle 2£_Qgggg Nichols, ed. (London, 1850): Edward VI, §_Message £2.t§§ Rebels gngevonshire (1549). The only major secondary work, beside the usual surveys already mentioned, is by Hester Chapman, T§§_£§§£.ng2£'§l g (New York, 1959). Its value lies in the fact that secondary works on Edward VI are lacking rather than its being a satisfactory analysis of Edwardian rule. During the successive monarchies of Henry VIII and Edward VI, Richard Cox's development was characterized by a deep attachment to humanistic scholarship. A background for understanding the social implications of Christian humanism is found in W. Gordon Zeeveld's Foundations 2: Egggg Policy (Cambridge, 1948), and in the work by Fritz (Chicago, 1959); and for an eXplanation of the ideology of the Northern Renaissance into England, C.H. Herford, Studies $3 the Literary Relations 2£_England and Germany 'n'J'II.’ - ,h. :.. - , .O'. -- ‘ _As t m" 346 lg the Sixteenth Centugy (Cambridge, 1886), provides many insights. Primary sources for this aSpect of Cox's life and ideas are to be found in the pamphlets and texts pro- duced by Renaissance leaders. Most important is Petrus Mosellanus' Paedologia, R. Seybolt, trans. (Urbana, 1927), which demonstrates Cox's use of the dialogue method of teaching and his adoption of many contemporary radical ideas. Important use was made of the works of several t other contemporaries, including John DeSpauter Ninivitae, éEElE Versificationiae (1631, c. 23. 1518); William Lily, ; é Shorte Introduction 32 Grammar, V.J. Flynn, ed. (New York, 1945); and Erasmus, 22 Duplici ggpgg Verborum'gg Egygg (1512) and Libellus g£_Conscribindis Epistolis (1521). Erasmus was important for proclaiming the necessity of "liberal learning," a theme adopted by Cox: Erasmus, 22 Civilitate figyggggggyi, Robert Whitinton, trans. (1530). Cox's influence in establishing the ideas pr0pounded in the above pamphlets is seen in the contemporary accounts of Roger Ascham, Egg Schoolmaster, L. Ryan, ed. (Ithaca, 1967), and also in the Royal Grammar, A Shorte Introduction 2: Grammar and Breuissima institutign_grammatices coggos— cendae (1540, 1542). The origin of this latter work is discussed in C.G. Allen, "The Sources of 'Lily's Latin Grammar': A Review of the Facts and Some Further Sugges- tions,"l2§g Library, fifth series, X (1954). In addition to accepting and helping to deve10p the ideas develOped 347 in the above works, Cox went on to introduce them into England's most prestigious schools. Cox's career began at Cambridge University, and the traditional history of that university by Charles COOper, Annals 2; Cambridge, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1843), is still useful, eSpecially because it includes many significant primary sources. Cambridge's constitutional structure is best revealed in James Heywood's ggllection 22 Statutes £2£_E§g University 23 Cambridge (London, 1840); but the student who wishes to identify policies more closely should consult the university's grace books: EggggIngg'Qgigg, J. Venn ed., (Cambridge, 1910) and g33g£_§225,2n§§g (Cambridge, 1908). Cox's role as both a student at and head of Eton school is reflected in several works relevant to that institution. The basic sources for identifying Eton alumni are by Sir Wasey Sterry, Egg E223 Collegg Register, gflflgrgégg (Eton, 1948), and Thomas Harwood, Alumni Etonenses (Birmingham, 1797). Historians whose works are useful in surveying Eton's history are H.C.M. Lyte, g History 22 E292 College (London, 1875), and Wasey Sterry, Annals 2§_King's College gz‘ggglgggy g: Eggg_Beside Windsor (London, 1898). Cox's role as head of Eton is described in the survey litera- ture, but his importance as an innovator can only be seen by analyzing Cox's own description of Eton's curriculum. This document is found in several places, but can be most 348 conveniently read in Arthur Leach's Educational Charters and Documents (Cambridge, 1911). Leach's Egglish School's 23 the Reformation (London, 1896), can be used as a back- ground study for Tudor elementary education, but it is over-shadowed by Joan Simon's Education.§gg Society 23 22gg£_Eggland (Cambridge, 1966). Miss Simon uses Leach's I documents, but avoids his conclusions. A second educa- tional foundation with which Cox was associated was Westminster Abbey. His role there is described by A.P. Stanley, Historical Memorials 2: Westminster gppgy (London, er 1886), but greater importance in explaining Cox's role as dean is W. Combe's [13132 History 23 3:13 gym Church 23 gt. Peter's Westminster, l£§_Antiniti s 2E9 Monuments, 2 vols. (London, 1812). Cox played significant roles at Eton and Westminster after being educated at Cambridge; however, it was at Oxford that he received his greatest fame (or infamy) as an educator. The major source used by all historians of Oxford and its colleges is the work of Anthony Wood, a seventeenth- century author who has left a biographical account of all of Oxford's leaders, a record of the university's history, and a record of occurrences within each college: .A. Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, §§.§ggg§ History 9: Ell.222 Writers in}; BiShOps 11112 hgyg _1'_1_a_d_ M Education in 3113 University 9.1:. .....erord- 22 M 2.22 Adm .1222 Egan. 2.1:. A____nna1s 2:. 2.12 said University, Philip Bliss ed. (London, 1813, c 1691, 349 1692), contains three volumes of "lives" and two of "Eggfil." {Also in the style of "annals" are Wood's, 222 History Egg.Antiquiti§§_g§I§Qg Universi§y_2£,0xford, J. Gutch, trans. (Oxford, 1792); and Gutch has edited Wood's Egg History §gg_Antiqgities 2; Egg Colleges gpg‘ggggg'ig £22 University.g§ Oxford, J. Gutch, ed. (Oxford, 1786, Eufl c 1668), which contains lists of appointments during Cox's administration. For understanding Wood's bias, one must read his sources, the most revealing of which is by Peter Frarin, fig Oration ggainst the Unlawful h Insurrections g: the Protestants gg'Our Time under Pre- Egggg‘gg Reform Rgligiqn_(Antwerp, 1566). The standard modern accounts of Oxford's history which are also use- ful in outlining Cox's education and administration are by C.E. Mallet, A History _9_f_ 3113 University 23 Oxford, 2 vols. (New York, 1924), and H.C.M. Lyte, §;History 22 £133 Universi_ty p_f_'_ Oxford 2291. .t_l'_1_e_ Earliest 2.132% 1:2 311:; 2333‘;239 (London, 1886). For identifying Cox's contem- poraries at Oxford one can profitably use C.W. Boase's Register 22.3Q2 University‘gg Oxford (Oxford, 1885), and for some explanation of Cox's power as chancellor the most useful work is ég M 132 _W_i_l.2_l._s_ Proved $13 _thg _C_o_u_:_r_t_ 221322 Chancellor 2£.§Q§_University'g£ Oxford,J. Griffiths, ed. (Oxford, 1862). For Cox's role within Oxford's colleges, one must consult the various college histories.1 1A more complete list of college histories is found in the "Additional Bibliography," which has been appended below. 350 Cox's important role as head of Christ Church College is described by H.L. Thompson, Christ Church (London, 1900); and his relations with other important colleges are most thoroughly portrayed in R.S. Stanier's Magdalen School (Oxford, 1940); H.A. Wilson, Magdalen Collegg (London, 1899); and B.W. Henderson, Merton College (London, 1899). WE Cox's pro-Protestant administration regarding Magdalen ’ is best seen in his appointment policies there, policies which are recorded in W.D. Macray's é;Register 23 the Members 2£_§£, ngy Magdalen Collegg, Oxford, W.D. Macray, L; ed., 4 vols. (London, 1894). As an administrator at Oxford, Cox revealed his ecumenical.Protestantism, but it was also during the Edwardian period that his attachment to