UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The Family of Love and the Church of England Konnert, Mark 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A8 K66.pdf [ 5.62MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095783.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095783-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095783-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095783-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095783-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095783-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095783-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095783-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095783.ris

Full Text

THE FAMILY OF LOVE AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND MARK WILLIAM KONNERT B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1979 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF THE F A C U L T Y OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of History) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1983 (c7) Mark William Konnert, 1983 By MASTER OF ARTS in I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I agree t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by t h e head o f my department o r by h i s o r h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f History The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouve r , Canada V6T 1Y3 Date August 1 1 , 1 9 8 3 JE-6 (3/81) - i i -ABSTRACT The Fami ly of Love was a sixteenth-century myst ica l sect . It was founded by Hendrik N ic laes , a Low German mercer , better known by his pseudonym " H . N . " . The standard histor ical view has maintained that while Nic laes did at t ract a fol lowing in the Low Countr ies, the Fami ly of Love had its greatest impact in England. This view is based primari ly on the large amount of hostile attention which the sect a t t rac ted, both in the form of polemical l i terature and o f f ic ia l repression, culminat ing in a Roya l Proclamat ion against i t in October, 1580. It is the contention of this thesis that the standard histor ical view of the Fami ly of Love is based on a misapprehension, that the amount of hostile attention which the sect at t racted in England is not a rel iable indicator of the sect's fortunes. The f irst chapter gives the necessary background on H.N.'s l i fe and ideas. It then goes on to examine the histor ical l i terature on the Fami ly of Love , showing how contemporary perceptions of the sect as a real and imminent threat have persisted to the present day. This has occurred because the Fami ly of Love has been used as a pawn in ideological batt les, either to demonstrate the excesses of religious fanat ic ism, or to c la im the Fami ly of Love as a predecessor of a modern denomination, especial ly the Quakers. The second chapter examines the sources for the history of the Fami ly of Love in England. It is shown that the standard histor ical view is an opt ical i l lusion based on a smal l core of t ruth: the fac t that there actual ly were smal l groups of the Fami ly of Love in Cambridgeshire and in London. This smal l core of truth has been distorted by a number of factors , producing the standard histor ical v iew. - i i i -The third chapter examines the three works which lie at the core of contemporary and historiographical perceptions of the Fami ly of Love: John Knewstubb's A Confutat ion of Monstrous Heresies taught by H.N. (1579); John Rogers' The Displaying of an horrible Secte of grosse and wicked Heretiques . . . (1578); and Wi l l iam Wilkinson's A Confutat ion of Cer ta ine Ar t i c les del ivered unto  the Fami ly of Love (1579). Vir tual ly every charge and accusation against the Fami ly of Love arises from one or more of these works. By looking at these men and their works, al ternat ive explanations are advanced both for the disproportionate scale of the attack on the Fami ly of Love , and for the t iming of that at tack. - iv -A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S I would l ike to thank my facul ty advisor, Professor C R . Fr iedr ichs, for his invaluable guidance and encouragement. Thanks are also due to Professor M . Tol whose instincts and insights steered me in the proper direct ions. Of course, any errors that remain are ent irely my own. Special thanks to my fami ly , whose unstinting support, both f inancial and mora l , has not gone unappreciated. And especial ly to Candy, who inspired me in ways she wi l l never know. - V -T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Abstract Acknowledgements Table of Contents Chapter I 1 Chapter II 34 Chapter III 61 Notes 92 Bibliography 111 - 1 -C H A P T E R I On October 3, 1580 a Roya l Proclamat ion was issued ent i t led "Ordering Prosecution of the Fami ly of L o v e . " l In i t the Queen expresses her displeasure at "certain persons which do secret ly in corners make privy assemblies of divers simple unlearned people . . . [ to ] teach them damnable heresies, d i rect ly contrary to divers of the principal ar t ic les of our belief and Chr ist ian fa i th . " This sec t , ident i f ied as the Fami ly of Love , " is maintained by cer ta in lewd, heret ical and seditious books f i rst made in the Dutch tongue and lately translated into English . . . the author whereof they name H .N . " The Queen goes on to command "that a l l her of f icers and ministers temporal shall . . . assist the archbishops and bishops . . . to search out a l l persons duly suspected to be either teachers or professors of the foresaid damnable sects; and . . . to proceed severely against them . . . and that also search be made . . . for the books and writ ings maintaining the said heresies and sects, and them to destroy and burn; and wheresoever such books shall be found, . . . the same persons to be attached and commit ted to the close prison . . . and that whosoever in this realm shall either print or bring or cause to be brought into this realm any of the said books, . . . to be attached and commit ted to prison, and to receive such bodily punishment and other mulct as fathers of damnable heresies." This proclamation is unique in that it is the only one during El izabeth's reign to be directed solely against a single heret ical sect . The proclamation was accompanied and preceded by a substanial body of polemical l i terature which ref lected a widespread concern with the Fami ly of Love. The assumption of this l i terature and of the Royal Proclamat ion was that the Fami ly of Love posed a real - 2 -and imminent threat which required swif t and ef fect ive counteract ion. This assumption has persisted through the centuries and is now ref lected in a considerable body of modern histor ical l i terature on the Fami ly . Neither then nor s ince, however, has i t been asked if indeed the Fami ly of Love posed such a threat. The purpose of this thesis is to ask just that question. And if, as we shall suggest, the Fami ly of Love posed no real danger and was neither as large or as important as contemporaries thought, why did it provoke such a vehement react ion? Before we attempt to answer these questions however, two prel iminary problems must be dealt wi th. F i rs t we must describe the origins and the nature of the Fami ly of Love; how did the works and ideas of the Low German H .N . (Hendrik Niclaes) f ind their way to England? Our second prel iminary task wi l l be to examine the ways in which the contemporary perception of the Fami ly of Love and its underlying assumption have been transmit ted through histor ical and polemical l i terature down to the present day. Thus this f i rs t chapter wi l l describe br ief ly the l i fe and teachings of H .N . and wi l l then examine the histor ical l i terature on the Fami ly of Love . * * * The basic documentary sources for the history of H .N . and the Fami ly of Love are three manuscripts in the Bibl iothek der Maatschappy van Nederlandsche Letterkunde in Leiden.2 These are: 1. Chronika des Husgesinnes der L ie f ten , by Danie l , an elder in the Fami ly of Love. This is a myst ica l account of the l i fe of Nic laes and the history of the Fami ly of Love. - 3 -2. A c t a H .N. , by Zacharias, also an elder in the Fami ly of Love , is an account of Nic laes ' l i fe and visions. 3. Ordo Sacerdot is, presumably by Niclaes himself , is one of his later works, which was apparently not widely known. In i t , the prophet describes the rigid hierarchy and ceremonies which he is prescribing for his fo l lowers. These three manuscripts form the basis for the earl iest major study of Niclaes and the Fami ly of Love , that of Fr iedr ich Nippold in 1862.3 Vir tual ly a l l subsequent treatments rely to some degree on Nippold's monograph.^ Hendrik Nic laes (Nic las, Nicolas, Nicholas) was born in 1501 or 1502. The place of his birth cannot be stated with absolute certa inty. Numerous commentators state that he was born in Muhster. This is not unlikely given the Low German dialect in which he wrote.^ A precocious youngster, according to the chronic lers, he was raised a devout Catho l ic by his extremely pious parents. He began to experience visions at an ear ly age, but because of his parents' disapproval, he learned to keep his myst ica l ideas to himself . St imulated by Mart in Luther , he began to read the Scriptures for himself. Though he disapproved of Catho l ic persecution of Lutherans, he could not bring himself to agree wi th Luther's rejection of the entire Roman Church and his solaf id ianism. Nevertheless, his involvement with Lutherans, with whom he had met to discuss Scr ipture, brought him to the attention of the authorit ies on suspicion of heresy in 1529. However, he apparently sat isf ied them as to his orthdoxy for he was quickly released. Shortly thereafter, in about 1530, he and his fami ly (he had been marr ied when he was about twenty years old) moved to Amsterdam. In the early years of the Reformat ion, before the Muhster debacle, Amsterdam had acquired a not unwarranted reputation as a centre of tolerat ion.6 Whether Niclaes moved there for this reason, or because of business opportunities is unclear. - * -In any case, he found himself in Anabaptist c i rc les and was again hauled before the authorit ies in 1532 or 1533. He was brought before the Court of Holland but was again exonerated. Among the sectaries l iv ing in Amsterdam at this t ime was David Jor is who had moved through the ranks of the Anabaptists and subsequently founded his own Spir i tual ist sect. Niclaes and Joris were acquainted at least by reputation if not personally. Nevertheless, later statements that Niclaes was a disciple of Jor is , or as John Rogers put i t , "Dav id George [ Jo r i s ] layde the egge, but H .N. brought for th the chickens,"? appear exaggerated. It appears indeed that they have "confused spir i tual kinship with dependence."8 In the af termath of Munster and an attempted Anabaptist uprising in Amsterdam in 1534, that c i ty became a good deal less tolerant. Nevertheless, Niclaes continued to l ive there unti l 1539 or 1540, possibly because of his business interests and Amsterdam's growing importance as a commerc ia l entrepot. In 1539 or 1540, Niclaes experienced several more revelations instruct ing him to take three elders, Danie l , E l idad , and Tobias, to move to Emden, and to set down the "truth of God" in the wri t ten word.9 As a result he moved to Emden where he was to l ive for about the next twenty years. Emden in the 1540's was not unlike Amsterdam in the 1520's in that under the rule of Anna of Oldenburg, numerous confessions were al lowed to coexist . 10 Niclaes l ived there without at t ract ing any o f f i c ia l at tent ion, pursuing his business as a mercer and becoming quite prosperous. No one seems to have any idea that he was responsible for the works which were c i rculated in the Low Countr ies under the pseudonym of H .N . He became a c i t izen of that town in 1542. However, it was in Emden that Nic laes f irst at t racted a fol lowing and the Fami ly of Love had its origins. He l ived quietly in the East Fr is ian town for the next twenty years, his sectarian act iv i t ies and myst ical writ ings a - 5 -closely guarded secret. His business gave him ample opportunity to t ravel and he spread his fol lowing throughout the business and mercant i le centres of the Low Countr ies. Whether or not he travel led to England is unclear. Ful ler states that he caused troubles in the Dutch Church in London during the reign of Edward VI. U Cer ta in ly his business would have given him opportunity to go to England, but there is no concrete evidence for an English journey either under Edward, or, as some have sa id , in 1561 or 1562 under El izabeth.12 In any case, in 1560, suspicion was again cast upon Nic laes . Not wishing to again endure imprisonment and t r i a l , possibly knowing that this t ime he would not get off so easi ly , he secret ly f led Emden, leaving his fami ly to join him later . Apparent ly, he made his move just in t ime, for a short t ime later the authorit ies ordered his wife to persuade him to refute the charges against h im. The anxiety attached to this demand allegedly caused her death. Niclaes thereupon provided the requested v indicat ion. Not convinced, the authorit ies conf iscated and searched his house and belongings for evidence of heret ical ac t iv i t ies . Nic laes ' l i fe from the f l ight f rom Emden to his death is shrouded in mystery. Apparent ly he led a peripatet ic existence t ravel l ing from place to place, spending quite a bit of t ime in Kampen and f inal ly in Cologne, where he died in 1580 or 1581. While it is not the purpose of this study to examine Nic laes ' writ ings or beliefs in depth, something must be said of his works and circumstances of their pr int ing, and of the core of his doctr ine. Niclaes wrote voluminously and frequently. His chief work, The Glass of Righteousness (Den Spegel der Gherecht ichei t) runs to more than eight hundred fol io pages. His style was obscure and d i f f icu l t , f i l led with Scr iptural references and myst ica l al legories. John Rogers dismissed his works as "the drowsy dreams of a doting Dutchman." !3 others have cal led i t "strange myst ic r igamaro le" , !^ and "extreme mistiness."15 - 6 -During his l i fe , Niclaes wrote numerous works in both prose and verse. It is unnecessary to go over a l l of them. We wi l l concentrate on his major works and of those the ones that were translated into Engl ish. Previous observers have made the mistake of going through a l l of Nic laes' works and try ing to combine them into a single system. While this is valuable in that i t provides one wi th the outl ine of what is in Nic laes' works without actual ly having to read them, it does present the danger of imposing a system where none exists. Over one hundred and sixteen editions of H.N.'s works have been i d e n t i f i e d . ^ For the purposes of this study, it is not necessary to describe them a l l . The c i r cum-stances of the printing of Nic laes' works are i l luminat ing. Natura l ly , cautious merchant that he was, Niclaes would not use either of the two printers in Emden.17 His earl ier works were printed by Dirk van den Borne in Deventer. It was this same Van den Borne who had printed David Boris's chef d'oeuvre, T'Wonder-Boek, and got six months in prison for his trouble. 18 Nevertheless, i t cannot be concluded that Van den Borne was a disciple of Nic laes. Rather , i t seems to have been a matter more of economics than of ideological convic t ion. The last work printed by Van den Borne for Niclaes was the prospectus for Den Spegel der Gherecht ichei t .19 Upon his death in 1557 or 1558, i t became necessary for Nic laes to look for a new printer. The relationship between Niclaes and the great Antwerp printer Christopher Plant in was f i rst alluded to by Nippold in 1862.20 it was subsequently developed by Max Rooses, curator of the Plant in-Moretus Museum in Antwerp, in his monograph Christophe Plant in : Imprimeur Anversois in 1882.21 Plant in was born about 1520 near Tours and was brought up in Lyons. During the 1530's and 15Ws he led a wande-r ing l i f e , spending t ime in Orleans and Paris before sett l ing in Antwerp in about 1548. Speculation that he had already been converted to the Fami ly of Love while - 7 -l iv ing in Paris and that this was the reason for sett l ing in Antwerp seems unfounded.22 it seems much more probable that P lant in , as a young man seeking to establish himself in the trade would naturally gravitate to Antwerp because of the great opportunities which that c i ty of fered. In any case he worked as a binder and cabinetmaker before taking his printer's oath in 1555. It is not known how or when Plant in was converted to the Fami ly of Love . Cer ta in ly N ic laes , in his business as a mercer , would have had many occasions to t ravel to Antwerp. A lso , Niclaes' son Franz was l iv ing in Antwerp.23 in any case, i t is certain that Plant in was converted at about this t ime. It also seems l ikely that it was Nic laes who enabled Plant in to set up his own printing shop.2^ The f i rs t work which Plant in printed for Niclaes was Den Spegel der Gherecht ichei t . For obvious reasons, this work was published without the date or place of publ icat ion, or even with the printer's name. Typographical examinat ion, however, has shown it to be the work of Plantin's press.25 In January 1562, i t came to the attention of the authorit ies that several of Plantin's employees had (apparently without their master's knowledge — he was in Paris on business at the time) printed some copies of Calv in 's Br iefve instruction  pour prier.26 To prevent the conf iscat ion of his assets, Plant in quickly engineered a bankruptcy, and his shop and its contents were bought at an auction by Lodewijk van Somere and Cornel ius van Bomberghen, two of Plantin's friends and prominent Calv in ists.27 By June of 1563, Plant in had managed to convince the authorit ies of his innocence and was able to return to Antwerp. For the next four years Plant in was in partnership with Van Bomberghen, his cousin K a r e l , and several other members of his fami ly . - 8 -Niclaes sent one of his earl iest and most loyal (for the t ime being, anyways) disciples, Augusti jn van Hasselt to work with Plant in in Antwerp for periods of several months at a t ime in 1565 and 1566. 1566 and 1567 were the years of iconoclasm and Alva's repression, marking the beginning of the Dutch Revo l t . As a result, in November 1566, Plant in instructed Van Hasselt to set up a shop in Vianen, in the terr i tory of the rebell ious lord of Brederode, where the King's legal authority did not extend. In May 1567, Vianen was occupied by Alva's forces; however, Van Hasselt had managed to escape with his press and f led to Wesel, which had become a refuge for the rebels.28 This situation presented Plantin with a problem. He had remained in Antwerp where he had become the archtypographer to the K i n g , which role obliged him to print the Index of prohibited books (many of which he had l ikely printed himself !) . A lso , he had professed his Catho l ic orthodoxy and was happily making money print ing editions of the Vulgate, missals, breviar ies, and the works of many Catho l i c writers.29 Should his interest in the press at Wesel, which was busily churning out Protestant propaganda, be discovered, i t would surely go hard for h im. Niclaes suggested an ingenious solut ion. He was about to move to Cologne where he would engage in the revision of his works. For this, he needed a printer. If Plant in were to turn his press in Wesel over to Niclaes to be run by Van Hassel t , two birds could be ki l led with one stone: Plant in would sever his potential ly embarassing connection with the heret ical press in Wesel, while Niclaes would have the printer he needed in Cologne. And this is precisely what happened. Plant in went on to engage in one of the most spectacular ef forts in sixteenth-century pr int ing, the Polyglot B ib le , and would later become printer to the Universi ty of Le iden. Niclaes went wi th Van Hasselt to Cologne where the two worked together on new editions of H.N.'s works unti l the printer broke with Niclaes in 1573.30 - 9 -Who Nic laes ' printer was from the schism in the Fami ly of Love in 1573 unti l his death is not c lear. Some of these editions appear with the name Nicholas van Bomberghen. There is no record of any printer by this name in Cologne, nor were any of the Antwerp Van Bomberghens in Cologne at this time.31 It was also at this t ime that the f i rst English translations of Nic laes' works appear. There is no place of publication on these, but since they were def ini tely not printed in England, one may reasonably assume that they were the output of this mysterious Cologne press.32 One of the most fascinat ing aspects of the history of the Fami ly of Love is the quasi-Fami l is t c i rc le which centred around Plant in in Antwerp. These were not the poorly educated craftsmen among whom such spir i tual ist myst ic ism is usually seen to have its greatest appeal. On the contrary, these were highly educated humanists, some of them among the most prominent of the inte l lectual merchant/scholar class of the sixteenth century. Why these enlightened individuals chose to af f i l ia te themselves with a sect which professed to despise "book-learning" and worldly wisdom seems at f i rst puzzl ing. Upon closer considerat ion, however, perhaps i t does not seem so strange. With the religious and pol i t ica l upheavals going on in the Netherlands, their way of l i fe was threatened. What they desired most was peace and tranqui l i ty in which to pursue their business and inte l lectual endeavours. The Fami ly of Love was to them a way of escaping both fanat ica l Ca tho l i c i sm, whose deeds they had witnessed in Alva's campaigns, and fanat ica l Ca lv in ism. The Fami ly of Love was a polit ique solut ion: Fami l i sm, therefore, was taken as a creed by certa in humanists, but it was they who adapted it to their own convict ions rather than al ter ing their convict ions to suit the demands of Hendrik Niclaes.33 - 10 -Here was a creed which al lowed them to conform outwardly to the authori t ies' demands, while at the same t ime maintaining an inner fa i th which afforded them real spir i tual sat is fact ion. Among this group, as mentioned above, were some of the inte l lectual luminaries of the later sixteenth century. There was the geographer Orte l ius, whom Plant in had known since 1558 and who at dif ferent t imes expressed varying degrees of commitment to the Fami ly of Love .3^ There were the Hebrew scholar Andreus Masius and the Neo-Stoic ist Justus Lipsius.35 Through Plantin's friendship with the Parisian apothecary Pierre Porret , this kind of Fami l ism spread to Par is. The eccentr ic French Oriental ist Gui l laume Postel and his disciple Guy L a Fevre de la Boderie were also possibly Famil ists.36 These men were t ied together by their humanist education and outlook, by common pol i t ica l v iews, by their fr iendship with P lant in , and especial ly by their involvement in Plantin's great publishing endeavour, the Polyglot B ib le . The Antwerp Polyglot , as envisioned by Plant in , would replace Card ina l Ximenes' Tr i l ingual Complutensian Polyglot , adding to the Hebrew, Greek, and Lat in texts of this earl ier Polyglot , Aramaic and Syr iac versions.37 Such a huge undertaking required more capi ta l than even so prominent a printer as Plantin could supply, and he was forced to look for patrons. He was successful in his bid to Phi l ip II, who agreed to underwrite the project on the condit ion that his chaplain, Benito Ar ias Montano, go to Antwerp to supervise the project.38 Ar ias Montano arr ived in Antwerp in 1568. Revol ted by Alva's ext remism, his letters were largely responsible for the Duke's recal l and the appointment of Requesens as governor.39 Ar ias Montano found the inte l lectual atmosphere in Antwerp much to his l ik ing. Although Plant in and his friends kept their Fami l is t - 1 1 -sympathies secret at f i rst - - Ar ias Montano was, after a l l , an agent of the K ing of Spain and of the Inquisition — by 1575, he had become a member of the Fami ly of Love.40 The schism in the Fami ly of Love about 1573 has already been alluded to. The Fami l is t chronicles attr ibute the split to Plantin's i l l wi l l and greed and the treason of Nic laes' disciple Hendrik Jansen van Barrefe l t . Barrefel t had been with Nic laes since Emden. In fac t , it was Barrefel t whom Niclaes had sent to Deventer to supervise Van den Borne's printing of his works.41 According to the Fami l i s t chronic lers, Plant in had decei t fu l ly used Niclaes and the Fami ly of Love to set up his shop and keep his presses running. Not only did he use the sect to make money, he act ive ly stole from i t . There was the affair of the Provencal jeweller who, having died in Paris in the early 1560's, entrusted a cask of jewels to Pierre Porret to be given to the sect . Plant in apparently took part of the bequest as payment for a debt which the jeweller owed h im. According to the chronicles, he pocketed the rest. This version of events is most l ikely sour grapes. Plant in and Niclaes kept up their relationship for the next decade or so without any noticeable coolness between them.4 2 In rea l i ty , i t was probably Nic laes himself who provoked the schism. Af ter the f l ight f rom Emden, as he involved himself in the revision of his works, he also wrote Ordo Sacerdot is. This work outlines the new rigidly h ierarchical structure which he tr ied to impose on his fol lowers.43 N 0 doubt this al ienated many, especial ly the Antwerp humanists whose al legiance to the sect lay precisely in its unstructured informal i ty and emphasis on inward spir i tual i ty . Among those who deserted H .N . were Barrefe l t , Van Hassel t , and Plantin and his c i rc le of humanist fr iends. Barrefe l t , who began to ca l l himself " H i e l " , or the " l i fe of God",44 assumed Nic laes ' - 12 -mantle as the prophet of the new sect . It was to this Hie l is t branch of the Fami ly of Love to which Ar ias Montano and the others belonged. It has already been stated that the purpose of this study is not to examine H.N.'s writ ings and doctr ines in any great de ta i l . However, one point is c ruc ia l : the teachings of Niclaes and the Fami ly of Love , while id iosyncrat ic , were not unique. This is important because many historians have assumed that any s imi lar i ty of doctr ine or pract ice between two groups is evidence of a l ink. Rather , these Spi r i tua l is t /myst ica l ideas have been a common currency of Chr is t ian i ty f rom the days of the Ear ly Church right down to the present. As we have already seen, many commentators have concluded that because their doctrines and sects were quite s imi lar , Niclaes must have been a disciple of David Jor is . This is simply not so. The ideas were there, ready to be used, and i t only took several individuals so incl ined to draw on this reservoir and form a sect . Nic laes' doctr ines, then, were neither new nor unique. They were also not concisely wr i t ten. To ca l l this hodge-podge of ideas, proverbs, and admonishments a theology is misleading. One cannot (though some have tr ied) unify H.N.'s teachings into a coherent system and reconci le the contradict ions. Rather , the approach to take is one of looking for the constants, those things that remain f i rm and unchanged in a l l of his wri t ings. A t the core of H.N.'s teachings is the concept of Vergottung or "begoddedness". The spir i t is of prime importance, the internal takes precedence over the external . Man can only be righteous when infused wi th the Spir i t of Love of Jesus Chr is t . This myst ical infusion does not, as some cr i t ics have c la imed, ent i t le the believer to c la im equality with Chr is t . This is a myst ica l union in which the w i l l of the believer is united with and subsumed in the wi l l of God. However, - 13 -Niclaes did not make this idea up. This is a tradit ion as old as Chr is t ian i ty i tsel f . More relevant for our purposes than ancient Montanists, these ideas were to be found in late medieval works such as those of Joachim of F io re , Tauler and Eckhar t , Thomas a Kempis , Hans Denck, Sebastian Franck, and the Theologica Germanica.45 The idea of a myst ical union with God , Vergottung, of the inner light and spir i tual inspiration were common fare in the religious discourse of the sixteenth century. This emphasis on the inner l i fe led to some part icular positions on the burning religious questions of the day. For instance, on the Euchar ist , H.N. could bypass the whole Rea l Presence/Memor ia l debate simply by maintaining the uselessness and inef f icacy of outward forms and ceremonies. So also on the Scr iptures: what counted was not scholastic quibbling over Greek and Lat in verb tenses, but the interpretat ion which God put into one's heart. The Scriptures themselves were only ink and paper, an outward signi f icat ion of the true Word which God reveals to the bel iever. This de-emphasis of outward forms and ceremonies led to one of the most consistently observed character ist ics of the Fami ly of Love: their Nicodemism or their will ingness to conform outwardly to whatever was demanded of them in the way of religious observance. As we shall see, in England, this was perceived as dangerous deception and dissembling, and was one of the persistent complaints made against the Fami ly of Love. Niclaes himself maintained his Catho l ic orthodoxy, while urging his fol lowers to conform to the government's requirements, knowing a l l the while that i t real ly did not matter what they said or did openly. What should emerge from this short synoptic discussion of H.N.'s teachings is an absolutely cruc ia l dist inct ion between "Fami l i s t " and "member of the Fami ly of Love" ; that is , between people and groups who exhibit cer ta in of the character ist ics and teachings of H .N . , and who may look upon him and his writ ings as instruct ional and - 14 -inspirat ional and those who fol low him as one who has received revelat ion and whose writ ings are seen as necessary complements to the Scriptures. As we have seen, his ideas and teachings were not unique; therefore to say whenever we come across something that sounds l ike something Niclaes might have said, "There goes the Fami ly of Love , " would be to tremendously exaggerate the sect's numbers and importance. As we shall see, especial ly in England in the seventeenth century, the name "Fami l i s t " was hurled about as an epithet, and to conclude that everyone who was cal led a Fami l is t was a member of the sect cal led the Fami ly of Love , even if they exhibited " fami l is t " character is t ics , is simply not just i f iable. * * * Histor ica l treatment of the Fami ly of Love in England may rightly be said to have started with Thomas Fu l le r , whose Church History of Br i ta in f i rst appeared in 1662. Ful ler states that around the 1578 the Fami ly of Love began "to grow so nume-rous, fact ious, and dangerous that the privy counci l thought f i t to endeavour their suppress ion . " ^ The Fami l y , founded by Niclaes (Fuller erroneously states that he was born in Amsterdam), f i rs t found i ts way to England when Nic laes visi ted near the end of the reign of Edward VI when he caused trouble in the Dutch Church in London "seducing a number of ar t i f icers and si l ly women; amongst whom two daughters of one Warwick . . . were his principal p e r v e r t s . ^ His errors were "zealously confuted" by Mart in Micronius and Nicholas Car inaeus, but "their antidotes pierced not so deep as his p o i s o n e . " ^ As a result of Nic laes' act iv i t ies in England, the Fami ly of Love began to spread in various parts of England, to the point where the Pr ivy Counci l was provoked to action culminat ing in the Royal Proclamat ion of 1580. - 15 -Ful ler objected especial ly to Nic laes' pretension and claims to be "raised up by the highest God from the death . . . godded with God in the Spirit of his love; made heir with Chr is t in the heavenly goods of the riches of God ; i l luminated in the Spir i t with the heavenly t ruth, the true light of the perfect being . . ."49 in addition to H.N.'s presumption of divine elect ion and inspirat ion, Ful ler condemns their a l legor ical interpretat ion of Scriptures, making them "a i ry , empty, nothing,"50 and their ant inomianism: " Y e a , St. Paul's Supposition 'Shall we continue in s in , that grace may abound?' was their position."51 In connection with their ant inomianism, he alludes to their lascivious conduct and their l iber t in ism, as seen above in the quote about "seducing si l ly women" and the play on words, substituting "perverts" for "converts" . Ful ler 's account, while wrong about many things concerning the Fami ly of Love , and despite its highly polemical tone, is nevertheless the f i rst treatment of the Fami ly of Love in an histor ical context , rather than as an ever-present danger or another character in a catalogue of heresies. It is thus noteworthy, not so much for describing the Fami ly and its suppression as for its contributions to later t reatments. The next noteworthy account (and certainly more detached and scholarly) is in John Strype's Annals of the Reformat ion. While in basic out l ine, his account is very simi lar to Ful ler 's (from whom he undoubtedly derived much material) the tone is less strident and the treatment more extensive. For instance, he is more speci f ic about dates and places: "It was derived from Hol land; where one H .N . (i.e. Henry Nicholas) was the founder of i t . A company of these were discovered in the parish of Balsham in Cambridgeshire, the Bishop of Ely 's diocese." These, including one Robert Sharp, were examined before Dr. Perne and made "a declarat ion and - 16 -confession of this. . . . A l l which was cer t i f ied and given by Dr . Perne, Decemb. anno 1574 . " 5 2 Strype is also doubtful of the moral laxi ty which Ful ler concludes was typical of the Fami ly : Whether this sect of the service of love were of such prof l igate principles and pract ices may be doubted; but that anabaptists and l ibert ines (of whom those cr imes were too true) shrouded themselves under those of this denomination may be justly suspected.53 If, however, Strype was doubtful of their l ibert in ism and less strident in tone than Fu l le r , this, of course, does not mean that Strype approved of the sect or found them any less dangerous than did Fu l le r . Strype disapproves especial ly of their denial of the spir i tual authority of the Church: "A l so , they cr ied out against a l l spir i tual of f ices and of f icers . . . whom . . . they cal led . . . dumb dogs, and sleeping hounds, with such l ike n a m e s . " ^ He also c r i t i c i zes the fact that H . N . al lowed his fol lowers to conform outwardly to the religious pract ices demanded by the authori t ies. This of course includes the Mass in Catho l ic countr ies, result ing in l ingering suspicion of the Fami ly of Love as papist subversives; that , in John Roger's words, they were " a chicken of the church of Rome."55 This was, in the era of the Popish P lo t , the Glorious Revolut ion, and Louis XIV, the kiss of death. Nevertheless, even if they were not real ly Cathol ics in sheep's c loth ing, Strype condemns them for their lack of pr inciple in hiding their bel iefs. Strype describes several other sects which he considers to be offshoots of the Fami ly of Love . There is the Fami ly of the Mount, who held "a l l things in common, and l ived in contemplat ion altogether; denying a l l prayers, and the resurrect ion of the body."56 There is also the Fami ly of the Essential ists who, "had their opinions from one Mrs. Dunbar, a Scotch woman. These held there was no sin at a l l : but what is done, God doth a l l , in what kind soever it be. . . . These, and the l i ke , were the spawn and improvements of this fami ly of love, of the which Henry Nicholas, of Holland was the founder. . . ."57 If Strype is less strident in his tone than Fu l le r , i t is perhaps because, wr i t ing forty years la ter , he senses them less as an ever-present danger: "For I remember, a gent leman, a great admirer of that sect , within less than twenty years ago, told me, that there was then but one of the fami ly of love st i l l a l i ve , and he an old man."^8 Nevertheless, despite the dif ferences in tone, both Ful ler and Strype may be seen as spokesmen of the Angl ican establishment in that their chief complaints against H .N . and the Fami ly of Love are that they undermine the foundations of an authori tat ive state church. More recent treatments of the Fami ly of Love fa l l into two general categories. One of these is the condemnation of the fanat ica l persecution of harmless mystics who posed no danger to the state or the social order. The other is paral le l to the f i rs t , but has more to do with a "quest for roots" on the part of modern denominations, especial ly on the part of Quakers and Baptists. Before going on to examine these tradit ions more c losely, it would be useful to review the ideas of Ernst Troe l tsch, whose classi f icat ion of Chr ist ian churches did much to make the study of the "Le f t Wing of the Reformat ion" possible.59 i n general , Troeltsch distinguished three basic types of Chr is t ian i ty . The church-type, Catho l ic or Protestant,"works through the ministry, the Word and the sacraments; it is objective in its approach and attempts to supply the spir i tual needs of the masses as wel l as those of the religiously gifted."60 The sect- type as typi f ied by various brands of Anabapt ism, "stresses Christ 's role as lawgiver, and tr ies to fol low his recorded commandments by forming voluntary groups, withdrawn from the rest of - 18 -society." These were usually "quiet, bibl icist congregations", but were occasional ly susceptible, as at Munster, to resorting to violence to hasten the arr iva l of God's Kingdom on earth."61 The third type which Troeltsch distinguishes, and the one which concerns us most here, is the Spiri tual ist or myst ica l type. This type stresses direct inspiration f rom God , the reception of Chr is t as an "inward exper ience", and that the Bible is only an outward manifestat ion of the Word of God . To grasp the true meaning of the Scr iptures, one must be aided and inspired by the Holy Spir i t . Because of its inwardness and subject iv i ty, there is l i t t le interest in or use for ecc les iast ica l organization (as in the church-type) or in withdrawn communit ies of believers (as in the sect- type). What is important here is one's own inward experience and inspirat ion, not outward organization or conformity.62 One must keep in mind, however, that these are the distinctions of a twent ieth-century German, and not those of contemporaries. For those participants caught up in the religious and social upheaval of the Reformat ion, there was no dist inct ion between churches, sects, and myst ics ; there was only the true Church and the heret ics. Nevertheless, Troeltsch's classif icat ions are useful as long as we do not use them as rigid categories, but rather as tendencies and as tools for understanding.63 Troeltsch's own treatment of the Fami ly of Love is i l lustrat ive of his c lassi f icatory system. He classi f ied Niclaes in the tradit ion of "Myst ic ism and Spir i tual Idealism within Protestant ism" along with such other groups and individuals as Munzeri., Car ls tadt , Schwenckfeld, Franck, David Jor is , and the Quakers; he does not ident i fy H . N . w i th "sects" such as the Anabapt ists, Mennonites, Leve l lers , Diggers, and Moravians. - 19 -Nic laes, according to Troel tsch, "swung over into a visionary 'Enthusiasm', combined with the fami l iar ideas of German myst ic ism, of 'dei f icat ion' and of ' t ranqui l l i ty ' , of the 'Divine Spark' of Light and Love; he also taught an ethic of religious perfect ion with its v ictory over 'the f lesh' and 'the letter." '64 This places H.N.'s doctrines f i rmly in the tradit ion of the Theologica German ica , of Joachim of F io re , and of medieval myst icism in general. Al though, according to Troel tsch, " A t the English Revolut ion, the movement d i sappeared , " ^ its influence continued to be fe l t . Bunyan used the prophet's Terra Pacis as a model for Pi lgr im's Progress. In part icular , the Ranters were the heirs of H.N.66 Besides the works of Nippold and Rooses already mentioned, one other nineteenth-century treatment of the Fami ly of Love is worthy of not ice. This is Robert Barclay's The Inner L i f e of the Religious Societ ies of the Commonweal th. Barc lay, as a Quaker, wrote a ringing vindicat ion of the Friends' role in the establishment of religious l iberty in England. Although Barclay finds H.N.'s books overly myst ical ,67 n e concludes that his teachings were in the main quite orthodox. The Fami ly of Love's main contr ibut ion, however, l ies in their ant icipat ion of George Fox and John Wesley. It was groups such as the Fami ly of Love who kept the "doctr ines of sanct i f icat ion and perfect ion"68 al ive when they were "becoming greatly obscured or wholly lost sight of in the teaching of the Puritan or Presbyterian party."69 How the doctrines of Nic laes arr ived in England, Barclay does not expla in, except for a short note on Christopher V i t e l l , "the f i rst preacher sent by Nic laes, . . . who came from Delph to Colchester . . . in 1555."7 U They d id , however, grow and survived o f f ic ia l repression under E l i zabeth , lasting unti l the t ime of the Commonweal th when they "si lent ly disappeared in the f ierce and open struggle of the t ime between truth and error."71 - 20 -Here we begin to see the tendency outl ined above: the desire to place the Fami ly of Love in a Spir i tual ist tradit ion whose heirs can be traced down to the present day. Typica l of this is Rufus Jones' interpretation.72 Jones, as a Quaker, ident i f ies many of the beliefs of the Fami ly of Love wi th the original Quakers of the late seventeenth century. His tone is admir ing. Here was a group that was "at i ts best the exponents of a very lof ty type of myst ical rel ig ion," whose founder "was a very extraordinary character , and his voluminous writ ings contain spir i tual insights and religious teachings which deserve to be rescued from the oblivion into which they have largely fal len."73 Jones especial ly commends their emphasis on an inward t ransformat ion, their pac i f ism, their "concern that the l i fe should be put above forms,"74 their insistence "on spir i tual iz ing this l i fe rather than on dogmatizing about the next l i fe,"75 and their desire for moral rect i tude. Jones is also concerned with intolerance and fanat ic ism, thus bringing together both streams of h istor ical treatment mentioned above. He castigates H.N.'s cr i t ics as not penetrating "the meaning of [his] deep myst ica l teaching,"?^ as wr i t ing in "a spirit of bigotry and intolerance and in ignorance of the real teachings" of the Fami ly of Love.77 However, Jones' ul t imate purpose is to show that the Fami ly of Love influenced George Fox and the earl ier Quakers, as well as the Seekers and Ranters, in an effort to place the Quakers in an honorable and long-standing, if widely misunderstood, t radi t ion. Jones' treatment of the origins and history of the Fami ly of Love in England is wholly standard, drawing on the usual sources: Fu l le r , Strype, Barc lay, and Nippold. Nowhere has he attempted to re-examine the histor ical evidence relat ing to the Fami ly of Love ; indeed, to do so is unnecessary for the standard view accords very nicely wi th his own thesis. His view is dependent on the Fami ly of Love surviving - 21 -into the late seventeenth century and beyond, in order for them to have inf luenced the Quakers. Indeed, he goes so far as to state that " [m ]any Fami l is ts must ;have joined with Fr iends," although he does admit that "there is l i t t le positive proof of the fact that they d id . " 7 * 5 Another Quaker, l ike Jones' wri t ing from Haverford Co l lege, although some years ear l ier , is A l len C . Thomas.79 i n fac t , Jones uses Thomas as an authority on the Fami l y . Thomas does state that the Quakers are the true spir i tual heirs of the Fami ly of Love ; a l l that was real ly valuable in their teachings was now held by other bodies, notably by the Society of Friends and held and taught free from the extreme mistiness and positive error which pervaded the books of H .N . and the teaching and preaching of his fol lowers.80 Nevertheless, Thomas' main concern is the intolerance which greeted a sect which, "though fundamental ly wrong in many points . . . its members apprehended much that the church around them ignored or fa i led to comprehend."81 Pr imary to his concern is that the Fami ly of Love were real ly not al l that bad and aroused such a hostile reaction only because of the blindness and pigheadedness of the religious authori t ies. He goes through the teachings of H .N . in some deta i l , refut ing the cr i t ics ' charges of antinomianism and immoral i ty , their dissembling before author i ty, concluding that on "the main doctrines of Chr is t ian i ty the Fami l is ts seem to have been orthodox."82 They did not deny the divini ty of Chr is t , nor did H . N . grant himself divine status.83 His histor ical account of the Fami ly is , l ike Jones', ent i rely standard, fo l lowing in al l important aspects Strype, Nippold, and Barclay. Part icu lar ly as concerns the Fami ly of Love in England, he accepts without question that " their doctrines seem to have taken deeper root in England."84 And , "["w]e f ind l i t t le public notice of the - 22 -sect in England after the address to K ing James, though the many allusions to their belief leads to the opinion that there must have been quite a number of m e m b e r s . " ^ He thus concludes that " [t]he rev ival of the sect , about the middle of the seventeenth century, seems to have been but a brief awakening."86 Perhaps the most misguided and misinformed account of the Fami ly of Love in England is to be found in E. Belfort Bax's Rise and Fa l l of the Anabaptists. In the chapter "The Anabaptist Movement in England", after a brief account of Anabaptism in the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Mary , we come upon the astonishing statement that during El izabeth's reign, "English Anabaptism took definite shape in the form of a sect or party ca l l ing themselves the Fami ly of Love . "^^ The bulk of the rest of the chapter is devoted to the Fami ly of Love . C lear l y , Bax has succumbed to the invect ive of writers hostile to H .N . , and while recognizing their polemical purposes and tone, has not thought f i t to question their h istor ical assumptions: The most f lourishing period of this sect is not quite easy to determine from the evidence, but between 1570 and 1580 i t undoubtedly created considerable st ir in the country, so much so that El izabeth 's lords of Counc i l sent urgent letters to the Bishop of Norwich, pressing him to take forthwith most stringent measures for its suppression.88 While Bax cannot bring himself to approve of H.N.'s doctrines (at one point he cal ls them "strange myst ic r igamarole,"89 he does lament their disappearance: With the name Anabapt ism, the thing i tself went. The old fervour, the zea l , the sel f -conf idence, the ideal ism, that stopped at nothing in their aim to revolut ionize a l l l i fe in accordance with the conception of Chr is t ian i ty as the rel igion of the disinheri ted, have long ceased to exist in the Chr is t ian sects of the modern wor ld /™ Another interpretat ion of the Fami ly of Love which fa l ls more or less into the "plea for to lerance" category (although, as we shall see, in a backhand sort of way) - 23 -is Ronald A . Knox's Enthusiasm; A Chapter in the History of Re l ig ion. Knox, as a Catho l i c , admits quite f reely that his book was original ly meant to be a broadside, a trumpet blast, an end of controversy . . . here, I would say, is what happens inevitably if once the principle of Catho l ic unity is lost! A l l this confusion, this prigishness, this pedantry, this eccentr ic i ty and worse, fol lows direct ly from the rash step that takes you outside the fold of Peter! . . . But somehow, in the wr i t ing, my whole treatment of the subject became di f ferent ; the more you got to know them, the more human did they become, for better or worse; you were more concerned to f ind out why they thought as they did than to prove i t wrong.91 Nevertheless, af ter a very long book in which he traces Chr ist ian enthusiasm from the Ear ly Church through John Wesley and beyond, he concludes that "enthusiasm is not a wrong tendency, but a false emphasis." Enthusiasts "saw clear ly . . . something true and valuable; the exaggerations, the eccent r ic i t ies , were hatched by the heat of controversy."?^ Thus enthusiasm is necessary, if sometimes inconvenient, for , " [m]en wi l l not l ive without vision . . . [ i ]f we are content wi th the humdrum, the second-best, the hand-over-hand, i t w i l l not be forgiven us."93 The book is thus a vindicat ion of visionary enthusiasts (especially Catho l i c visionary enthusiasts) who, whi le going to extremes, restored true spir i tual i ty . On the Fami ly of Love in spec i f i c , Knox is ent i rely unoriginal, fol lowing Bax in concluding that they were a type of Anabaptist sect.94 C lear l y , though, for Knox the main importance of the Fami ly of Love is their legacy to the Quakers. Indeed, his main passage on the Fami ly is included in a "Note on Chapter V H P ent i t led "On the prehistory of Q u a k e r i s m . " 9 5 His h istor ical treatment is ent i rely standard. The sect had its beginnings in England in the 1550's, grew rapidly through the 1570's unti l the repression of the late '70's and '80's. It then enjoyed a brief revival about the t ime of the Commonwealth after which i t disappeared from the scene. According to Knox, Niclaes's doctr ines "are l i t t le better than cloudy nonsense. . . . But it is clear - 24 -that the meetings of the Fami ly must have been a seed ground from which inner-l ight theologies l i e . the Quakers ] might have been expected to spring."96 Champl in Bur rage, in his book The Ear ly English Dissenters (1550-1641), though certa in ly not as misguided as Bax, has nevertheless made some astonishing assertions concerning the Fami ly of Love. Indeed, he considers the history of the Fami ly as in need of no further research: A f te r what has been wri t ten concerning the Fami ly of Love by Dr . F. Nippold and Mr . Robert Barc lay, there seems l i t t le need to devote much t ime to that rather mysterious sect.97 While he is certainly correct in stat ing that they were not Anabaptists, the rest of what l i t t le t ime he devotes to the Fami ly of Love is , to say the least , unsupportable. Basing his account pr imari ly on Edmund Jessop's A Discovery of the Errors of the English Anabaptists (London, 1623), he concludes that the repression in the late 1570's and ear ly 1580's "seem [s ] to have fa i led , for the Fami ly of Love was certainly wel l known in England as an exist ing society during the reigns of 3anr.es I and Charles I."98 A lso: Before 1600 the Fami ly of Love can have at t racted few converts in England, and even unti l 1620 and later it must have made slow progress.99 Obviously, he does not recognize that in the seventeenth century, the name "Fami l i s t " was indiscr iminately hurled about as an epithet without necessari ly (or even probably) referr ing to devotees of H .N . and his Fami ly of Love. The chief heirs of the Fami ly of Love , he identi f ies not as the Quakers but rather the Seekers, although, as he himself admits the two groups were frequently confused and the connections are somewhat tentat ive. 100 In a short ar t ic le wri t ten in 1953, Ernest A . Payne, while not denying the influence of the Fami ly of Love on the Quakers, widens the denominational spectrum of H.N.'s heirs: - 25 -Rufus Jones is a sympathet ic and discr iminat ing defender of the Fami l i s ts . "They had," he says, "for more than a hundred years, maintained in England a steady testimony to the spir i tual nature of rel ig ion, to the fact of a Divine Light and L i f e in the soul , and to the unimportance of outward forms and ordinances in comparison with the inward experience of God's Presence." Those are words that at once make an appeal to Baptists and i t is certain that the Baptists of the modern world are among the Spir i tual kinfolk of the Fami l is ts and have no reason for repudiating a l l connection with t h e m . 1 0 1 Payne's h istor ical treatment (one is beginning to see a pattern here) is again entirely standard. He may quibble over the extent of David Jor is ' inf luence on Niclaes and other points, but as regards the Fami ly in England, he fol lows the path already charted by Fu l le r , Strype, Barc lay, and Jones. H .N . found his largest fol lowing in England, beginning with V i te l l in the 1550's, continuing through H.N.'s al leged visi t to England in 1560 or 1561, growing in strength through the '60's and 70's to the point where o f f i c ia l repression ensued. Upon repression the group went underground, surfacing occasional ly, as in the address to James I, and enjoyed a brief revival at the t ime of the C o m m o n w e a l t h . 1 0 2 The culmination of this stream of histor ical treatment of the Fami ly of Love may be found in G . H . Wil l iams' massive study, The Rad ica l Reformat ion. Accord ing to Wi l l iams, the "Engl ish Fami l is ts were communi tar ian, pac i f is t ic Anabapt ists. . . . Morphological ly and to a certain extent genet ical ly , the English Fami l is ts represent a transit ional stage between evangel ical Anabaptism and the completely nonsacramental Spir i tual ism of Quaker ism." 1 03 A t the risk of being overly repeti t ive (the point, however, is crucial) one must say that Wil l iams' histor ical treatment is ent irely unoriginal. It is unnecessary at this point to repeat the basic outl ine of the standard history of the Fami ly of Love in England. In Wil l iams we see the apotheosis of the tendency to mold the various - 26 -Anabaptist and Spir i tual ist groups of the sixteenth century into a single movement, a "Rad ica l Reformat ion" . In this movement, H .N. and the Fami ly of Love played an admittedly tiny part, but links can be drawn both backwards and forward in history, and the inf luence of such groups lives on long after their o f f i c ia l expirat ion. Emerging from the streams of h istor ical treatment outl ined above are attempts to describe and explain the Fami ly of Love not so much in terms of being an ancestor of this or that group or of its suppression as an example of religious bigotry and fanat ic ism; rather these attempts try to describe and explain the Fami ly of Love as a concrete h istor ical phenomenon. The boundaries between these two types of treatment are d i f f icu l t to draw and perhaps even harder to explain, but they are there nevertheless. Perhaps i t is more a di f ference in emphasis than k ind. Perhaps under the inf luence of Wi l l iams historians are more cognizant than before of seemingly obscure and unimportant groups and ideas. There can be no doubt that the concept of a "Rad i ca l Reformat ion" has opened up new avenues of research. Whatever the reason, in the last twenty years or so, the Fami ly of Love has at t racted more attention in and of i tself rather than as a pawn in some denominational or ideological argument. Of course, these two historiographical streams are interdependent and intersect at a number of points. The more recent stream has had to, of necessity, rely on what has gone before. From Nippold they derive the l i fe and writ ings of H.N. , f rom Rooses, the connection to Plant in and the Antwerp humanists, and so on. And herein l ies its chief fa i l ing. For in relying on previous research and interpretat ion, the standard outl ine of the history of the Fami ly of Love in England has assumed the proportions of a received t ruth, or at least of conventional wisdom. This is , of course, not to deny the value and indispensible nature of the work of - 27 -Nippold, Rooses, Barc lay, Jones, Wi l l iams, et . a l . Rather , later commentators have been caught up in the minute examination of one t ree, quibbling about the shape of its cones, the colour of its needles, and its l i fespan, without stepping back to see if there is indeed a forest. Thus we have arguments about H.N.'s views on the Mass, on bapt ism, the a f te r l i fe , the B ib le , the nature of Chr is t , ad nauseum. What no one has thought worthwhile is to re-examine the conventional wisdom, part icular ly as regards the nature and extent of the Fami ly of Love in England. Before we embark on the minute examinat ion of one t ree, we had better make sure of the nature of the forest. His tor ica l treatment of the Fami ly of Love in and of i tself may be said to have started (apart from Nippold's monograph) with the work of Herman de la Fontaine-Verwey. In 1942 he published a bibliography of a l l known editions of H.N.'s works . 1 °4 In 1954, he compared H .N . wi th Joris and H ie l . l ° 5 And then in 1976, he attempted to draw the whole thing together.1^6 De la Fontaine-Verwey, as do most recent commentators, approaches the Fami ly of Love as being more important than previously thought. Indeed, this is the basic preconception that runs through a l l recent accounts. If it cannot be shown (as indeed it cannot, though some have tried) that the Fami ly of Love was a widespread underground movement with a large number of adherents, then it becomes important " in the greater understanding which has developed of the signif icance of the smaller churches, groups, and sects of the sixteenth century for the history of ideas. It is becoming increasingly clear that these movements . . . had considerable influence on the cr isis of European consciousness at the end of the seventeenth century and the emergence of the modern wor ld. For an understanding of this fact the study of sects in the sixteenth century provides one of the keys." 107 Thus we see that the Fami ly of Love is not so - 28 -important in i tsel f , but taken together with other groups, forms an important part of the religious landscape of the sixteenth century. In accordance with this concept, de la Fontaine-Verwey distinguishes f ive pr incipal religious currents in sixteenth-century Europe: the Tridentine Catho l ic Church, Lutheranism, Calv in is t (Reformed), Anabaptists, and Spir i tual ist , cal led in another place " l ibert ines". We can see that he has fol lowed Troeltsch's categories quite c losely, or more exact ly , he has applied Troeltsch's ideal categories to an actual histor ical s i tuat ion. He is obviously concerned with the last category, and his work on Niclaes and the Fami ly of Love is seen as a contribution to the history and understanding of the Spir i tual ist " type" . To this end he is concerned with the simi lar i t ies of these groups and their founders, especial ly of the "trois  heresiarques" mentioned above. As for the Fami ly of Love in England, one may already guess what his approach might be. It is not necessary to again repeat the standard v iew, but a few quotations w i l l suff ice to show de la Fontaine-Verwey's adherence to i t : there were Fami l is ts as early as 1553, at the beginning of Queen Mary's reign. Their leader was a cabinetmaker from De l f t , Christopher V i t te l . . . In the 1560's the sect expanded considerably. . . . Despite persecution the sect endured . . . A t the beginning of the C i v i l War . . . [ the] Fami l i s ts , too, now appeared on the scene of opposition to the church. 109 There have since been other lengthy treatments of the Fami ly of Love. Jean D ie tz Moss, in her 1969 Ph.D. dissertation states that "there are many contradictory statements about the Fami l is ts in modern histories of the period. . . . there is considerable confusion among modern historians as to who and what Fami l is ts were. The few studies which have investigated the society have focused on one or another aspect of i t , and none has examined in depth the Fami ly 's teachings, as expressed by the founder, and their impact upon Engl ishmen." ! 10 This work, and another later - 29 -a r t i c l e , ! H may then be seen as a work of synthesis, an attempt to reconci le the contradict ions and state def in i t ively the origins, history, and doctrines of the Fami ly of Love . Unfortunately, she too accepts without question the conventional wisdom. The accounts of various hostile writers are taken at face value in the sense that they describe accurate ly the origins of the Fami ly of Love in Vitel l 's missionary act iv i ty ,^ 12 the pract ices of early English F a m i l i s m , ! 13 a n c j i ts subsequent spread and repression.! 14 One constantly comes across statements l ike the fo l lowing: A f te r Nic laes' works began to appear in Engl ish, in 1574, there were numerous references to the Fami l is ts . From this t ime on the society must have developed rapidly. In the years from 1581 unti l the Queen's death there are fewer and fewer references to Fami l i s ts . The direct ives issued in the proclamation of the Queen and the vigi lance of the bishops must have been successful in accomplishing the suppression of the sec t . ! 16 That fami l i sm, i tse l f , was destroyed cannot be concluded for it emerged again as soon as vigi lance was relaxed after El izabeth's d e a t h . U 7 That Fami l is ts were act ive again [under James I] is borne out by the frequent references to individual Fami l i s ts , preaching elders, and their congregations.! 18 A f te r the revolution there is a brief resurgence of fami l i sm. . . . New editions of Nic laes ' works were printed in the 1640's and 1650's.H9 In the last f i f teen years or so there have been numerous other works on the Fami ly of Love in England. It is unnecessary to go through them al l and show how they have a l l , wi th minor var ia t ion, fol lowed the same approach. There has been only one other lengthier treatment of the Fami ly of Love. 120 i n i t A lasta i r Hami l ton provides the most useful and concise account of the Nic laes and the - 30 -Fami ly of Love to date. Especia l ly valuable are the chapters on the spir i tual tradit ions within which the Fami ly of Love was or iginated, and on the humanist c i rc le in Antwerp around Plant in . Nevertheless, when he comes to treat the Fami l y of Love in England, we come up against the same old story. Granted, Hamil ton is a l i t t le more judicious than some others in his use of sources, for he doubts that the 1561 Surrey confession was real ly one of devoted fol lowers of H . N . and the "most we can say, therefore, is that the sectarians of 1561 were ready to receive the Fami l is t doctrine."121 Other than such minor qual i f icat ions on the main out l ine, there is not much new here. We s t i l l have the same picture of the sect growing rapidly under the impetus of the translation of Nic laes 1 works and the missionary ac t iv i ty of V i t e l l , provoking o f f ic ia l repression inducing the sect to go underground where it eventually died out sometime in the f i rst half of the seventeenth century. Hamil ton is more wi l l ing than some others to admit that "the numerical power of the Fami l is ts in the seventeenth century was very far from corresponding to the ever more frequent complaints against them."122 Thus he does admit that in the seventeenth century the accusation of Fami l ism and the number of works writ ten against the Fami ly of Love , or the references to i t , are an unreliable guide to the extent of the sect in England. But he does not apply this same methodological incisiveness to the history of the Fami ly in the sixteenth century. Here we are at the heart of the problem. As we shall see, there is very l i t t le objective evidence about the Fami ly of Love in England. Of necessity, historians have had to base their accounts on hosti le sources. There is nothing wrong with this in i tsel f , as long as the hostile and polemical purposes of the writers are kept in mind. Of the recent commentators on the Fami ly of Love , not one has taken the accounts of John Rogers and other hosti le writers at face value. There are lengthy - 31 -passages to show that the early cr i t ics misinterpreted either unknowingly or wi l l fu l ly , H.N.'s writ ings and doctr ines. 123 Thus, as mentioned above, we have seemingly endless quibbling about various aspects of H.N.'s doctr ines: What were his views on the Mass, on bapt ism, on regeneration, on s in , on the Scr iptures, e tc .? Thus, while admit t ing that H.N.'s cr i t ics were motivated by polemical purposes, and pointing out that the part iculars of their at tacks must be careful ly weighed, the sheer volume of these attacks must serve as some sort of guide to the rise and fa l l of the Fami ly of Love: Information about Nic las ' El izabethan fol lowers comes to us almost ent irely through hostile channels: the "confessions" of ex-Fami l is ts or of persons suspected of being Fami l i s ts , statements made in books at tacking the sect . . . and actions taken by the government against the Fami l y . But the inferences seem trustworthy when one finds persistent character is t ics in the l i fe of this sect that were not s imi lar ly prominent in other contemporary groups. 124 In fac t , the evidence of the state papers seems to indicate that the period of Fami l is t ac t iv i ty singled out by Strype for part icular attention marked the peak of Fami l is t act iv i ty throughout England; this zenith in the sect's fortunes extended from 1575, when Vi te l ls ' translations f i rst appeared in England, to 1580, when the sect was of f ic ia l ly suppressed by royal proclamat ion. 125 One can notice a rising concern among the public developing from 1578 through 1579 and culminat ing in a proclamation of the Queen in October of 1580.126 In the face of o f f i c ia l suppression fol lowing the proclamat ion, fami l ism waned and did not wax again unti l the early years of K ing James' reign. 127 The underlying assumption is that even wi th the paucity of actual documentary sources, one can fol low the fortunes of the Fami ly of Love by looking at its c r i t ics and at governmental attempts to suppress i t . This seems reasonable enough. Or is - 32 -i t? The great fai l ing of this approach is that it assumes a constant att i tude on the part of inte l lectuals, churchmen, and governmental authori t ies. If these people were always equally concerned with stamping out sects such as the Fami ly of Love , then this approach would be just i f ied. But in fact they were not. It is as if an histor ian, several centuries from now, were to examine the U.S .A . in the ear ly 1950's. Using this sort of approach, he would inevitably conclude, on the basis of Senator McCar thy and the House Un-Amer ican Ac t i v i t i es Commi t tee , that the Communist Party of the United States was at t ract ing a large number of members and was actual ly about to overthrow the government. By broadening the picture, we can place the Fami ly of Love , and hence the react ion to i t , in its proper context . But f i rst we must examine the actual evidence for the history of the Fami ly in England. This, it wi l l be argued, is of three types: actual documentary sources, confessions of Fami l i s ts , government records, and the l i ke ; works attr ibuted to Fami l is t authors including H .N . himself ; and works wri t ten by authors hostile to the Fami ly of Love. The earl iest English cr i t ics of the Fami ly of Love - John Rogers, John Knewstubb, and Wi l l iam Wilkinson - on whom vir tual ly a l l other accounts rely so heavi ly, wi l l be put into a broad inte l lectual and cul tural t radi t ion. This tradit ion is Cont inental in or ig in, pr imari ly Swiss, and was transmitted to England by returning Marian exi les, by constant communicat ion between Zurich and England, and through Mar t in Bucer and Cambridge Univers i ty . Then there is also the matter of t iming: Why was the Fami ly of Love perceived as such a threat at this precise t ime in the late 1570's (the works of Rogers, Knewstubb, Wilkinson, and the Proclamat ion a l l appeared within three years of each other)? The standard answer is , as we have seen, simply that there were more Fami l is ts at this t ime. The key to the solution of this problem lies not so much in any inexpl icable - 33 -and unprovable growth in the Fami ly of Love, but in the perception of the authori t ies, in El izabethan religious pol i t ics. In other words, they found Fami l is ts because they were looking for them. - 34 -C H A P T E R II What are the sources for the history of the Fami ly of Love in England? They fa l l into three general categories. F i rs t , there are actual documentary sources, confessions, le t ters, and government reports which allude to the sect's existence. Then there are works of the Fami ly of Love in Engl ish, either translations of H.N.'s works, several of which make reference to fol lowers in England, translations of the works of other continental Fami l is t wr i ters, or works attr ibutable to English members of the Fami ly of Love. Las t l y , there are the hostile contemporary accounts. Let us examine each in turn. The actual documentary sources for the history of the sect in England are very few. The f irst we come across is a confession taken in Gui ldford May 28, 1561 by Wil l iam More . l This confession was given by Thomas Chaundeler and Robert Sterete. John Rogers included i t in his Displaying of 1578. In i t , the two men describe a group of sectaries complete with secret convent ic les, passwords, r i tuals, and a code of eth ics. Many of the art ic les to which the two subscribed sound very much indeed l ike the teachings of N ic laes. Signi f icant ly, however, neither the Fami ly of Love nor H .N . are once mentioned by name. However, in one ar t ic le (omitted by Rogers) there is a passing reference to "Henr ike , a Dutchman, the head of al l the congregation."2 This , for some, is conclusive evidence that this Surrey group was a ce l l of the Fami ly of Love.3 The two men also allude to connections that their Surrey group had with other cel ls "in divers places of the realm . . . as in the Isle of E l y , Essex, Berkshire, Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, Devonshire, and London."4 The references to the Isle of E ly and London are especial ly tanta l iz ing, - 35 -for , as we shall see, in these places there is evidence that the Fami ly of Love was ac t ive . In fac t , Chaundeler says that his wife was " fetched out of the Isle of E ly by two of the congregation, the man and the woman being utter strangers before they came together to be marr ied."^ However, Chaundeler and his wife apparently did not take to each other, this disgruntlement being a possible cause of the confession's existence. This in i tsel f should make us wary of accept ing a l l the art ic les of this confession carte blanche. Were these two men and the group they describe Fami l is ts? Perhaps, in the sense alluded to above: they did exhibit certain character ist ics which are vaguely s imi lar to Nic laes ' teachings. Were they members of the sect cal led the Fami ly of Love? Probably not. Tempting as it is to identi fy the "Henr ike" of the confession with Nic laes, in the absence of more conclusive evidence, the connection cannot be made. Remember that even in the Roya l Proclamat ion of 1580, Niclaes was ident i f ied only as H .N . Nowhere in the evidence is any part of his name given. So i t seems unlikely that even if they were fol lowers of H .N . , they would know any more of the prophet's identi ty than his in i t ia ls . In addit ion, the t ime frame is a l l wrong. Nic laes ' works were not translated into English unt i l the mid-1570's. The Surrey sectaries are character ized by More as "a l l unlearned, saving that some of them can read English and that not very perfect ly ."^ Thus, it seems impossible that they could have read H .N . in Engl ish, let alone in the or iginal Low German . Addi t ional evidence has been adduced by Joseph Mart in to try to show that this was a ce l l of the Fami ly of Love.7 Fol lowing the career of Thomas A l len of Wonersh, ident i f ied in the confession as an elder, he concludes that this must have been the Fami ly of Love . Looking into the later papers of Sir Wil l iam More, the Surrey magistrate found that Al len possessed . . . "a booke of h n prevelye hidden at - 36 -the verye tyme of my comynge for I sawe his wyf when she dyd secret l ie covere hit."8 Nevertheless, this episode occurred some twenty years after 1561, and there s t i l l was no evidence that "A l l en " (even if it is the same person — no Chr is t ian name is given for the later Al len) was a member of the Fami ly of Love in 1561. In addition Christopher V i t e l l , when confronted with this confession by John Rogers some eighteen years la ter , denied that they were at that t ime members of the Fami ly of Love: "of H .N . his doctrine at that t ime they knew not."9 What is , of course, ent irely possible is that in the meantime they had become acquainted with the Fami ly of Love and become fol lowers of H .N. This would account for "A l len 's" possession of H.N.'s books. Indeed Hamil ton seems to be right on the mark when he says, " [t]he most we can say, therefore, is that the sectarians were ready to receive the Fami l is t doctr ine." 10 Then there is the case of Fami ly of Love act iv i ty at Cour t . On September 28, 1578, the Pr ivy Counc i l sent a let ter to Ay lmer , then Bishop of London, "requir ing him to ca l l unto him Robert Seale, Thomas Mathewe, Lewes Stewarde, Anthony Enscombe and Wi l l iam E l ing , Yeomen of the Garde, persons noted to be of the secte cal led the Fami l ie of Love , and to conferre wi th them for their reformation in Rel l ig ion . . . " U However, a week and a half la ter , Aylmer informed the Counc i l that "those of her Majesties Garde suspected to be of the Fami ly of Love . . . are in a l l pointes of Rel igion verie sound." No further act ion was taken at this t ime, except that the Counci l lors reaff i rmed the accused in their positions, and gave them some t ime off; "But before they return hither their Lordships thincke it meete that they repaire into some strete out of the C i t t i e , where they may remaine for to take the ayer for v or vj dayes."12 - 37 -Two years la ter , however, on October 9,1580 (note the t iming — the Roya l Proclamat ion was issued on October 3), two Yeomen of the Guard , ident i f ied as - -Seale and Mathewe — (obviously the same Robert Seale and Thomas Mathewe) were "commit ted to the prison of Marshal lsea, refusing to subscribe unto certain erroneous and false art ic les gathered out of the bookes of one H .N . , supposed to be the author of a certaine Secte cal led the Fami l ie of Love , whereof they were vehemently suspected to be, and order geven to the Clerke of the Checke to take her Majesties coate from them."13 Shortly thereafter Anthonie Ediscombe (obviously the Anthony Enscombe of 1578), "being suspected to be one of the sect of the Fami l ie of Love , denied the same before ther Lordships. . . . " 1 * On November 30, 1580, Thomas Seale (a relat ive of Robert Seale?), "charged before their Lordships wi th certen lewde and irreverent speeches of the Counce l l , tending to charge them wi th injustice in the punishing of certen persones . . . being of the Secte cal led the Fami l ie of Love , " was commit ted to Marshal lsea, "there to remayne to be furder examined and proceded with al l as shold appertaine."15 The only other bit of evidence regarding this case is an undated manuscript among the Har ley manuscripts in the Br i t ish Museum which would seem to be a confession of the accused guards: The confesion of sele ely and mathew/beinge of the famely of Love &/of her maist ies gard/They must be deyfyed in god & god in them/ [T ]he 3ugement & resurexion is past already/ We are eylewmynatid that is to saye of the / [?resurexsion ] & restoryd to the parfect ion that Adam/ [?had ] before his f a l e / [ T h ] e L i t e ra l l sence of the scrypture they do not regard/ [What] so ever they do is no syne/ [Th]ey ought not to suffer their bodyes to be executed bycause / they are the temples of the holly gost / [The] y may lawful ly deny religion of fai the before any/ [if] ther be any cause of persecusion/[The] r ought not to be any maiestarts amongest crystyans/16 - 38 -Whether it was wri t ten by a secretary or by the guardsmen themselves is impossible to determine. The "se le" and "mathew" are obviously Robert Seale and Thomas Mathewe, while the "e ly" could possibly be the Wi l l iam El ing of the group accused in 1578. With this confession, this group vanishes from the record. Granted, this is not much to go on; nevertheless, these men were almost certainly members of the Fami ly of Love , and we shall have occasion to refer to them again. That the Fami ly of Love's centre of ac t iv i ty was Cambridgeshire and the Isle of E ly becomes apparent in several other confessions. In December, 1574, Dr . Andrew Perne, the Dean of E l y , alarmed by reports of private assemblies in the parish of Balsham, examined six v i l lagers, among whom was one Robert Sharpe, parson at St re tha l l , in Essex, Edmund Ru le , and two members of the Lawrence fami ly . 17 Perne was apparently sat isf ied with their answers — Sharpe "signed a lengthy confession attest ing to his and his disciples' orthodoxy,"18 a n d n o further act ion was taken. However, some six months later Robert Sharpe, along with f ive others recanted their belief in the Fami ly of Love at Paul's Cross. 19 That Sharpe, and by extension the Balsham groups were members of the Fami ly of Love , there is l i t t le doubt. Sharpe admitted in his recantat ion that he had "heretofore unadvisedly, conceyved good opinion of certaine books of an author, otherwise unknown, save only that he noteth himself by the letters H.N."20 The very next day, the Pr ivy Counc i l wrote to Sandys, then Bishop of London "touching order to be taken with Anabaptists and those of the Fami ly of Love."21 In 1580, Richard C o x , the Bishop of E l y , at the urging of Wil l iam Wilkinson, who had dedicated his Confutat ion to the Bishop, embarked on a campaign to hunt down the Fami ly of Love in his diocese. As a result , a group of people from Wisbech were examined by the Bishop between October 3 and 5,1580. Aga in , note the - 39 -t iming: Cox's campaign is simultaneous with the promulgation of the Roya l Proc lamat ion. The leader of this group appears to have been John Bourne, a glover. A l l nine people examined (a tenth, Thomas Piersonne, "yeoman and the wealthiest of the company, before he was sent for conveyed himself away as i t is thought to London . . .)22 recanted their belief in H .N . and the Fami ly of Love . What happened to this group afterwards is unknown. Cer ta in ly , they may have, as Fe l i c i t y Hea l suggests, returned to the sect.23 This would be quite consistent with the behaviour alleged as typical of the Fami ly of Love . But there is no evidence for i t . There is one other bit of evidence concerning the Wisbech group. This is a confession dictated to "Thomas Barwicke, minister," by Bourne's apprent ice, Leonard Romsey.24 Apparently Romsey had escaped questioning with his master and made his confession at some later date. Romsey describes how his master brought him into the sect and touches on their bel iefs. Most interesting from our point of v iew, however, is his al lusion to their connections at Cour t : for it being reported upon a t ime that a commission was granted forth against us of Wisbech we had a letter from the Fami ly of Love in the court , from one Dorrington and Zeale, wherein we were advert ised how to behave our selves before the commissioners and charged that we should deny that we had seen any of the books of H .N . , whereupon a l l the books were conveyed . 2 ^ Here is the only evidence of any connections between dif ferent groups of the Fami ly of Love . It appears that "Dorr ington and Zeale" (probably either Robert or Thomas Seale), act ing upon their inside informat ion, had informed their co-rel igionists at Wisbech of the upcoming persecution. The possibi l i ty remains, however, that Romsey's confession was somewhat manufactured. A lasta i r Hamil ton believes that the confession played too perfect ly into the hands of the authorit ies to be as voluntary as advertised.26 There is also the possibil i ty that Romsey had been embit tered against his employer and purposely - * 0 -sought to damage him. In his confession, Romsey states that the sect was planning an armed uprising "when they are of suff ic ient number to undertake the matter."27 Cer ta in ly H .N . would never have approved of this. Perhaps this was an idiosyncrat ic belief of the Wisbech group, or maybe the interrogators asked the questions in such a way as to lead to this statement, or perhaps Romsey was t ry ing to make himself seem more important in the eyes of the authori t ies. In 1576, David Thickpenny, curate of Brighthelmstone in the diocese of Chichester , was accused by his bishop, Richard Cur teys, of being of the Fami ly of Love.28 Thickpenny denied the charge and appealed to the Counc i l which turned the matter over to Archbishop Gr inda l . Gr inda l , having looked into the matter and examined Thickpenny, concluded that "my said lord [the Bishop of Chichester] shewed no suff ic ient ground of his said opinion."29 Thickpenny was restored and ordered to preach several sermons against the Fami ly of Love . However, Thickpenny was again cal led on the carpet before Bishop Cur teys. We do not know what became of the mat ter . Cer ta in ly Thickpenny's behaviour seems in accordance with the behaviour of other Fami ly members when confronted by authori ty; confess, recant, and when set f ree , continue as before. However, not having heard from Thickpenny himself , only f rom his accusers, i t would seem an unwarranted assumption to make him a member of the Fami ly of Love. A f te r a l l , we know nothing of his bel iefs, and members of the Fami ly of Love were certainly not the only ones to falsely confess and recant. The second category of evidence for the history of the Fami ly of Love in England consists of wri t ten works attr ibuted to members of the Fami l y . Chief among these, of course, are the translations of H.N.'s own works. Though published without date or place of pr int ing, the dates can be established with a fair degree of - 41 -accuracy. (The Short T i t le Catalogue has, seemingly arb i t rar i ly , assigned dates of 1574 or 1575 to most of them.) Cer ta in ly they were printed after the 1573 schism — they were not printed by Plant in in Antwerp or by Van Hasselt in Cologne — and before the 1580 Proclamat ion where several of them are mentioned by name. Robert Sharpe seemingly had access to H.N.'s works as ear ly as 1574. It seems l ikely therefore, without being too spec i f ic , that English translations of H .N . started appearing shortly after the schism in 1573 and t r ick led slowly into England over the next six or seven years. As for the place of pr int ing, the best we can do is at tr ibute them to the mysterious Cologne press described in Chapter One. Although a number of H.N.'s works were translated (the STC lists sixteen) only a few are real ly noteworthy for our purposes. These are;30 1. Evangelium Regn i . Ein Fro l icke Bodeschop vam Ryke . (Antwerp, 1555-1562); in Engl ish, Evangelium Regni . A joyful l  Message of the Kingdom. 2. Prophetie des Geistes der L ie f ten . (Antwerp, 1555-1562); in Engl ish, The Prophetie of the Spirit of Love. 3- Den Spegel der Gherecht ichei t . (Antwerp, 1562); the entire work was never translated into Engl ish. Rather , i ts two intro-ductions were published separately under the t i t les An Introduction  to the holy Understanding of the Glasse of Righteousness and A Figure of the true and Spir i tual Tabernacle according to the inward  Temple of the House of God in the Spir i t . Exhortat io. De Eerste Vormaninge H.N. Tot syne kinderen,  unde dem Husgesinne der L ie f ten . (Cologne, 1573): in Engl ish. Exhortat io I. The f i rst exhortat ion of H .N , to his Ch i ld ren, and to  the Fami ly of Love. 5. Revalat io D e i . De openbaringe Godes, und syne grote  Prophet ie. (Cologne c . 1575); in Engl ish, Revelat io De i . The  Reuelat ion of God , and his great Propheat ie: which God now; in the  last Daye; hath shewed unto his E lec t . _ ii2 -6. Terra Pac is . Ware getugenisse van idt geist l ich Landtschap des  Fredes. (Cologne, 1580); in Engl ish, Terra Pacis . A True  Test i f icat ion of the Spir i tual l Lande of Peace; which is the  Spir i tual l Lande of Promyse, and the holy C i t i e of Peace or the  Heauenly Jerusalem. As for who the translator was, the only suitable candidate (of whom we know, at any rate) is Christopher V i t e l l . (Occasionally the "t" is doubled, one "1" lef t of f , or an " s " appended. Thus, V i te l , V i t te l l , V i te l ls , etc.) We have already come across the name Christopher V i te l l in connection with the Fami ly of Love in England. He is described by both Rogers and Wilkinson as the chief elder of the Fami ly of Love.31 Rogers says that he was Dutch himself , but this is open to question.32 However, whether he was English or Dutch is i r re levant. He does seem to have been the chief spokesman of the Fami ly of Love in England, and was certa in ly the leader wi th the highest prof i le. Even if he was Dutch, it appears V i te l l had been l iv ing in England for quite some t ime. There are references to him as far back as Henry's reign: . . . in K ing Henry's reign . . . unconstant, in K ing Edward's reign, a dissembler, and Queen Mary's reign, a plain A r i an , and now in this our Pr inces' re ign, a chief teacher of the Fami ly of Love.33 V i te l l makes his f i rst appearance on the scene in 1555 in Colchester . Wi l l iam Wilkinson, in his Confuta t ion, includes the account of one Henry Cr ine l l (Orinell) of Wil l ingham in Cambridgeshire.34 Or inel l states that to escape Catho l i c persecution he went to Colchester , and while there, in an inn frequented by Protestants, heard a discussion between V i te l l and another man. V i t e l l , of course, took the heret ical side, denying infant bapt ism, predestination and even, according to Or ine l l , the divini ty of Chr is t . It seems certain that at this t ime, V i te l l was not a member of the Fami ly of Love. Al though, according to Or ine l l , he did mention a man "who l ived as he sayd beyond the seas an holy l i fe,"35 i t is not clear whether this refers to - 43 -H . N . , David Jor is , or someone else. A l so , the views attr ibuted to V i te l l by Or ine l l bear l i t t le resemblance to the teachings of H .N . , or at least, what l i t t le resemblance they do bear could certainly have come from other sources. In any case, sometime early in El izabeth's reign, he recanted his Ar ian views at Paul's Cross.36 How and when V i te l l was converted to the Fami ly of Love is not known. It happened certa in ly some t ime between his recantat ion at Paul's Cross and 1577, when he is f i rs t mentioned by a hostile writer.37 By that t ime, he appears to have emerged as the chief leader of the Fami ly in England. Although he is often referred to as "Christopher V i te l l of Southwark, joyner,"38 h e s e e m s to have led a wandering l i f e , both for the sake of the Fami ly and his own l iber ty. Rogers states that his wife in London had not seen him in two years.39 V i te l l must have travel led to the Cont inent , for his writ ings betray an int imate fami l iar i ty with H .N . and his teachings, which indicates some personal contact with the prophet. He was probably also the translator of several of H.N.'s works into E n g l i s h , a n d this fac t , if indeed the books were printed in Cologne, would indicate Cont inental t rave l . Cer ta in ly some contact wi th Nic laes would have been l ikely for the accomplishing of this task. What eventually happened to V i t e l l , we do not know. A f te r John Rogers' Answere unto a wicked l ibel in 1579, nothing further is heard of h im. One would think that if he had been arrested or interrogated, one would certainly have heard of i t in the polemical l i terature. Several of H.N.'s works are remarkable in that they make reference to his fol lowers in England. The f i rst of these is " A n Epist le sent unto two daughters of Warwick." Fu l le r , as we have seen, used this as evidence of Nic laes ' visit to England under Edward; these daughters of Warwick were, af ter a l l , his two principal "perverts."41 However, since Niclaes signed the let ter "your unknown fr iend," i t - 44 -seems unlikely that he knew them personally.42 This letter exists in two forms. One, from about 1579, is a manuscript to be found in Lambeth Palace.43 Then, in 1608, it was reprinted with a refutat ion in Amsterdam by the separatist Henry Ainsworth.44 it is not known when the let ter was original ly wr i t ten, though Hami l ton dates it sometime during Mary's reign.45 The advice contained in this let ter was grist to the authorit ies' m i l l : No my beloved, no, the confession of Chr is t must stand in greater force or ef fect than to be confessed with the mouth, in the ceremonial service . . .46 The second exists only in manuscript form in Lambeth Palace.47 This is "The Epist le of H .N. . . . unto the right Reverend Bishops." This let ter is simi lar to the vindicat ion Niclaes sent to the authorit ies in Emden some twenty years ear l ier , although "the epistle had a bell igerent note" lacking in the former.48 This let ter was probably a response to one of the campaigns mounted against the sect in the 1570's. Its main assertion is that "There is no excuse for persecuting a community of law-abiding men who do their duty to the Queen and her c iv i l and ecc les iast ica l representatives."49 As far as the works of H .N . himself are concerned, these are the only two references to fol lowers in England. From t ime to t ime, members of the Fami ly of Love took it upon themselves to defend themselves in print f rom their adversaries. The f i rst of these is the anonymous Br ief Rehearsal l , printed in 1575.50 Although there are no copies of this edit ion extant, the date seems cer ta in , for the reprinted edit ion of 1656 bears that date, and 3ohn Rogers mentions having read i t . The date is signif icant in that this document seems to have been a response to campaign against the Fami ly of Love undertaken at the t ime. It was in late 1574 that Dr . Perne undertook the examinat ion of Robert Sharpe and the Privy Counci l wrote to the Bishop of London regarding the Fami ly of Love. - h5 -As might be expected, the thrust of the Brief Rehearsal l is that the Fami ly of Love is no threat. Throughout, the author or authors protest their loyal ty , obedience, and peacef ulness: And to that end, obey we also our Sovereign Lady the Queen, and the Magistrates our foregoers, both spir i tual and temporal : and that of Gods behalf, and even for our conscience and the peaces cause: paying a l l tr ibute unto these said Magistrates, l iv ing obediently and Subject- l ike, even as is meet and right under their Laws . . .51 As also might be expected, the author of the Brief Rehearsal l downplays the foreign origins of the sect and its heterodox nature: And for that cause, to the end that we might uprightly shew forth the same, both in the deed and truth . . . not using any other Ceremonies, Law , Statues, nor Sacraments of Bapt ism, then such as are ministered in the Church of England.52 Nevertheless, i t does seem to be an authentic document of the Fami ly of Love. For one th ing, the name "Fami ly of Love " is used in the t i t le and throughout the work. Nowhere is this name used (except by cr i t ics) where i t applies to anything other than H.N.'s sect . A Brief Rehearsal ! being an anonymous work, the best we can do is speculate as to its authorship. As we have seen, there was a group of the Fami ly of Love among the minor functionaries at Cour t . This seems to be the most l ikely source of any apologetics for the Fami ly of Love . The signif icance of this document is not easy to assess. It does show that there were def ini tely members of the Fami ly suff ic ient ly l i terate to pen i t , sophist icated enough to couch i t in the proper language, and powerful enough to have it pr inted. Who these people were, as mentioned above must remain a matter of speculat ion. As a creed of the Fami ly of Love , i t is certainly not ent irely t ru thfu l , and here the sectaries may have been giving their enemies ammunit ion, for surely those who wanted to could f ind out that A Brief Rehearsal l omit ted more - 46 -than it included. Thus, it could be seen as yet another example of the group's decei t fu l nature. Another anonymous work attr ibuted to the Fami ly of Love is An Apology for  the Service of Love . This work is in the form of a play, a discussion between three characters: Ex i l e , a member of the Fami ly of Love , C i t i z e n , and Countryman. Aga in , this is an attempt on the part of the Fami ly of Love to answer the charges against them. However, rather than, as in A Brief Rehearsal l where only general statements are made about the group's loyalty and orthodoxy, in An Apology charges are answered in spec i f ic : C i t i z e n : Wilt thou deny the Sacrament of Baptisme? Ex i le : Though I speak of the true Baptisme of regeneration through repentance, and newnesse of l i f e , yet do I not deny the holy Sacrament of Bapt isme, which signif ieth regeneration in Chr is t and is ministered unto Infants, though some have most unjustly so reported to u s . 5 ^ The upshot of the discussion is , of course, that C i t i zen and Countryman are convinced of Ex i le 's orthodoxy. The question of authorship, here as with A Brief Rehearsal l , must remain in the realm of speculat ion. However, in the case of An Apology, we are at least given a c lue. In the preface, the author describes himself as "one of her Majesties menial servants, who was in no smal l esteem with Her , for his known wisdom and god l i ness . " 5 5 The category of "menial servants" would seem to f i t the Yeoman Guards, among whom, as we have seen, the Fami ly of Love was popular. The s imi lar i t ies between A Brief Rehearsal l and An Apology do not end there. Both are extant only in editions printed in 1656 by Gi les Ca lver t . In the case of A Br ief Rehearsa l l , Calver t 's edit ion bears the date 1575, but for An Apology, there is no such date. Strype says the or iginal edit ion was published in 1575,56 and it was certainly published between 1575 and 1580 . 5 7 Thus, An Apology, l ike A Brief - 47 -Rehearsa l l , seems to have been a response to what was possibly perceived as a growing antagonism within o f f i c ia l c i rc les . In addition to the English translations of Nic laes' works, there are several other English translations of Cont inental Fami l is t t racts . One of these is A Good  and f ru i t fu l l Exhortat ion unto the Fami ly of Love by "E l i dad " , ident i f ied only as a " fe l low elder with the Elder H .N . " Though published without date or place of publication the STC lists the date as 1574. "E l idad" was one of the three elders Niclaes took with him from Amsterdam to Emden. Whether this "E l idad" and the "E l idad" who wrote A Good and f ru i t fu l l Exhortat ion are ident ical is unknown. Perhaps the name refers to an of f ice rather than a part icular person. In any case, A Good andt Ir iuit ful l Exhortat ion seems to have been wri t ten after the Hie l is t r i f t , which would date the or iginal "Base-Almayne" version out of which the English translat ion was made sometime after 1573: But ye shall not contend or dispute; . . . with any of a l l those that bring-in Variaunce and make Breach.58 The emphasis in this work is on unity and uniformity within the Fami ly of Love. Wri t ten, as one supposes, after the split in the sect (which, by the way, seems not to have af fected the Fami ly of Love in England at a l l ) , this is indeed understandable. It dwells at length on relationships within the Fami ly of Love . L ike the English translations of H.N.'s works, A Good and f ru i t fu l l Exhortat ion was not printed in England; the most l ikely spot seems to have been Cologne. As far as who did the translat ing, this is unknown, but as with H.N.'s works, the most l ikely candidate would seem to be Christopher V i t e l l . Another of these works is A dist inct declarat ion of the requiring of the Lord , by "F ide l i tas" , a fel low elder with H .N . in the Famel ie of the Loue. " L ike A Good and f ru i t fu l l Exhortat ion, i t was "translated out of the Base-Almayne" and printed - 48 -without date or place. (The STC lists the date as 1575). This also, l ike the former, appears to have been wri t ten after the split in the sect . If "E l idad" is a compassionate father, guiding the Fami ly in its internal relat ions, then "F ide l i tas" is much more an angel of vengeance, emphasizing judgment, the destruction of the ungodly, and the apocalypse: Oh! what an unmeasurable woe, cometh then over the wicked Worlde: and also over a l l them that cleave unto her/ and shew-fourth no Repentaunce/ nor w i l l assemble them wherunto they are cal led and bidden through the gratious Woord and his Service of Loue, to their preservation in the G o d l i n e s s . 5 9 Yes/even-then wi l l the Lorde himself with his Arme/and the Armes of his holy ones, be the true Judge upon the Ear th / and cleanse the universal l Ea r th , from al l the Unrighteousness and Falshood that the Chldren of Men . . . have practised and erected upon the e a r t h . 6 0 A third work is A Reproofe Spoken and Given against a l l False Christ ians by "Ab ia Nazarenus." Ju l ia Ebel has speculated that this is pseudonym for V i te l l himself , but this is without substantiation.61 This t rac t , unlike the others bears a date, 1579, but l ike the others, no place of pr int ing. As its t i t le suggests, i t is an at tack on the cr i t ics of the Fami ly of Love . Especial ly interest ing from our point of view is a preface which appears to have been wri t ten speci f ica l ly for the English t ranslat ion. (Perhaps this is by Vi te l l . ) In i t the three earl iest English cr i t ics are mentioned by name: Stephen Bateman, John Rogers, and John Knewstubb.62 Another Fami l is t work translated into English is Mi rab i l ia opera De i : Cer ta ine  wonderful l works of God which hapned to H .N , by "Tobias." "Tobias", l ike "E l idad" , is the name of one of the three elders H . N . took with him f rom Amsterdam to Emden. This is an hagiographical account of H.N.'s l i fe and works which runs paral lel to the Chronika by "Dan ie l " and A c t a H .N , by "Zacharias."63 - k9 -What do these works te l l us about the Fami ly of Love in England? Apart from the preface to A Reproof e, England or English people are not mentioned at a l l . Ye t the very fact that these works were translated from "base-almayne" or "nether-Saxon" into Engl ish, indicates that somebody thought the task was worthwhile. The expense and labour of t ranslat ing, pr int ing, and (after 1580, surreptiously) transporting them into England, indicates that they were not shots in the dark, so to speak. Somebody was on the receiv ing end; there had to be a demand for them, however smal l . That these works actual ly found their way to England and were read by English members of the Fami ly of Love is borne out by other sources. In the confession of the Fami ly of Love at Wisbech, John Bourne admit ted that among the works of H .N . which he possessed were also the works of "E l idad" and "F ide l i tas . "6^ The only other document we have which def ini tely is a work of the Fami ly of Love is a petit ion addressed to James I upon his accession in 1604.65 This pet i t ion, couched in the subservient language of humble subjects addressing their monarch, seeks to correct His Majesty's view of the sect . In Basil ikon Dor on, published in 1599 as a work of instruct ion for his son, the K ing ident i f ied them with the Puri tans: F i rs t then, as to the name of Puri tanes, I am not ignorant that the st i le thereof doth properly belong only to that vi le sect amonst the Anabaptistes cal led the Fami l ie of love . . .66 The petit ioners doe beseech your Pr incely Majesty to understand that the people of the fami ly of love, or of God , doe utterly disclaime and detest a l l the said absurd and sel f -concei ted opinions and disobedient and erroneous sorts of the Anabapt ists, Browne, Penry, Pur i tans, and a l l other proud minded sects and heresies whatsoever, protesting upon paine of our l ives, that wee are not consenting with any such brainesicke preachers, nor their rebellious and disobedient sects whatsoever, but have been, and ever wi l l be truly obedient to your Highnesse. . . .67 - 50 -Their only offense, they say, is that "we have read certaine bookes brought forth by a Germane authour under the characters of H.N."68 They also c la im , probably somewhat dishonestly, for they must have known of the 1580 Proc lamat ion, "Against which Authour and his books we never yet heard nor knew any Law established in this Realme by our late gracious Sovereigne."69 They have been v ic t imized by "mal ic ious and slanderous reports," and by magistrates who "have framed divers and subtle art ic les for us, being plaine and unlearned men to answer upon our oaths, whereby to urge and gather somethings from our selves, so to approve their false and unchristian accusations to be true. . . ."70 Their request is that the K ing only read H.N.'s work for himself and meet with elders of the Fami ly of Love to discuss them. Interestingly, they offer to procure some of the learned men out of that Country (if there be any yet remaining al ive that were wel l acquainted with the Author and his works in his l i fe t ime, and which l ikewise have exerc ized his works ever since) to come over and attend upon your Majesty at your appointed t ime convenient, who can much more suff ic ient ly instruct and resolve your Majesty in any unusual words, phrase, or matter that may happily seem darke and doubtf ull to your Majesty than any of us in this land are able to doe.71 It is doubtful whether James ever saw this pet i t ion, and even if he had, i t surely would not have made any di f ference. This petit ion again seems to have been the work of someone at Cour t , certa in ly of someone l i terate enough to be able to wri te i t , and fami l iar enough with the proper forms of address to the K i n g . Hami l ton believes that i t was the work of Thomas or Robert Seale, more l ikely the latter.72 The 1604 peti t ion is the last direct evidence we have for the existence of the Fami ly of Love in England. No more is heard from the sect . A l l we get from now on are hosti le accounts and innuendo. It does indeed seem l ikely that the 1604 petit ion represents the sect's last gasp, or at least i ts last attempt at just i fying - 51 -i tself before the authori t ies. If there were any members after this, they probably kept their beliefs to themselves, giving up any hope of evangelizat ion or v indicat ion. The Fami ly of Love seems to have existed in England on two dif ferent levels.73 The f i rs t , the one which we have concerned ourselves with mostly up unti l now, is the Fami ly of Love made up of Engl ishmen, chief ly in London and the Isle of E l y . The second revolved around the foreign, speci f ica l ly the Dutch, community in London. The Dutch community in London had been granted their own church under Edward VI to be held in the former buildings of the Augustinian Friars.74 Under the charter granted by the K i n g , the Strangers' Church at Aust in Fr iars was to be completely autonomous of the bishops' jurisdict ion and authori ty, "to act and organize matters in our own way, even if we deviate in our ceremonies and church customs from the Ang l ican. "?^ The Church was divided into a Walloon section and a Dutch sect ion, Mar t in Micronius being one of the ministers of the latter.76 John a Lasco was appointed superintendent over both. A Lasco was the son of a Polish nobleman who had studied with Erasmus and subsequently gone over to the Reformat ion. In 1540 he sett led in Emden and became pastor of a church there. Countess Anna made him her superintendent of churches in 1542 to try and impose some kind of order in East Fr is ian churches. Thus, he would almost certainly have heard of H .N . and his Fami ly of Love , even if he did not know that he and the prophet were l iv ing in the very same town. A Lasco f i rst went to England in 1548 at Cranmer's invi tat ion and sett led there permanently in 1550 when he was appointed superintendent of the Strangers' Church. In 1553, he lef t England, never to return.77 Mar t in Micronius, one of the pastors (along with Wouter Delen)78 Q f the Dutch Church , was a F leming from Ghent . He had studied in Basel and Zur ich. He met a Lasco in London upon the Pole's f i rst visit there in 1548 and returned with him to - 52 -Emden. He returned in 1549, and shortly thereafter became pastor at Aust in Fr ia rs . 7 9 Upon Edward's death and Mary's accession, the leaders of the Dutch Protestant community, seeing which way the wind was blowing, f led England, most of them, including Micronius, to Emden. While in "ex i le " from England, Micronius edited the at tack on H.N. by Adrian de Ku iper , a Protestant pastor from Breda, and later revised and published i t himself .80 Upon El izabeth's accession, the Dutch Church returned from its "ex i le . " Although the church at Aust in Fr iars was re-establ ished, its independence was curtai led and i t was now subject to the authority of the Bishop of L o n d o n . ^ Given the internat ional nature of the inte l lectual and merchant community of the sixteenth century, and the close ties which the Dutch refugees in London maintained wi th the homeland, i t would be surprising indeed if something of the Fami ly of Love did not surface at Aust in Fr ia rs . Although there is no conclusive evidence for i t , some interest ing inferences may be made. L iv ing in London at this t ime were people who had connections with the Fami ly of Love on the Cont inent. One, the historian Emmanuel van Meteren, was a relat ive of Ortel ius.82 Another, Jacob Cool the Elder (the name had been angl ic ized from Coels) was a silk merchant who was marr ied to Ortel ius ' sister and was thus related to both the geographer and Van Meteren. He may also have been a relat ive of Martynken Coe ls , an act ive member of the Fami ly on the Continent.83 y e t another was Johann Radermacher the Elder , a fr iend of Ortel ius ' ; he had been involved in a scheme with Niclaes and Plant in to export Hebrew Bibles to Jewish communit ies in Morocco.84 In 1559 a new preacher appeared at Aust in Fr ia rs . This was Adrian van Haemstede. Van Haemstede's reputation preceded h im. He had already been in - 53 -trouble in the Low Countr ies — there was a price on his head85 __ for being "soft" on the Anabapt ists. In London, Van Haemstede at t racted both fol lowers and enemies. Among his fol lowers were Van Meteren and by impl icat ion the Cools and Radermacher.86 The poet Ka re l Utenhove accused the preacher of Fami l ism in a letter to his brother Jan , one of the founders of the Dutch Church and now an elder there.87 Although there is no solid evidence to support this accusat ion, Van Haemstede's career caused a serious r i f t before he was forced to leave England on pain of death in August 1562.88 Adding speculative fuel to the f i re that Van Haemstede was a member of the Fami ly of Love , one of the tr iplets (of whom two lived) born to his wife during their f l ight f rom England, was named "Char i tas . " To take Van Haemstede's p lace, a young pastor named Nicholas Carinaeus was persuaded to leave his church in Jenlet , East Friesland and go to London.89 Carinaeus had further revised De Kuiper's and Micronius' attacks on H.N.90 Both attacks are included by John Knewstubb in his Confutat ion. Carinaeus arr ived in London in 1562 and died of the plague the next year.91 Any statements about the Fami ly of Love in Aust in Fr iars must be accounted speculat ion, but not completely uninformed speculat ion. If we cannot agree with Ful ler that Niclaes caused trouble in the Dutch Church under Edward, i t seems l ikely that his reputation or his doctrines did. Perhaps the "two daughters of Warwick" to whom he wrote were somehow af f i l ia ted with the Dutch community in London. In any case, both Micronius and Carinaeus came to London having attacked H.N. in print, and they were not l ikely to have lef t their prejudices back in East Fr ies land. We come now to the third type of evidence concerning the Fami ly of Love in England; the most plent i ful and certainly the most misunderstood: hostile writ ings - 54 -against the sect . For now, however, we shall only be looking at minor and incidental t reatments. In the next chapter we shall deal wi th the three major ant i -Fami ly of Love works, putting them into a po l i t i ca l , rel igious, and diplomatic context : John Rogers' Displaying of an Horr ible Secte of grosse and wicked heretiques, John Knewstubb's Confutat ion of Monstrous Heresies, and Wi l l iam Wilkinson's Confutat ion  of Cer ta in Ar t i c les del ivered unto the Fami ly of Love. As w i l l be clear later on, i t is more suitable to deal with these works in the context of the religious and pol i t ica l convict ions of their authors and the general pol i t ica l and religious si tuat ion. The three works are str ikingly simi lar in style and substance, and i t was indeed these three which formed the core of o f f i c ia l and public perception of the Fami ly of Love , and the picture they presented influenced al l those who came af ter . The f i rst Engl ish l i terary at tack on the Fami ly of Love was contained in The  Golden Booke of Leaden Goddes, by Stephen Bateman (Batman) printed in 1577. This book, dedicated to Henry C a r y , Lord Hunsdon (for whom, in 1582 Bateman was to become chap la in) 9 ^ i s a catalogue of "the vayne imagination of heathen Pagans and counterfa ict Chr is t ians." Among the "counter fa ict Chr is t ians" are Niclaes and the Fami ly of Love. Bateman appears to have been the f irst to put together the letters H .N . wi th Nic laes in print, although i t seems unlikely that he made the connection himself. Here also we f ind the f i rst mention of Christopher V i te l l in connection wi th the Fami ly of Love . In a short section on the Fami ly of L o v e , 9 ^ Bateman condemns Niclaes as an "extravagant heret ike" adding a l ist of his works. Interestingly, i t was Bateman, who having already spoken on the subject, that Rogers got to wri te the preface to his Displaying. In 1583, Wi l l iam Fulke that Puri tan troublemaker of St. John's, Cambr idge, and now master of Pembroke H a l l , published his Defense of the sincere and true -55 -Translations of the holie Scriptures into the English tong, against the manifold caui l ls , fr iui lous quarels, and impudent slaunders of Gregor ie Mar t in , one of the readers of Popish diuinit ie in the trayterous Seminarie of Rhemes. Mart in had accused the Protestants of having no authority save Scr ipture, and no authority to interpret that, and had i l lustrated the inevitable f ragmentat ion: Luther shal l judge for Lutherans, Ca lv in for the Calv in is ts , Cartwr ight for the Puri tans, and another for the brethren of love: Br ie f ly , themselves w i l l be judges of councils and fathers . . . and every youth among them. . . w i l l saucily control not only one, but al l the fathers consenting together. . . .94 Fulke natural ly denies this. He takes exception especial ly to the inclusion of the Fami ly of Love among the Protestants: But a l l the rest that you assume . . . is a stark staring l i e , except that you say of H .N . for the brethren of love which are more l ike to you than to us.95 Thomas Rogers, chaplain to Archbishop Bancrof t , in his Catho l i c Doctr ine of  the Church of England, an exposit ion of the Thi r ty-Nine A r t i c l es , found something in the Fami ly of Love to object to in discussing almost every ar t i c le . Here is a smal l sampling: Chr is t took not f lesh of the Virgin Mary; so did the Valentinians think, and so think the Anabapt ists, and the Fami ly of Love , who make an allegory of the incarnation of Christ .96 To them, f ina l ly , are we adversaries, which above the Scriptures do prefer their own . . . imaginations: as did the Manichees, David George, and the Fami ly of Love.97 Another sort of people there is amongst us, which w i l l observe, and use a l l ceremonies whatsoever, as the temporiz ing Fami l i s ts , who . . . keep a l l external orders, albei t in their hearts they scorn al l professions and services but their own.98 This is only a smal l part of what Rogers has to say about the Fami l y . They are mentioned frequently, almost always in connection with other heret ical groups, both - 56 -ancient and contemporary: Valent inians, Manichees, Cer inthians, Ebionites, Anabaptists, Sabbatarians, Davidjor ists, e tc . Almost every charge against them is to be found in John Rogers' Displaying, from their propensity to swear falsely to their baptism at age thir ty (which John Rogers erroneously derived from the 1561 confession of the Surrey " F a m i l i s t s " ) . " These charges and others are repeated in Whitaker's Disputation on Holy Scriptures against the Papists, and by Sandys in a sermon before the Queen: some Chr ist ians deny the scr iptures, such as the Schwenkfeldians, Anabapt ists, and in England the Fami l is ts and Superi l luminat i . . . . These are not Christ ians truly but equivocally . . . i U U Which pract ice the Fami ly of Love hath lately drawn to a precept, and hath newly broached it as a saleable doctr ine, that men need not openly be of any religion whereby they may endanger themselves: that i t is good Christendom to l i e , swear, and forswear . .101 One could no doubt f ind much more on the Fami ly of Love in contemporary l i terature. The Fami ly was the object of universal obloquy, and as such, was at tacked by almost everyone who put his pen to paper on the subject of rel ig ion. The cruc ia l point however, is the repetit iveness of the charges and their or ig in. Almost every accusation against H .N . and the Fami ly of Love can be traced back to the works of Rogers, Knewstubb, and Wilkinson. We wi l l return to these works in the next chapter. When the Fami ly of Love vanished from the histor ical record after the petit ion to James I, the attacks upon it did not cease. A f te r a l l , what could be easier than at tacking a group that would not or could not defend i tse l f? If we go on the assumption that the number of hostile references to the sect are an accurate guide to its fortunes, then obviously we could conclude that the Fami ly of Love maintained its existence and even grew during the f irst half of the seventeenth - 5 7 -century. However, this view is a result of faulty methodology. In Hamilton's words, "the numerical power of the Fami l is ts in the seventeenth century was very far f rom corresponding to the ever more frequent complaints against them."102 i n fac t , if we look at the complaints against them, we see that those being cal led Fami l i s ts , even if they shared H.N.'s myst ica l views, even if they had read and approved of his works, were not members of his Fami ly of Love . They were cal led Fami l is ts because that was one of the worst names their cr i t ics could think of. A case in point is the af fa i r of John Etherihgton (Hetherington). Etherington had at t racted a certain amount of notoriety in the f irst two decades of the seventeenth century as a London non-conformist preacher. Dr . Stephen Denison persuaded the Archbishop of Canterbury to proceed against him and he was arrested. 103 Etherington was forced to endure a long harangue against him by Denison at Paul's Cross in 1627, while standing bareheaded with a paper on his chest stat ing his errors. 104 Interestingly, while Denison does ca l l him a "Fami l i s t " , he is not once connected to " H . N . " or "the Fami ly of Love . " Indeed, the only reference to H .N . is contained in a brief at tack on Edmund Jessop, whose Discovery of English  Anabaptists had appeared in 1623. Jessop had cal led the Fami ly of Love "the most blasphemous and erroneous sect this day in the world."105 No doubt Denison would have agreed with this evaluat ion, but, he says, Jessop is another kind of Fami l i s t , not one of H.N.'s Fami ly of Love.106 in this connect ion, Denison describes various types of Fami l is ts : Casta l ian Fami l i s ts , Gringletonians (Grindletonians), Fami l is ts of the Mountain, of the Va l ley , and of the Cap. l °7 These are the groups which Strype described as "the spawn and improvements of this fami ly of love, of the which Henry Nicholas, of Holland was the founder."108 j n e o r u V w a y to make sense of this array of "Fami l i s ts " is to posit that they were not offshoots of H.N.'s Fami ly of Love , but - 58 -rather were independent and unconnected groups who were l inked together as Fami l is ts only by their c r i t i cs . Indeed, Strype himself informs us that the Fami ly of the Mount were fol lowers of a Scott ish woman, a Mrs. Dunbar. 109 This is further i l lustrated by the Grindletonians, so named after Gr indleton, the Yorkshire vi l lage where they were f i rs t d iscovered. ! 10 They were fol lowers of Roger Brear ly , not Nic laes. Although the two groups share some t ra i ts , there are substantial dif ferences as we l l . The Grindletonians did not revere the writings of N ic laes, and many of Brearly's views were vastly di f ferent from H.N. 's . ! H To return to Ether ington. Although accused by Denison of being a "Fami l i s t " , as we have seen, he is not connected with H .N . or the Fami ly of Love . The art ic les against him do not include accusations of Fami l i sm, only that he scandalized "the whole Church of England, in saying i t is no true Church of Chr is t , and publishing other erroneous opinion, proceeding from that i l l ground."! 12 Therefore, Jean Die tz Moss' assertion that "Denison may indeed have cornered a seventeenth-century Fami l i s t , " ! 13 appears unfounded. Etherington himself vehemently denied Denison's charges in several later works: Although I confesse, as touching my sel f , I being in my youth zealously a f fec ted, was very inquisit ive into those several sorts of Rel igions which I heard of, then professed. . . . And as touching this of H .N . especial ly (praised be the Lord) I never had any the least incl inat ion in my mind toward, but have always . . . opposed the same as a very blasphemous decei t , though I have bin by some very falsely charged with i t . H ^ The reprint ing of many of Nic laes ' works in the 1640's and 1650's has been seen by some as evidence of resurgence in the Fami ly 's fortunes. However, most of these editions were printed by Gi les Calver t who also printed many Quaker and Level ler works, the f i rst English translations of H i e l , as wel l as translations of Jacob Boehme, of whose works he published just as many as he did of N ic laes ' . ! 15 This - 59 -indicates a renewed interest in Spir i tual ist rel igion and radical myst ic ism, but not a new period of growth for the Fami ly of Love . These editions of H .N . were read, appreciated or cast igated, depending on the reader; but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that they were in any way t ied in wi th any revival of the Fami ly of Love . Throughout the C i v i l War period and even into the Restorat ion, the name "Fami l i s t " was a term of abuse. It was used because of its connotations of l iber t in ism, perfect ionism, ant inomianism, and decei t . It was quite simply one of the worst things to be ca l led . It was used in much the same way the epithet "Fasc is t " is used today. In the C i v i l War period the term was directed against various radical sects. Samuel Rutherford used it against certa in Army prophets: John Saltmarsh, Wil l iam De l , and others. Later on, i t was used against the Quakers, as in Henry Hal lywel l 's An Account of Fami l i sm As It is Revived and Propagated by the Quakers. One of the last , tantal iz ing references to the Fami ly of Love is contained in the diaries of John Eve lyn . He recounts that several people of the Fami ly of Love had presented a petit ion to James II in 1687. When the K ing asked about their form of worship, they describe themselves as " a sort of refined Quakers . . . not above three-score in al l . . . chief ly belonging to the Isle of E l y . " U 6 Perhaps, after a l l , a smal l group had managed to survive in Cambridgeshire for eighty years or so. This would accord with Strype's statement: I remember a gentleman, a great admirer of this sect , within less than twenty years ago, told me, that there was then but one of the Fami ly of Love a l ive, and he an old m a n . ^ 7 If, however, this group did survive, it was only because they were so insignif icant as to escape o f f i c ia l notice and repression. A far cry indeed from the view which hostile wri ters (and modern historians) presented. On the other hand, there may be - 60 -no genetic connection at a l l . With the reprinting of H.N.'s works in the 1640's and 50's, there may have been some kind of smal l rev iva l , or an already exist ing, but unconnected group may have appropriated the name for themselves. Thus we see that the standard view of the history of the Fami ly of Love in England, as described in the f irst chapter, is an opt ical i l lusion based on a smal l core of t ruth. The smal l core of truth is that there were groups of the Fami ly of Love in Cambridgeshire and London. A t no t ime, however, were these large or s igni f icant. Although the Fami ly vanishes from sight after the petit ion to James I, i t may have survived (but just barely) in the Isle of E ly into the last half of the seventeenth century. This core of truth was distorted by several factors, result ing in the standard v iew. F i rs t there was the general prevalence of "Fami l i s t " ideas. These are to be found everywhere in Chr is t ian i ty , from ancient heresies to the Spir i tual ist sects and writers of the Reformat ion. They are in no way unique to the Fami ly of Love. There was also the experience of the Dutch Church in London. A Lasco, Micronius, and Carinaeus al l had had experience with H.N.'s doctrines in the Low Countr ies and were l ikely faced with the same spectre in London with the Van Haemstede af fa i r . Their experience seems to have made an impression on Engl ishmen. Las t ly , and most important ly, the standard histor ical view is based on the volume and vehemence with which the Fami ly of Love was attacked and repressed in England. It has already been shown that the response was out of a l l proportion to the threat. What remains now is to explain why such an insignif icant and harmless sect provoked such a violent response. - 61 -CHAPTER 3 We come now to our centra l problem. If the Fami ly of Love was so t iny and insigni f icant, why did it provoke such a react ion? To answer this question, we shall have to look at the three works which in i t iated the attack and at their authors, putt ing them in a general context of El izabethan religious pol i t ics. It has already been mentioned that the core of the react ion to the Fami ly of Love lies in three l i terary works published within several years of each other and the Royal Proc lamat ion: John Knewstubb's A Confutat ion of Monstrous Heresies taught by  H . N . (1579); John Rogers' The Displaying of an horrible Secte of grosse and wicked  Heretiques (1578); and Wi l l iam Wilkinson's A Confutat ion of Certa ine Ar t i c les  del ivered unto the Fami ly of Love (1579). Vir tual ly al l other attacks took their cue from these three. We have already seen how Thomas Rogers derived his information on the Fami ly of Love f rom John Rogers' Displaying. * Wi l l iam Fulke's assertion to Gregory Mart in that "the brethren of love . . . are more l ike to you than to us," is l i f ted almost word for word f rom Knewstubb. 2 These are only a couple of examples. Almost every charge against the Fami ly which later wri ters pronounced can be found f irst in either Rogers, Knewstubb, or Wilkinson. Therefore, it would certainly be worth our while to examine these men and their works more c losely. John Knewstubb was the c r i t i c with the highest prof i le of the three.3 Born in Westmorland in 1544, he went up to Cambridge where he graduated B .A . in 1564, M.A . in 1568, and f inal ly B .D. in 1576. In that same year he began his at tack on the Fami ly of Love in a sermon preached at Paul's Cross on Good Fr iday. This sermon was appended to his Confutat ion published several years la ter . In this sermon, the - 62 -Family of Love is mentioned only tangentially. Perhaps Knewstubb trotted out his old sermon, which would certainly have been one of the highlights of his still young career, both to make extra use of it and to further convince the reader of his authority. In several brief passages where he mentions the Family of Love he condemns them along with "The Papists, Anabaptists, [and] Libertines . . . for as much as they will have the word subject to their spirite."^ He also castigates H.N.'s concept of "begoddedness" in relation to Christ. H . N . , says Knewstubb, affirms that Christ became God, or was "begodded," only after his suffering. This he can affirm only by turning Scripture into allegory. 5 It seems that this brief attack planted the seeds for a longer diatribe, for in 1579 Knewstubb came out with his Confutation. This work is standard in form, with the customary dedication to a luminary (and patron?), in this case Leicester's brother, Ambrose Dudley, E a r l of Warwick. The greatest danger to the Church is from within, says Knewstubb, and therefore we may no longer be satisfied with external confessions only. Those who submit to the Church outwardly while maintaining another faith secretly are the greatest enemy. Therefore, such people must be brutally suppressed, according to the Scriptural injunction in Deuteronomy 14. Knewstubb urges the Earl to use his influence to accomplish this repression. The dediction to the reader takes more of an anti-Catholic slant. The sins of England are so great that God has sent not only Papists as a judgment, but also Arians, Anabaptists, and the Family of Love. Though the Papists profess to hate the Family, they do not suppress it, for they have a great deal in common with it. Though the Family is not Protestant, Protestants must share the blame for it, for they have not combatted it fiercely enough. Then there is an advertisement in the form of "The judgement of a godly learned man," who commends the book to the - 63 -readers. This "godly learned man" is ident i f ied only as " W . C . " Hami l ton ident i f ied " W . C . " as Wi l l iam C e c i l , although he adduces no evidence to support this asser t ion . 6 The text of the Confutat ion i tself is a long-winded, involved theological argument in which Knewstubb takes various of H.N.'s points of doctrine and refutes them with the same passages of Scripture with which H . N . had supported them. The complex theological arguments do not overly concern us here, except to say that Knewstubb's theological training at Cambridge was not wasted. Appended to the text , as we have seen, are Knewstubb's Paul's Cross sermon, as wel l as Micronius and Carinaeus against the Fami ly of Love . There is also "The judgement of an other godly learned man," signed " L . T . " , whom Hami l ton identi f ies as Laurence Tomson, Walsingham's secretary.? Of John Rogers, who wrote The Displaying of an horrible Secte of grosse and  wicked Heretiques and A n Answere unto a wicked and infamous L ibe l made by  Christopher V i te l . . . , we are considerably less wel l - in formed. In fac t , we do not even know exact ly who he was. There are two candidates, however, both having been educated at Oxford. There was a John Rogers who graduated B .A . in 1554, M.A . in 1556, and became a fel low at Queens' Col lege in 1559.8 Another John Rogers graduated B .A . f rom Merton Col lege in 1569-70 and M.A . f rom St. Alban's Ha l l in 1576.9 which of these two wrote the ant i -Fami l is t works cannot be determined; however, that it was one of the two is borne out by Anthony Wood's Athenae Oxonienses.lQ In either case, we see that our author was roughly comtemporary with Knewstubb at Cambridge. Rogers' Displaying was obviously intended for a dif ferent readership than Knewstubb's Confutat ion. Knewstubb's book is f i l led with Scriptural and patr is t ic references and was obviously intended for the theological ly sophisticated reader. - 64 -The Displaying, a shorter, less dense book — about ninety pages compared to Knewstubb's almost two hundred — is more chatty in tone and was c lear ly aimed at a wider, more popular audience. In the preface, Rogers states that he wrote the book to rescue a fr iend who had fa l len into the errors of the Fami ly of Love . Whether this is t rue, or just a l i terary device is not c lear . However, Rogers does display a good deal of fami l iar i ty with H.N.'s works and doctr ines. L i ke Knewstubb, Rogers' chief concern is that the fami ly be repressed which is his "duetie which I owe unto Christs Church . . . to cleanse and purge [ it] f rom such errours and false doctr ine."^ 1 Throughout the Displaying, one of Rogers' chief complaints against the Fami ly of Love , and especial ly against V i t e l l , is their hypocrisy in outward conf i rmi ty : if the doctrine of H . N . be a trueth, why is it taught in corners? Why dare none step foorth to maintaine the doctr ine of H .N . being euerywhere spoken aga ins t? !^ Why do they not come forward plainly and declare their bel iefs, "creepe in corners," as Rogers puts i t? 13 Because "their doctrine dareth not abide the l ight." 14 Thus the fact that they keep their beliefs secret is enough to condemn their doctrines as fa lse. There is also a preface by Stephen Bateman, as already mentioned. The emphasis here is also on repression, "or else w i l l assuredly fol lowe the l ike plague on us, as was at Mu'nster . " ! 5 Rogers' account, much more than Knewstubb's, is concerned with the origins and history of the Fami ly of Love. The text of the Displaying i tself begins with an account of the l i fe and heresies of David George (David Jor is) , whose disciple, Rogers assures us, Nic laes was: David George was the hatcher of this heresie, and layde the egge, but H . N . brought forth the chickens. - 6 5 -Henrie Nicholas . . . af ter the death of David George tooke upon him to maintaine the same doctr ine, not in the name of Dav id , but in his owne name. . . 17 Many of the same cr i t ic isms are shared by Rogers and Knewstubb. Rogers maintains that H . N . turns Scripture into al legory, that "there is nothing left certaine."18 H.N.'s books are not wr i t ten in a simple and godly sty le, but "subti ley and darkely" to "dasel l the simple." 19 The accusations of l icentiousness and l ibert in ism with which the Fami ly of Love was so frequently charged in later years seem also to have originated with Rogers.20 Aga in , Rogers shares wi th Knewstubb the convict ion that the Fami ly of Love are real ly a f i f th column of Papists: Wherein they fol lowe the steppes of the Pelagians and Papists d i rect ly , whose doctrine of works . . . doth in divers treatises manifest ly appeare, destroying the worke wrought by Chr is t our Lord.21 And least the Papists should imagine that this H . N . should be a professor of the Gospel l , I w i l l declare manifest causes to prove that he is a right chicken of the Church of Rome.22 H . N . , declares Rogers, agrees with Rome on the authority of the Pope, on the Mass, and on the e f f icacy of works.23 i n the matter of confession, he exceeds even the Catho l ics , "for where the Pope requireth but a confession of the [ac te? ] commi t ted, H . N . requireth a declarat ion of the thought."24 As mentioned above, it is f rom Rogers that we derive much of our information concerning Christopher Vi te l l .25 i n fact it was Rogers' Displaying which prompted V i te l l to refute the charges against him and the Fami ly of Love . Vitel l 's refutat ion and Rogers' answer are contained in Rogers' An Answere unto a wicked and infamous L ibe l . . . (1579). In essence, it is a rehashing of what Rogers said in his Displaying and is more interesting for what V i te l l says (after a l l , this is al l we have of his writ ing) than for what Rogers repeats. A f te r an exhortat ion to the Fami ly of Love to repent, and a section t i t led "Cer ta in absurd speeches taken out of the bookes of - 6 6 -H . N . as errours of the Fami ly of Love , " and an admonition to V i t e l l , Rogers concludes with the 1561 confession of the Surrey sectar ians. Throughout the Displaying, Rogers is very conscious of f i r ing the opening shots in an ongoing campaigns: No man hitherto (that I can learne) hath endeavoured to confute them in writ ing.26 He is also very conscious that others must carry on the batt le: Notwithstanding, so many as ei ther by the doctr ine of Henrie Nicholas, or by conference I haue learned, I have set downe, to the ende that some good man might be encouraged to confute so impious an author, and such horrible errours, and perfourme in some learned worke that which my want and capaci t ie is not able to supply. . . . 27 It is enough for me to beginne the skirmishe, to display the Fami l i e , to make readie the way, and discrie their force, that others may come after and overthrow their camp.28 It was not long before Knewstubb and Wilkinson accepted the challenge la id down by Rogers. The third of our three major attacks on the Fami ly of Love is Wi l l iam Wilkinson's A Confutat ion of Certa ine Ar t i c les del ivered unto the Fami ly of Love, also published in 1579. It is the longest of the three books, close to three hundred pages, and it is also the least wel l -organized. It has something of a rush job about i t , for Wilkinson's text i tself is but a small part of the to ta l , the balance being made up of sections from various contr ibutors. The customary dedication to an eminent personage is to Richard C o x , Bishop of E l y . It is unusual, however, in that we have Cox's reply printed alongside: Perusing over this l i t t le treatise of M. Wilkinsons, I could not but alowe his di l igence and paineful l t rauel l in this heret ica l l and schismat ical l wor ld, and I would hartely wishe of God, that our Church of England might be wel l weeded f rom to to [sic ] grosse errors, for it is high tyme.29 - 67 -The dedication i tself is not remarkable, touching al l the fami l iar bases. The church must be guarded from Satan, and especial ly from the Fami ly of Love , "the most pestiferous and deadly Heresie of a l l others."30 The Fami ly of Love is increasing rapidly, especial ly in the Bishop's diocese. The dedication ends with the fami l iar ca l l to action and repression. The dedication to the reader is unremarkable, except that Wilkinson relates how he communicated with the Fami ly of Love , and how they supplied him with their replies to his al legations. There fol lows " A very brief and true description of the f irst springing up of the Heresie, termed the Fami l ie of Loue . . . " A f te r a thumbnail history of the "the fury of the Romishe Baalamites" under Mary , we are told how Colchester became a place of refuge for true Christians.31 But Satan "styrred up divers schismat ical l spirites,"32 among whom was Christopher V i t e l l . It is here that we get the descript ion and testimony of "Henry Cr ine l l [Or inel l ] of Will ingham in the County of Cambr idge," as described in the last chapter. Now there comes "Notes upon the book ent i t led Evangelium Regni , " by John Young, Bishop of Rochester . Young brings up such fami l iar bugbears as the Fami ly of Love as Papists, H.N.'s pretention of d iv in i ty, and his al legorizat ion of Scr ipture. Appended to Young's commentary are "Errours and absurde asseuerations out of H .N . his Euangel ie, gathered by Wi l l iam Wilkinson." Fol lowing this is "Here t i ca l l a f f i rmat ions, and ungodly expositions of Scriptures by H . N . out of the documental l sentences." ("Documentall sentences" refers to D ic ta H.N. Documental l  sentences; eaven as those-same were spoken fourth by H .N . , one of Nic laes' works translated into English.) F inal ly we are at the heart of the work: "Ar t i c les which I exhibited into a frend of mine, to be conuaied unto the Fami l ie of loue, that I might be cer t i f ied of - 68 -the doubts in them contayned. Which for my further instruct ion one Theophilus sent me wi th a le t ter , and an Exhorat ion, in the fol lowing manner." It appears that somehow Wilkinson was able to contact some members of the Fami ly of Love and confront them with his charges. "Theophilus," described only as "a supposed Elder in the sayd Fami lye , " refuted Wilkinson's charges in a le t ter . Wilkinson, in the same way Rogers dealt with Vitel l 's let ter in his Answere, published "Theophilus"' reply along with his own defense of his original charges. These charges are contained in fourteen ar t i c les , among which are such as: " H . N . sayeth we have no t ruth," " H . N . sayeth we have no Min is t r ie , " and so on. There is one aspect of the at tack on the Fami ly of Love which remained very much in the background in the books of Knewstubb and Rogers, but is expl ic i t ly stated by Wilkinson. This is the af f i rmat ion that the Fami ly of Love is very much a type of Anabaptist sect. In Rogers we had the af f i rmat ion that H .N . was a disciple of Jor is , and Bateman emphasized that England must suppress the Fami ly or suffer the fate of Munster. Wilk inson, however, states the relationship quite baldly: "Therefore are they [the Fami ly of Love] Anabaptists and David Georges Schollers."33 Indeed, sprinkled l iberal ly throughout the text are references to Heinr ich Bul l inger, that Swiss scourge of Anabapt ists. The clear impl icat ion is that the Fami ly of Love are real ly Anabaptists and should be dealt with by the same rules. As if to hammer the point home, after dealing with the fourteen ar t ic les , Wilkinson includes "Cer ta ine profi table notes to know an Heret ique, especial ly an Anabapt ist . With the opinions, the behaviour of them out of various Authors." Chief among the "various Authors," of course, is Bullinger himself , but also Ca lv in and Zwing l i . The idea, of course, is to "know your enemy," and who better to perform this task than three pre-eminent cont inental theologians, a l l of whom had had extensive dealings and struggles against Anabapt ists. - 69 -Lest we think, however, that ident i f icat ion of the Fami ly of Love with the Anabaptists exonerates them from charges of Popery, i t must be stated that to many Protestants, Anabaptism and Rome were working hand in hand. In Wilkinson's paraphrase of Bul l inger: "Anabaptists were hartned by those which desired the overthrow of the Gospel l and the restoring of Popery."34 Thus, in the same way modern-day revolutionaries have been known to try and establish an extreme le f t -wing regime by fomenting conditions in which an extreme r ight-wing regime may f lour ish, so, according to Protestants, did the Anabaptists threaten, either knowingly or unwitt ingly, to restore the Pope by sowing discord and dissension in the true Church. It should be apparent by now that Knewstubb, Rogers, and Wilkinson were a l l what we might ca l l "puritans." One hesitates to use such an overworked and anachronist ic te rm. Though an anachronism, i t is nevertheless indispensible; however, we must be carefu l not to at tach too broad a defini t ion to i t . Over the centuries the name has acquired accret ions of meaning which would never have occurred to contemporaries. If we are not using it in its broadest sense, neither are we using i t in its narrow sixteenth-century meaning, as a term of abuse attached to those "precisians" who refused to conform to Parker's orders commanding uniformity of dress among the c lergy, especial ly the wearing of the square cap and the surpl ice. The term wi l l be used here in Patr ick Coll inson's sense.35 Puritans were those who believed that the Church of England was "but half ly reformed." They bel ieved, to a greater or lesser degree, that the El izabethan church retained popish vestiges in ceremony and government that denied i t the status of a truly "Re fo rmed" church, such as existed in Swi tzer land, G ermany, and among French Huguenots. Even this definit ion is misleading. For if we define "pur i tan" as those who wished to see the - 70 -English church further reformed, we would have to include almost a l l of the church leadership in the early years of El izabeth's reign, composed as it was almost ent irely of Marian exi les but recently returned from the continent where they had been exposed to the Reformed churches of Strasbourg, Zur ich, and Geneva. That they did not accomplish a further reformation is largely due to El izabeth herself , and to Archbishops Parker , Whitgi f t , and Bancrof t . If we are to make this our definit ion of "pur i tan," we shall have to include such widely divergent characters as the cautious, conservative reformers Gr inda l , Sandys, and C o x , f irebrands such as Car twr ight , Sampson, and Humphrey, and out-and-out rabble-rousers such as John F ie ld , Thomas Wilcox (authors of the Admonit ion to Parl iament) and Perc iva l Wiburne in the same category. Obviously this wi l l not do. We need finer categories of analysis if we are to understand El izabethan religion and pol i t ics and t ie the at tack on the Fami ly of Love into a general context . In essence, there were as many kinds of Protestant ism as there were Protestants. For the sake of analysis, however, it is possible to define several broad categor ies. In the f i rst p lace, as mentioned above, there were cautious, conservative reformers. Leading the way in this category were most of the f i rst El izabethan bishops, with the notable exception of Matthew Parker , El izabeth's f i rst Archbishop of Canterbury. Drawn almost exclusively from the ranks of returned Marian exi les, this includes such prominent f igures as Edmund Gr indal (Bishop of London, 1559-1570; Archbishop of York , [570-1575-, and of Canterbury, 1576-1583), Edwin Sandys (Bishop of Worcester, 1559-1570; of London, 1570-1577; Archbishop of York , 1577-1588), and Richard Cox (Bishop of E l y , 1559-1581). We might also include in this category other luminaries such as Wil l iam C e c i l as wel l as other Pr ivy Counci l lors . In general , these men, while not ent irely satisf ied with the El izabethan set t lement, recognized that a Protestant Queen, even if not as Protestant as they would have l iked, was inf in i tely preferable to the more plausible al ternat ives: c iv i l religious war, or foreign invasion and the restoration of the Roman Church. They hoped to further reform the church by slow increments, gently nudging the Queen in the right d i rect ion. This indeed was their reason for accept ing positions of leadership in the church when many of their "hotter" Protestant colleagues urged them not to have anything to do with a semi-papist ical church. A t the t ime, of course, they had no way of knowing that the sett lement of 1559 was to be permanent, and their chances of success must have seemed very high indeed. A t the other extreme were radical preachers, especial ly in London and East Ang l ia , who were very outspoken about Popish remnants in the church. In this category we would include the radical Londoners F ie ld and Wi lcox, Wiburne, Anthony G i lby , and Robert F i t z . It was, in fact to puritans of this stripe that the name was f i rs t appl ied. The name "pur i tan" f i rst appeared in connection with the vestiar ian controversy of the 1560's. Chief among the offending ar t ic les of clothing were the "Pop ish" vestiges of the surplice and the square cap. In fac t , the controversy dated back to Edward's reign when John Hooper, Bishop-elect of Gloucester refused to wear the offensive apparel and hence delayed his invest i ture, and i t was the chief cause of str i fe in the English church at Frankfurt and the result ing victory of the "Cox ians" over the "Knoxians." In the 1560's diversity of pract ice crept in , with clergy wearing the vestments or not, according to their preference. This could not help but displease the Queen with her attachment to order and uni formity. In fac t , even the relat ively conservative churchmen described above had no great love for the garments and what they represented. Gr indal himself told some radical - 7 2 -Londoners in 1567, "I had rather minister without these things, but for order's sake, and obedience to the prince."36 This indeed was the nub of the matter. Vestments themselves were things indi f ferent, adiaphora, neither prescribed nor prohibited by Scr ipture. Therefore, if the prince orders that they be worn, they must be worn and need cause no one an uneasy conscience. But , repl ied the radicals, if they are indi f ferent, the Queen ought not to make us wear them. In the words of Henry Barrow: "Even now yow said it was a thing indif ferent; if i t be so, ther is no powr can bringe me in bondage to my l ibert ie."37 In January 1565, the Queen had wr i t ten to Parker ordering that he enforce the Royal Injunctions ordering conformity of dress among c lergy. In typical fashion, however, she declined to back him up wi th royal authori ty. As a result, Parker's orders were contained in "Advert isements" of "doubtful const i tut ional val idi ty."38 Parker was lef t dangling, drawing al l the abuse and c r i t i c i sm, while the Queen remained above the f ray. The Advert isements were printed and c i rculated in March 1566 and drew immediate hostile react ion, especial ly in London and Cambridge. Thir ty-seven nonconforming London clergy were suspended and threatened with deprivation.39 A long and virulent pamphlet war ensued against "this bloody beast's gear," " lordly bishops," and " f i l thy ware."40 Let ters were f i red off by both sides to Bull inger and Gual ter in Zur ich , Beza in Geneva, and John Knox in Scot land. The Zurichers were sympathetic to the bishops and said so.41 Beza was more incl ined to the radicals' side, but declined whole-hearted support. Surprisingly, John Knox favoured the maintenance of order and sided with the bishops.42 Somewhere between these two extremes, one suspects, were the majority of educated, ar t icu la te , and Protestant Engl ishmen. If they were dissatisf ied with the pace of reform in the 1560's and 70's, neither were they able to condone the radical - 73 -nonconformity, and ul t imately the separat ism, of "London's Protestant Underworld."43 It should be emphasized, however, that the situation was extremely f lu id . There were no party l ines, only f loat ing coal i t ions which coalesced and disbanded as circumstances d ic tated. As E l izabeth moved the church more in her own direct ion under Archbishop Whitgif t in the 1580's and 90's, the situation became less f luid and puritan opposition more cohesive. However, in the 1560's and 70's, the situation remained f luid and the "puri tans" remained within the embrace of the Church of England. It should also be emphasized that underneath such seemingly divisive questions as the vestiarian controversy, the form of church government, and the "prophesyings" or "exercises," there was substantial agreement on the single most burning rel igious question of the t ime: the Euchar is t . Though the Queen herself was probably more incl ined to a Lutheran view, i t is signif icant that the question of Rea l Presence versus Memor ia l Supper is very rarely a bone of content ion. Vir tual ly the entire church was united behind the Swiss/German view.44 It should also be pointed out that people did not always align themselves with one brand of Protestant ism or another purely out of religious convict ion. In an age where rel igion was indissolubly intertwined with pol i t ics and cul ture, it is often d i f f icu l t if not impossible to distinguish mot ivat ion. The best example of this in El izabethan England is the career of Robert Dudley, Ea r l of Le ices ter . Leicester 's personal religious convict ions are a a mystery to us today, yet he aligned himself wi th, and built a patronage network among, the more radical puritans, and led the expedition to the Netherlands in aid of the Dutch Protestants, i t seems, out of a desire for personal glory and aggrandizement. Conversely, many must have aligned - 74 -themselves wi th Leicester 's party, not out of religious scruple, but out of sheer opportunism. On a more mundane leve l , Mull inger relates the humourous anecdote of a student at Cambridge who, alone among his col leagues, showed up at chapel without his surpl ice, thinking to make a point of conscience. When haled before the dean however, he admit ted that he "had pawned his surplice to some purveyors of dainties to the colleges in order to defray the cost of a more than usually sumptuous entertainment! "45 3ohn Knewstubb was what we might ca l l a radical ly- t inged moderate. No fr iend of vestments and square caps, in his days at Cambridge he had peti t ioned in favour of Cartwright.46 He had also taken part in "prophesyings" or conferences of ministers designed to e l ic i t the true meaning of Scripture and instruct unlearned clergy.47 i t was Grindal 's refusal to suppress the prophesyings, and worse yet, his attempt to justify his disobedience to El izabeth herself , which led to his fa l l f rom favour. Ye t for Knewstubb, there was no question of separation. The conclusive, damning evidence for Knewstubb of the falseness of Papists, Ar ians, and Anabaptists is that they have removed themselves f rom the church.48 The question was not one of whether there ought to be an authori tat ive church coterminous with the nat ion, but rather, what form that church ought to take. Viewing Knewstubb's career in retrospect one might think that he would be anathema to the authori t ies. He was after al l one of the leaders of the crypto-Presbyter ian Dedham conference in the 1580's,49 the leading puritan preacher in Suffolk,50 a n d took the nonconforming side in 1604 at Hampton Court.51 Not the sort of man we would expect E l izabeth or her Counc i l , which had to answer to her, to entrust with much responsibi l i ty. Ye t we f ind him preaching at Paul's Cross on Good Fr iday, presented to the l iv ing of Cock f ie ld in Sussex, and, most relevant for our purposes, the Pr ivy Counc i l , at the - 7 5 -height of the Fami l is t "scare" in early 1581 (1580 o.s.), appointed him as a sort of consultant to the bishops in the repression of the Fami ly of Love.52 Not knowing very much about John Rogers, we must extapolate from his writ ings to gain any idea of his religious convict ions. Throughout his Displaying he uses many concepts and phrases which would seem to put him on the side of the "hotter" Protestants. There is his constant castigation of the Roman Church. Gran ted , this was commonplace, but his continued repet i t ion of charges against the Papists would lead one to believe that there is more to i t than l i terary fashion. There is also his black and white view of the religious si tuat ion. Not for him were Parker 's "mediocr i ty" or an El izabethan via media: with the bloudie Papistes with their f i re and fagot, continual warre, wi th horrible murders on the one side, and the Anabaptistes, Free wi l l men, Ar r ians, Pelagians, and the Famel ie of Loue on the other side, Chr istes Church hath l i t t le rest, and smal l favour in the sight of man, but spurned on euery side.53 Some of his assertions would seem, at f i rs t sight, to imply his approval of the Church of England as it then existed: . . . in a l l ages, when the Chr is tes Churches did most f lourish in per fect ion, then was errour and heresies most r i fe . . .54 . . . when the Gospel l began to shine againe, then began Sathan . . . to envie the prosperities of the Gospel l .55 However, conspicuously absent are any references to "the Church of England," "the English Church , " "our Church, " or the Thi r ty-Nine Ar t i c les . Rather , "church" is used in a universal sense, the body of bel ievers, the invisible church, the Bride of Chr is t . C lea r l y , the Gospel shining again refers not to the English church spec i f ica l ly , but to the Reformat ion in general. Keeping this in mind, his approval would more l ikely have gone to the continental reformed churches. - 76 -Besides the Displaying and the Answere, the STC attr ibutes only one other work to our John Rogers. This is The Summe of Chr is t ian i ty . . . (1578). As i ts t i t le suggests, this is a sort of primer in the basics of Chr ist ian theology. Its very existence suggests that Rogers was more incl ined to the "hot ter" Protestants. It implies that the Prayer Book is not enough, that it need a "br iefe and plaine" supplement. In part icular, Rogers' emphasis on the ult imate authority of S c r i p t u r e , 5 6 on preaching and d i s c i p l i n e , 5 7 and on a godly l i fe , 5& would seem to put him on the puritan side of things. It is not a question of theology: anyone but a Catho l ic would have to agree with his theological assertions. Rather , i t is a question, and the judgment is admittedly subjective and speculat ive, of tendency and emphasis. There is only one clear reference to the religious controversies of the day: . . . abstinence even from lawful pleasures and prof i ts, when they are either offensive unto others, or hurt fu l l unto ourselves . . . so by bringing us under the bondage and servitude of earthly things, which a l l of them are ordained unto c o r r u p t i o n . 5 9 This would seem to be a reference to the vestiarian problems, when, as we have seen, the question of " lawfu l " versus "of fensive" was at the heart of religious debate. In the case of Wil l iam Wilkinson, we know more about him than we do about John Rogers, but less than we know about Knewstubb. He matr iculated a sizar of Queens' Co l lege, Cambridge in 1568, proceeded B.A. in 1571-72, M.A . in 1575, and B.D. in 1582.60 Thus we see that he was an almost exact contemporary of John Knewstubb. Though we have no record of his act iv i t ies at Cambr idge, i t would be a safe assumption to say that he was incl ined to the puritan side in the religious controversies of the day, the vest iar ian problems and the resistance against the new statutes for the university in 1570. - 77 -That Wilkinson, l ike Knewstubb and Rogers, was a pur i tan, is evident not only f rom his Confutat ion, wherein he made prodigious use of Bull inger and other Reformed theologians, but also from his other wri t ings. In 1580 while residing in London, he published A very godly and learned treat ise of the exercise of Fastyng,  described out of the word of God, very necessarye to bee applyed unto our churches  in England in these peril lous t imes. Aga in , as with Knewstubb, one notices that even though one would place him in the "puritan opposit ion," this did not prevent him from advancing his career within the Church of England. In 1588, though a layman, he became prebend of Fr idaythorpe in York Cathedra l , which post he was to hold unti l his death in 1613. Thus, again we see that even though on some issues he and the "Angl icans" were opposite sides, this did not hinder his preferment within the church, nor did this opposition prevent the sides from cooperating on the real ly important issues: the Catho l ic threat, and sectar ianism, the threats from right and le f t , as it were. One of things which stands out when we look at our three authors is that not only were they a l l university men (Knewstubb and Wilkinson at Cambr idge, Rogers at Oxford) but they were also almost exact contemporaries. Knewstubb graduated B .A . in 1564, Rogers in 1554 (or more probably in 1569), and Wilkinson in 1568. That these three men, s imi lar in age, background, educat ion, and religious convict ion a l l undertook to at tack the Fami ly of Love within two years of each other is no accident. Rather , it was the result of their educat ion, the way they had been taught to view the wor ld, especial ly the religious situation and the church. To understand these men and their wri t ings, we must go back to their days at universi ty, when their ideals and convict ions were formed. - 78 -Cambridge Univers i ty , of course, had acquired a reputation as a hotbed of Protestant ism as early as the 1520's and the meetings in the White Horse Inn. From Wi l l iam Tyndale on through Cranmer and R id ley , the Universi ty had provided English Protestants with models, heroes, and martyrs. Under Edward Cambridge was much more the royal ly favoured university. And it is under Edward that we must seek the origins of the teachings which inspired Knewstubb and Wilkinson to at tack the Fami ly of Love in the career of Mart in Bucer. Bucer was indeed one of the luminaries of the Reformat ion. If he does not occupy the same lof ty rank as a Luther , a Ca l v i n , or a Zwingl i , that is no ref lect ion on the man himself . Before he was invited to England by Cranmer in 1548, he had long been act ive in Reformat ion pol i t ics. General ly speaking,' he was one of the more tolerant of reformers, and worked t i relessly for concord among Protestants. However, this att i tude only earned him the enmity of both sides: the Swiss thought he incl ined too much to the Lutheran view of the Euchar is t , and the Lutherans mistrusted him as being too close to the Swiss. In fac t , in reading the reaction of some English Protestants to Bucer's arr ival in England, one might be forgiven for thinking that he was Card ina l or a Jesui t , or some other such lackey of the Whore of Babylon: In case of his [Bucer's] death, England wi l l be happy and more favoured than al l other countr ies, in having been del ivered in the same year from two men. of most pernicious ta lent , namely Paul [Fagius ] and Bucer.61 Thus wrote Burcher, an English partisan of Bul l inger's, to the master in Zur ich. However, this smacks of the fol lowers being more ardent in the struggle than the pr incipals, for Bucer and Bullinger maintained correspondence over a period of years, and though they had their di f ferences, Bullinger protected Bucer on several occasions, restraining intemperate attacks on him.62 -79-In any case, just as Cranmer renewed his invi tat ion to Bucer in 1548 (he had of fered his hospital i ty once before, in 1547), Bucer was looking to move on. In refusing to accept the Augsburg Interim (his endorsement had been di l igently sought) he had become persona non grata in Imperial and Lutheran c i rc les and he deemed it expedient to leave Strasbourg, his home for the previous three decades. Bucer arr ived in England in the spring of 1549 and stayed for a t ime with Cranmer at Lambeth and at Croydon before he was appointed Regius Professor of Div in i ty at Cambr idge. Though only at Cambridge for a short t ime (he was to die in 1551) and i l l much of the t ime he was there, he lef t a last ing impression. His inf luence was to be fel t for generations. Among those who sat at his feet were a number of future bishops: Gr inda l , Sandys, Parker , and Pi lk ington. Thus we can see that Bucer's inf luence survived in a direct way, af fect ing church and state under E l izabeth . Grindal especial ly was a favouri te of the reformer, and Bucer was the dominant inf luence in the l i fe and thinking of the future Archbishop of Canterbury.63 Besides these luminaries, hundreds of other subsequently prominent leaders must have l istened to and been taught by Bucer . Accord ing to contemporary observers, one never forgot having been taught by Mar t in Bucer.64 But what was it these eager students learned? We have already mentioned Bucer's eirenic message and nature. This, doctr inal disputes aside, was one of his major reasons for opposing the Augsburg Interim—it was a compromise imposed by force.65 i f t however, Bucer was more tolerant than other reformers, there were l imi ts to his to lerance. Beyond a cer ta in point he would not go. For a l l his ef forts at concord, he would not compromise on the core of his fa i th , on just i f icat ion by fa i th , for instance.66 Diversi ty of pract ise was also not to be to lerated. Granted, he was fa i r ly indulgent when it came to drawing the l ine, and his view of adiaphora - 80 -was especial ly generous. But diversity of essential religious pract ice? Never. This is based on his view of the essential unity of church and state, or rather, their symbiosis, as a societas Christiana.67 However, in the last analysis, church had to come before state, God before magistrates. When a l l is said and done, however, Bucer's prime emphasis was on pastoral work. From the lordliest archbishop to the lowliest curate, their chief duty was as pastors, "ef fect ive in teaching and discipl ine, free from secular attract ions."68 His concern for the essential unity of church and state is ref lected in his att i tude towards the Anabapt ists. His arguments condemned not so much their denial of infant baptism as their tendency to withdrawal and separation, thus rending the unity of the Chr ist ian community. He urged stringent measures against the Anabaptists in Strasbourg during the Peasants' Revol t and had Car lstadt expelled from the ci ty.69 As an advisor to Phi l ip of Hesse, he suppressed Anabaptism there.70 A t the Smalkald Conference, he took the lead in draf t ing a petit ion to suppress various Anabaptists and Separatists.71 Though more incl ined to persuade than to burn, he nevertheless was not above using physical force when he deemed it necessary.72 This then was the dominant inte l lectual and theological inf luence at Cambridge for years af terward, and it could not have helped but to shape El izabethan religious pol i t ics, both d i rect ly through men such as Gr indal and Sandys, and indirect ly through the last ing impression which Bucer lef t on the Univers i ty . And it was to this university that young men such as Knewstubb and Wilkinson came. Cambridge in the 1560's must have been an exc i t ing place for a young man. Not only was there a new regime which would further pursue the reformation begun under Edward (or so they thought), they were to be the leaders of i t . The early 1560's saw a considerable increase in the university population.73 By a statute of - 81 -1559, the regents (a regent was a Master of Ar ts of up to three years standing) were given considerable authority within the university by virtue of their control of the Senate.74 That these young dons should incl ine more to the puritan side is not surprising since there was an "ant i -Establ ishment" tinge to the whole thing. In many ways St. John's Col lege was at the centre of religious controversy in Cambridge. The f i rst great dispute was a ref lect ion of the vestiarian controversy already mentioned. The Archbishop's orders applied just as much to Cambridge dons as to London c lergy. Needless to say, the square cap and surplice had many enemies at Cambr idge. Chief among them was Wi l l iam Fu lke , fel low of St. John's. Fulke at t racted a fol lowing preaching sermons on popish remants and caused no smal l problem in the university. Interestingly, one of Fulke's chief opponents was Richard Cur teys, later Bishop of Chichester , who accused David Thickpenny of belonging to the Fami ly of Love . So far the controversy had been l imi ted to c lothing. In 1570, however, Thomas Car twr ight , Lady Margaret Professor of Div in i ty applied the concept of "popish dregs" to church government. In a series of lectures he dismissed the of f ice and function of bishops and commended a Presbyterian system as the only one scr iptural ly sanctioned. The reaction of the authorit ies was not hard to predict. Gr inda l , newly appointed Archbishop of York , urged C e c i l as Chancel lor of the Universi ty to refuse Cartwr ight the grace for his doctorate of d iv in i ty . On June 29, during the meeting of the Senate for the purpose of e lect ing the members of the Caput Senatus (a sort of executive counci l of the Senate composed of the V ice -Chancel lor , three doctors, one non-regent, and one regent master), the regents, who, (as outl ined above) possessed the decisive major i ty , vetoed the elect ion of any who opposed Car twr ight . John May, the V ice-Chance l lo r , refused Cartwr ight his grace - 82 -anyways. Peti t ions were flung back and for th. John Knewstubb of St.John's was prominent among Cartwr ight 's supporters.75 How Wil l iam Wilkinson lined up we do not know, although if his later career is anything to go by, he certainly would have been a Carwr ight ian. John Whitg i f t , Regius Professor, Master of Tr in i ty , future Archbishop of Canterbury and Cartwright 's great opponent, urged C e c i l to act ion and prepared a new set of statutes for the Universi ty.76 These new statutes received royal assent in September, and removed ef fect ive power from the regents and gave i t to the Vice-Chancel lor and Heads of Col leges. In November, Whitgi f t himself was elected V ice-Chance l lo r . In December, Cartwr ight was hauled on the carpet and was deprived of his professorship and forbidden to preach. Shortly afterward he went to Geneva. This was the opening round in a batt le which was to rage for the next thir ty years. However as we have seen, Knewstubb's support for Cartwr ight did not overly hinder his career. The whole af fa i r smacks of academic intrigue and fact ional pol i t ics. There were those who supported Cartwr ight not out of sympathy for his convict ions, but to protect the ancient rights and l ibert ies of the Univers i ty , which they fe l t the new statutes v io lated. The point is that in many ways this kind of controversy resembles the row over Greek pronunciation in the 1530's, wi th its mixture of personal, fac t iona l , academic, and pol i t ica l motives, rather than a l i fe and death struggle over the future of the church.77 Only in rare cases, when someone proved as outspoken and intractable as Cartwr ight were such severe measures taken. Cambridge has quite r ight ly at t racted the l imel ight so far . There is the " fami l iar image of puritan Cambridge and churchy, conservative Oxford."78 The reputation of Cambridge has overshadowed the s igni f icant, if numerical ly much smal ler, puritan influence at Oxford. Part of the reason for this stereotype is - 83 -simply that we know more about Cambridge graduates than we do about Oxford a lumni . A lso , Oxford's hinterland was not as heavily Protestant as that of the other university.79 As Cambridge had been the royal favouri te under Edward, so Oxford was under Mary . Upon El izabeth's accession, the Universi ty was staunchly Ca tho l i c . Over the next several years the university was gradually purged and rel iable Protestants put into positions of author i ty. The point is that puritan inf luence, if less than at Cambr idge, was not completely lacking at Oxford. Le icester , that patron of puritans, was appointed Chancel lor in 1564 and took an act ive role in administrat ion.80 And those puritans which Oxford did produce tended to be of a more radical str ipe, "brought up, i t may be, in a harsher school."81 Fie ld and Wilcox were both Oxonians. There was also the inf luence of Laurence Humphrey at Magdalen, Thomas Sampson at Chr is t Church , and John Reynolds at Corpus Chr i s t i . There was also the inf luence of the Italian reformer Peter Martyr Vermig l i . Peter Martyr had, l ike Bucer, been invi ted to England by Cranmer after the death of Henry VIII. Indeed, Martyr f i l led much the same role at Oxford as did Bucer at Cambr idge. Mar ty r , however, had a much tougher t ime of i t . As Regius Professor of Div in i ty he constantly came up against the predominantly Catho l i c prejudices of the university. It seemed that the only thing that kept him going were his correspondence wi th Bucer and the presence of foreign Protestant students, especial ly f rom Switzerland.82 The Swiss presence at Oxford began in the 1530's when Rodolph Gual ter , Bull inger's foster son and later his son-in- law, paid a short v is i t . Under Edward there was a v i r tual exchange program between Oxford and Zur ich. Among the Zurichers who studied at Oxford were John ab U lmis , John Stumphius, and Thomas Blaurer. A simple glance at the Zur ich Let ters wi l l conf i rm - u -the last ing friendships and enduring influence on both sides. The Zurich connection was especial ly important in the f i rst half of El izabeth's reign. Among the English correspondents were Sandys, Jewe l , Foxe , Lever , Sampson, C o x , Gr indal and (famil iar names!) Mart in Micronius and Jan Utenhove. On the Swiss side there were Stumphius, Gual ter , Rodolph Zwingl i (son of the reformer), and, of course, Bull inger himself . These ties which were established under Edward were strengthened under Mary when many English Protestants found refuge in Zur ich. The cruc ia l point is that even though Oxford has justly acquired the label "Ca tho l i c , " puritan influences were not lack ing. Cont inental reformed theology was brought to the university through Peter Mar ty r , foreign students and the influence of Zur ich, and later on through Leicester 's chancellorship and the influence of such men as Humphrey, Sampson, and Reynolds. Thus, John Rogers was very probably exposed to continental theology and puritan influences during his t ime at Oxford . The thrust of this chapter has been that it was Englishmen more incl ined to the puritan side in religious controversy who took the lead in the at tack on the Fami ly of Love. This fact is underlined very nicely by an episode in Parl iament.83 On February 15, 1581 a bi l l for the suppression of the Fami ly of Love was brought in by "divers preachers . . . commended . . . from the C o n v o c a t i o n . " ^ The penalties prescribed were whipping for the f i rst offense, branding for the second, and felony for the th i rd. Sent to commit tee after Second Reading on February 16, the commit tee returned with a new bi l l the next week. This new bi l l received Second Reading and was commit ted, but i t never returned and would seem to have been lost in the shuff le. It may be that the bishops opposed it on jur isdict ional grounds. In any case no more is heard of i t . - 85 -What is interest ing about this episode is the commit tee members responsible for i t . Since this was not a bi l l of overwhelming importance, those who sat on the commit tees were l ikely those who had some interest in the mat ter . Most of those whom we can identi fy are of pronounced puritan leanings. General ly speaking, there was a whole bundle of issues t ied together on which the puritans usually took the same side; what in our day is known as " l inkage:" seemingly unconnected pol i t ica l and cul tural issues which at t ract support f rom much the same consti tuency. Sixteenth-century " l inkage" (and these were not exclusively puritan issues) consisted of several great issues: the fate of Mary Queen of Scots, increased penalties for recusant Catho l i cs , a more aggressively Protestant foreign policy including concrete aid to Dutch Protestants and French Huguenots, and, of course, further pur i f icat ion of the church, which for some meant its presbyter ianizat ion. General ly speaking, the issues that a person took on these issues is a fa i r ly rel iable guide to his religious convict ions. In any case, our commit tee members were def ini tely puritans of varying degrees of radical ism. Sir Thomas Scott had supported a bi l l to enforce the A c t of Uni formi ty against Cathol ics only, leaving puritan ministers free to vary the Prayer Book service as they wished.85 He was a chief enemy of Mary Stuart and consistently urged her execution.86 s i r Henry K i l l i g rew, the diplomat, was in league with Leicester and Walsingham in urging a more aggressively Protestant foreign policy on the Queen. He connived in promoting puritan inf luence in the English church at Antwerp.87 His wi fe was a fr iend and confidante of Edward Dering.88 Robert Bea l , C le rk of the Pr ivy Counc i l , was an enemy of Ay lmer and Whitgi f t . It was he who carr ied Mary's death warrant to Fotheringay.89 Thomas Norton, Cranmer's son-in-law and translator of Calv in 's Institutes, was a consistent advocate of Mary's execution and - 86 -supporter of the ant i -Catho l ic bi l l in 1581.90 Edward Lewkenor was constantly in trouble for is anti-episcopal views and landed in the Tower in 1586.91 There was also Sir Wil l iam More, the same Wil l iam More who had taken Chaundeler's and Sterete's confession twenty years ear l ier , indicat ing a continued interest in the Fami ly of Love . Thus far , we have seen that i t was the "hotter" Protestants who in i t iated the attack on the Fami ly of Love. Even so, this was an issue on which everyone could agree. Puritans and their erstwhile "enemies" in the o f f i c ia l church establishment cooperated wonderful ly in this arena. As we have seen, Bishop Cox of Ely (who was soon to die) hunted down the Fami ly of Love in his diocese. Among those who aided him in his questioning of the vi l lagers of Wisbech was Wi l l iam Fu lke , the same Wil l iam Fulke who had st irred up trouble at St . John's over vestments. Andrew Perne, who conducted the earl ier interrogations at Balsham, was hardly what we would ca l l a puri tan. He had conformed under Edward, Mary , and El izabeth and was therefore natural ly suspect to the puritans.92 As Master of Peterhouse he had taken the o f f ic ia l side in the vestment troubles at Cambridge and was a f i rm opponent of Cartwr ight .93 Under Mary he test i f ied against Bucer at his posthumous t r ia l and the burning of his bones. Under El izabeth he part ic ipated in his rehabil i tation.94 A l l of which gave rise to the derogatory te rm, "Pernecoat." Ye t on the Fami ly of Love , he was foursquare in agreement with his puritan "enemies." The lords of Counci l recognized the "danger" and, as we have seen, appointed Knewstubb as a consultant to the bishops. The point is that underneath the seeming div is ion, underneath the vestments controversy, Car twr ight , and the prophesyings, there lay a solid bedrock of consensus: separatists and sectarians must not be tolerated and must be made to conform. Even El izabeth herself shared this opinion, despite not wanting "to make windows into men's souls," as witnessed by her Royal Proc lamat ion. - 87 -This underlying consensus was the result of a number of causes. Everyone, puritans included, agreed that church and state were inseparable and coterminous. There was no question of separate and competing churches. Here is the influence of Bucer and continental theology which coincided very nicely with the requirements of Tudor monarchs. There was also substantial agreement on the Euchar is t , though puritans were natural ly very sensitive to anything they thought impl ied worship of the Host. Though the Queen herself was perhaps more incl ined to a Lutheran v iew, among churchmen themselves there was almost complete agreement on this most contentious issue. Puritans recognized also that a "hal f ly reformed" church was better than one not reformed at a l l . If the English church was not yet what i t should be, neither was it what it once had been. For the vast majority (as yet) there was no question of separation: the only church they could envision was a church of England. One is struck by the way in which the Fami ly of Love was attacked almost because i t was pro fo rma, the thing to do. Again here the inf luence of continental theologians is fe l t . Depsite the bitter disputes between Wittenberg, Zur ich, and Geneva, one aspect was common to a l l : enmity for and persecution of Anabaptists. Anabaptists were anathema precisely because their beliefs meant the end of a coterminous church and state, a societas Christiana. On the Anabaptists, there was solid agreement about ends, if not about means. One almost gets the impression that Englishmen fe l t le f t out. Having no real indigenous Anabaptists to hunt, they came up with a more than adequate replacement: the Fami ly of Love. To be more spec i f i c , there was a smal l group of ambitious Englishmen who were looking for a target to at tack. Remember that Knewstubb, Rogers, and Wilkinson were a l l relat ively young men when they wrote their ant i -Fami ly works, perhaps in their - 88 -early th i r t ies. Their careers were real ly just star t ing. What better way to cut one's teeth than to wri te in a tr ied and true genre graced by such i l lustr ious names as Zwing l i , Ca l v i n , and especial ly Bul l inger. We have already seen how frequently the Fami ly of Love is t ied to Anabaptism by its c r i t i cs . In Pat r ick Coll inson's words, " there is ample evidence of a kind of in formal agreement prevai l ing in many quarters that 'c iv i l wars of the Church of God ' would be abandoned in favour of an af f i rmat ion of those things in which a l l protestants assented, against papists, against such sectar ian threats as the Fami ly of Love . . ' I 9 5 There remains one large question to be answered: Why just then? Why did the at tack on the Fami ly of Love begin and reach its peak in the late 1570's and early 1580's? As we have seen, the standard histor ical answer wi l l not do, that the Fami ly of Love was at t ract ing new members and constituted a real threat. The answer lies elsewhere. The late 1570's represented something of a hiatus in the tensions within the church. In the past were the vest iar ian controversies, Car twr ight , and the Admonit ion to Par l iament . The puritans had a sympathet ic Archbishop of Canterbury in Edmund Gr inda l , whose great troubles st i l l lay in the future, and whose primacy held high hopes for the godly.96 To a large extent this represents consolidation in the face of a common threat: resurgent post-Trent Cathol ic ism and native recusancy. Here again is part of the bedrock of agreement. However objectionable some of the Queen's policies might be to the godly, she was, after a l l , a Protestant. A Protestant Queen, even if slow to purify the church of Popish vestiges, was inf in i tely preferable to a Catho l ic monarch and a restoration of the Roman Church. We must never forget that the Catho l i c threat l ies behind vir tual ly a l l aspects of El izabethan poli t ics and rel ig ion. The year 1571 had seen the victory - 89 -at Lepanto and Spanish dominance in the Mediterranean, 1572 the St. Bartholomew's Massacre, and 1578 the victor ies of Don John in the Netherlands. On every side Protestant Europe, and especial ly England, seemed threatened. The K ing of Spain's "Engl ish Enterpr ise" was thought to be imminent. In 1579 a Papal force landed in Ireland and was soon reinforced f rom Spain. In 1580 the Engl ish Jesuits Edmund Campion and Robert Parsons arr ived to bring succour to English Catho l ics . In addit ion the Queen had hinted once again that she was open to matr imonial overtures to the Duke d'Alencon, the French King's brother. Then there was the perennial trouble spot of the Queen of Scots, a ral ly ing point for English Cathol ics while she l ived. It was a t ime indeed in which Laurence Humphrey could wr i te to Switzer land: There are the signs preceding the end of the world . . . Satan is roaring l ike a l ion , the world is going mad, Ant ichr is t is resort ing to every ext reme, that he may with wol f - l ike feroc i ty devour the sheep of Chr ist .97 That the Fami ly of Love should be the object of persecution then is no surprise. There was, as we have seen, l ingering suspicion of the Fami ly of Love as crypto-Catho l ics , a Popish f i f th column ready to revolt at any t ime. On a deeper leve l , there was the feel ing that now more than any other t ime concord and unity were essent ia l . Wrote John Rogers: How the wicked take occasion by these and l ike errours [the Fami ly of Love ], to speake eui l of Chr ists Church , the eares of many godly doe heare, Especial ly the Papists: who speak and wr i te , and nothing is heard more common in their mouths, then these tearmes, ye are at variaunce amongst your selves: no unitie of doctr ine is observed: ye are of divers opinions and sectes.98 - 90 -If euer there were disturbers of the Church . . . I thinke that now is the t ime: For what with the bloudie Papistes with their f i re and fagot, continuall warre, with horrible murders on one side, and the Anabapt istes, Freewi l l men, Arr ians, Pelagians, and the Fami l ie of Loue on the other side, Christes Church hath l i t t le rest, and smal l favour in the sight of man, but spurned on euery side.99 This indeed is a theme which, if not expl ic i t ly stated, was certainly always in the background. Now was not the t ime to engage in "c i v i l wars of the Church of God ; " now was the t ime to combat the Catho l i c threat and the best way to do that was to make sure your own house was in order and to display strength and unity, not division and dissension. This concern was fundamental to al l Protestant Engl ishmen. That puritans took the lead in at tacking the Fami ly of Love is perhaps attr ibutable to their greater sensit iv i ty to the Roman threat and to their greater emphasis on a completely godly l i fe as opposed to formal religious pract ice. Though they led the way, a l l joined i n , a t tack ing a threat which never real ly ex isted. That the at tack was pursued with such gusto is perhaps attr ibutable to those things which "puritans" and "Angl icans" had in common, especial ly their belief in an authori tat ive national church. It was only natural then that they should concentrate on those areas and issues in which they were in substantial agreement, and leave the others to sort themselves out later . There was also a careerist aspect to the origins of the attack on the Fami ly of L o v e . ^ ^ It is signif icant that our three authors were a l l roughly the same age: in the late 1570's they were just coming into their o f f ic ia l matur i ty . John Rogers' three works were a l l printed within two years of each other. A l l of John Knewstubb's writ ings were published during an eight year period in the late 70's and early 80's. For the rest of his long career , he did not publish another thing. Wil l iam Wilkinson's other major book was published in 1580, one year after his Confutat ion. The fact that these men's o f f ic ia l careers were just start ing, that they - 91 -were looking for some issue with which to make their mark, when the Fami ly of Love presented i tself as a target, and when conditions within England and the church were most conducive to such an at tack, only served to intensify the campaign against the Fami ly of Love. The Fami ly of Love in England was unimportant and insignif icant in the grand scheme of things. However, for the reasons outl ined above, it provoked a response out of a l l proportion to any threat i t may have presented. This vehement at tack has magnif ied the marginal signif icance of the Fami ly of Love in El izabethan England beyond recognit ion. This has been transmitted to the present through histor ical writ ings which were more concerned with making an ideological or genealogical point than with establishing the real histor ical signif icance of the Fami ly of Love . By a c r i t i ca l evaluation of sources, it has been established that the standard view of the Fami ly 's history in England is a vastly distorted version of the t ruth. The only reason i t has become a subject of research at al l is because a peculiar conjunction of circumstances led certa in Englishmen to at tack i t in a certa in way. The Fami ly of Love , and the attack on i t , are a mirror in which we see ref lected the concerns and att i tudes of El izabethan England. - 92 -NOTES Chapter I * P .L . Hughes, J . F . La rk in , Tudor Roya l Proclamations (New Haven: Ya le Universi ty press, 1969), II, 474-475. 2 Jean D ie tz Moss, "The Fami ly of Love in England," Diss. West Virg in ia 1969, pp. 10-14. 3 Moss, Diss. , pp. 10-11; Rufus M . Jones, Studies in Myst ica l Rel ig ion, (London: Macmi l lan , 1909), p. 429 n. 1. 4 Fr iedr ich Nippold, "Heinr ich Niclaes und das Haus der L iebe, " Zei tschr i f t fur  die historische Theologie, 32 (1862). ^ Accounts of Nic laes' l i fe are quite numerous. Almost everyone includes a short biography of the founder and leader of the Fami ly of Love . The information for the fo l lowing sections are taken pr imari ly f rom the fol lowing sources: Char lo t te Fe l l -Smi th , "Henry N ic las , " Dict ionary of Nat ional  Biography, XIV, 427-431. Moss, Diss. A lasta i r Hami l ton , The Fami ly of Love (Cambridge: James C la rke , 1981). F. Loofs , "Fami l i s ten , " Realencyclopadie fur protestantische  Theologie, V, 750-755. L. Knappert , "Hendrik Nic laes, " Nieuw Nederlandsch Biograf isch  Woordenboek, V, cols. 367-370. H. de la Fontaine-Verwey, "The Fami ly of Love , " Quarendo VI (1976), pp. 219-271. ^ Hami l ton, pp. 27-28 - 93 -^ John Rogers, The Displaying of an horrible Secte of grosse and wicked Heret iques, naming themselves the Fami ly of Love (London: 1578). a Loofs, p. 752. Q Hami l ton, p. 31 ^ Hami l ton, p. 32. 1 1 Thomas Fu l le r , The Church History of Br i ta in , ed . J .S . Brewer, (Oxford Universi ty Press, 1845), IV, 409-410. 12 Hami l ton, p. 119; Moss, Diss. , pp. 25-26 13 John Rogers, Displaying. ^ E. Belfort Bax, Rise and Fa l l of the Anabaptists (London: George Al len and Unwin, 1903), p. 343. ^ A l len C . Thomas, "The Fami ly of Love or the Fami l is ts , " Haverford Col lege  Studies, XII, (1893), p. 26. ^ De la Fonta ine-Verwey, Quarendo, p. 226. ^ Jean D ie t z Moss, '"Godded wi th God ' : Hendrik Nic laes and His Fami ly of Love , " Transactions of the Amer ican Phi losophical Soc iety , 71 , part 8 (1981), p. 12; de la Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, p. 229. 18 De la Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, p. 229. 1 9 De la Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, p. 229; Hami l ton, p. 40; Moss A P S , p. 12. "70 Leon Voet , The Golden Compasses (Amsterdam: Vangendt, 1969), I, 21 n . l . 21 Max Rooses, Chrisophe Plant in , Imprimeur Anversois (Antwerp: Buschman, 1897), pp. 59-76. 22 De la Fonta ine-Verwey, Quarendo, pp. 231-234; Hami l ton, p. 230. 23 Hami l ton, p. 41; de la Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, p. 230. - 94 -24 Rooses, p. 68; de la Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, p. 231; Hami l ton, p. 44. For a dissenting v iew, see Co l in C l a i r , Christopher Plant in (London: Casse l l , 1960) pp. 29-31. But see also Harry Car te r , "Rev iew of C . C l a i r , Christopher Plant in , " The L ibrary , 15 (1960), pp. 210-214, and C . C l a i r , "Reply to Harry Carter 's Rev iew," The L ibrary , 16 (1961), pp. 216-217. 2 5 Rooses, pp. 85-87. 26 Hami l ton, p. 45. 27 Hami l ton, pp. 46-47; de la Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, p. 235; C la i r , P lant in , pp. 23-27, 38-39. 28 De la Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, p. 239. C la i r , P lant in , p. 32. Hami l ton, p. 62; de la Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, p. 241; Moss A P S , p. 13. De la Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, pp. 241-243. De la Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, p. 243. Hami l ton, p. 73. Hami l ton, pp. 70-74. Hami l ton, p. 1. W. K i rsop, "The Fami ly of Love in France," Journal of Religious History, III (1964-65), pp. 111-113. 37 Hami l ton, p. 76. 3 8 Bernard Rekers , Benito Ar ias Montano (Leiden: E . J . B r i l l , 1972), pp. 70-114. 3 9 Hami l ton, pp. 77-78. ^ Rekers, p. 77; For a dissenting v iew, see Hami l ton , p. 81. 41 De la Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, p. 229. 42 Hami l ton, p. 46. 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 -95-43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Hami l ton, pp. 56-61, 88-89; Moss A P S , pp. 20-22. Hami l ton, p. 81. Hami l ton, pp. 6-12. Fu l ler , IV, 407. Fu l ler , IV, 409-410. Fu l le r , IV, 410. Fu l le r , IV, 410-411. Fu l ler , IV, 411. Fu l ler , IV, 412. John Strype, Annals of the Reformat ion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1824), II, part 1, 556. 5 3 Strype, p. 559. 5 ^ Strype, p. 560. ^ Rogers, Displaying. Strype, p. 563. 5 7 Strype, pp. 563-564. 5 8 Strype, pp. 561-562. 59 Ernst Troe l tsch, The Social Teaching of the Chr is t ian Churches, trans. Ol ive Wyon (London: George A l len and Unwin , 1931); see also A . G . Dickens, Reformat ion  and Society in Sixteenth-Century Europe (London: Thames and Hudson, 1966), pp. 141-143. 6 0 Dickens, pp. 141-142. ^ Dickens, p. 142. Dickens, p. 142. 6 3 Dickens, pp. 142-143. - 96 -6 ^ Troel tsch, II, 772. 6 5 Troel tsch, II, 772. 6 6 Troel tsch, II, 772. 6 7 Robert Barc lay , The Inner L i f e of the Religious Societ ies of the Commonwealth (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1879), p. 27. 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 Barc lay, p. 28. Barc lay, p. 28. Barc lay, p. 25. Barc lay , p. 32. Jones, pp. 428-448. Jones, p. 428. Jones, p. 438. Jones, p. 447. Jones, p. 442. Jones, p. 447. Jone, p. 448. Thomas, "Fami l i s ts . " Thomas, p. 26. Thomas, p. 1. Thomas, p. 31. Thomas, p. 34. Thomas, p. 15. Thomas, p. 22. Thomas, p. 37. Bax, p. 338. -97 -8 8 Bax, p. 366-367. 8 9 Bax, p. 343. 9 0 Bax, p. 383. 9 1 Ronald A . Knox, E n t h u s i a s m - A Chapter in the History of Rel ig ion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950), Dedicat ion to Evelyn Waugh. 9 2 Knox , p. 590. 9 3 Knox , p. 591. n Knox, p. 140-141. 9 5 Knox , p. 170-171. 9 6 Knox , p. 172. 9 7 Champl in Burrage, The Ear ly English Dissenters (Cambridge Universi ty Press, 1912; rpt. , New York : Russel l and Russe l l , 1967), p. 209. 9 8 Burrage, p. 210. 99 Burrage, p. 212. 1 0 0 Burrage, pp. 214-215. 1 0 1 Ernest A . Payne, "The Fami l is ts , " The Chron ic le , XIV (1953), pp. 28-33. ^ 2 Jones, pp. 31-32. 1 0 3 r . .H . Williams. The Rad ica l Reformat ion (Phi ladelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962), pp. 778-789. De la Fonta ine-Verwey, "De Geschr i f ten van Hendrik N ic laes, " Het Boek, X X X V I (1942), pp. 161-221. 1 0 5 De la Fonta ine-Verwey, "Trois Heresiarques dans le Pays-Bas du XVIe S iec le , " Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance, XVI (1954), pp. 312-330. 1 0 6 De la Fonta ine-Verwey, Quarendo, pp. 219-271. 1 0 7 De la Fonta ine-Verwey, Quarendo, p. 221. - 98 -1 0 8 De la Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, pp. 221-222; B H R , pp. 312-313. 109 De la Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, pp. 259-260. Moss, Diss. , pp. 6-9. 1 1 1 Moss, A P S . 1 1 2 Moss, Diss. , pp. 47-48; A P S , pp. 26-28. 1 1 3 Moss, Diss. , pp. 49-52; A P S , pp. 23-26. 1 U Moss, Diss. , pp. 53-70; A P S , pp. 28-30. Moss, Diss. , p. 53. Moss, Diss. , p. 71. * ^ 7 Moss, Diss. , p. 75. 118 Moss, Diss. , p. 81. I i g Hami l ton, The Fami ly of Love. 1 2 0 Hami l ton, p. 119. 1 2 1 Hami l ton, p. 135. 1 2 2 Moss, Diss. , pp. 104-106; A P S , pp. 35-52; 3.W. Mar t in , "El izabethan Fami l is ts and Engl ish Separat ism," Journal of Br i t ish Studies, 20 (1980), pp. 59-62. 1 2 3 Mar t in , JBS, pp. 65-66. 1 2 ^ Ju l ia C . Ebe l , "The Fami ly of Love: Sources of Their History in England," Huntington L ibrary Quar ter ly , X X X (1966-67), p. 338. 1 2 5 Jean D ie tz Moss, "The Fami ly of Love and English C r i t i c s , " The Sixteenth  Century Journal , VI (1975), pp. 41-42. 1 2 6 Moss, S C J , p. 44. 1 2 7 Moss, S C J , pp. 41-42. - 99 -NOTES Chapter II * For the fu l l text of the confession, see Moss, A P S , pp. 70-74. 2 Moss, A P S , p. 74. 3 Joseph W. Mar t in , "Engl ish Fami l is ts and other Separatists in the Gui ldford A r e a , " Bullet in of the Institute for His tor ica l Research, 51 (May 1978), p. 91. * Moss, A P S , p. 74. Moss, A P S , p. 72. Moss, A P S , p. 70. Mar t in , BIHR. Mar t in , BIHR, p. 91. Hami l ton, p. 118; John Rogers, Answere, fo ls. K 1 - K 2 . Hami l ton, p. 119. Acts of the Privy Counc i l , vo l . 10, p. 332. A P C , vo l . 10, p. 344. A P C , vo l . 12, p. 231. A P C , vo l . 12, p. 232. A P C , vo l . 12, p. 269. J . H i tchcock, A Confession of the Fami ly of Love, " B IHR, 43 (1970), p. 85. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 - 100 -* 7 Fe l i c i t y Hea l , "The Fami ly of Love and the Diocese of E l y , " Studies in Church  History IX: Schism, Heresy, and Rel igious Protest , ed. Derek Baker (Cambridge: 1972), pp. 218-219; Moss, A P S , p. 28; Hami l ton, op. c i t . , p. 120. 1 8 Moss, A P S , p. 28. 1 9 Moss, A P S , p. 28. 20 Hami l ton, p. 120. 2 1 A P C , vo l . 8, p.338. 2 2 Moss, A P S , p. 75. 2 3 Hea l , p. 220. 24 Jean D ie tz Moss, "Variat ions on a Theme: The Fami ly of Love in Renaissance England, Renaissance Quarter ly , X X X I (1978), pp. 189-195; Moss, A P S , pp. 80-81. 2 5 Moss, A P S , p. 81. 2 6 Hami l ton, pp. 123-124. 2 7 Moss, A P S , p. 80. 28 Grindal to Burghley, May 1, 1576, Remains of Edmund Gr indal (Cambridge: Cambridge Universi ty Press for the Parker Society, 1843), pp. 359-361. 29 Moss, A P S , p. 29; Moss, Diss. , pp. 59-60; Hami l ton, pp. 128, 130-131. 30 From Fe l l -Smi th , D N B , and Hami l ton . 31 Wil l iam Wilkinson, A Confutat ion of Cer ta in Ar t i c les delivered unto the Fami ly of Love (London: 1579), preface, i i i i ; John Rogers, The Displaying of an horrible Secte . . . (London: 1578), f o l . E3 . 32 John Rogers, Answere, f o l . F l . 33 Answere, f o l . K 3 . 34 Wilkinson, Confuta t ion, preface, i i i i - A l . 35 Wilkinson, Confuta t ion, f o l . A l . - 101 -36 3. Rogers, Displaying, f o l . E3 . 37 Stephen Bateman, The Golden Booke of the Leaden Goddes (London: 1577), f o l . 33. 38 3. Rogers, Displaying, f o l . E 3 ; Wilkinson, Confutat ion, preface, i i i i . 39 Displaying, f o l . E3 . The STC lists four of H.N.'s works as having been translated by V i t e l l , These are Evangelium Regn i , The Prophetie of the Spirit of Loue, Prouerbia H .N. , and A publishing of the peace upon earth. The editions themselves do not state that V i te l l was the translator. However, V i te l l never denies the charge and it therefore seems l ike ly that V i te l l translated at least some of H.N.'s works. 41 supra p. 14. 42 Moss, A P S , p. 16. ^ Hami l ton, p. 125. 44 Henry Ainsworth, An Epist le Sent unto the Two Daughters of Warwick with a Refutat ion of the Errors that are therein (Amsterdam: 1608). Unfortunately, I have not been able to obtain this let ter in either fo rm. 45 Hami l ton, p. 125. ^ Quoted in Hami l ton , p. 125. 47 Hami l ton, p. 129. 48 Hami l ton, p. 129. 49 Hami l ton, p. 129. ^ A Brief Rehearsal l of The Good-wi l l ing in England, which are named the Fami ly  of Love (London: 1656 [1575 ]?) A Brief Rehearsal l . . ., p. 9. 52 A Brief Rehearsal l . . , p. 9. - 102 -5 3 An Apology for the Service of Love , and People that own i t , commonly cal led  the Fami ly of Love , quoted in Hami l ton , p. 123. ^ Hami l ton, p. 123. 5 5 An Apology . . ., quoted in Moss, Diss. , p. 64. 5 6 John Strype, vo l . 2, pt. 1, pp. 556-557. 5 7 Hami l ton, p. 122. 5 8 E l idad , A Good and f ru i t fu l Exhortat ion unto the Famel ie of Loue (n.p: [1574?]) , f o l . A4 . 5 9 F ide l i tas , A dist inct declarat ion of the requir ing of the Lorde ( n.p; [1575?]), f o l . C 4 . 60 F ide l i tas , fo ls. C 5 - C 6 . 6 1 Ju l ia Ebe l , pp. 335-336. 6 2 Ab ia Nazarenus, A Reproofe Spoken and Given against a l l False Christ ians (n.p; [1579), fo ls. A 3 - A 4 . 6 3 Hami l ton, p. 59. 6 4 Moss, A P S , p. 76. 6 5 This peti t ion was published in 1606 wi th hosti le notes by a Protestant c r i t i c under the t i t le A Supplication of the Fami ly of Loue, and again by Samuel Rutherford in his Survey of the Spir i tual l Ant ichr is t (London: 1648) ^ Basil ikon Doron, quoted in Hami l ton, p. 59. 6 7 Samuel Ruther ford. Survey of the Spir i tual l Ant ichr is t , (London: 1648), p. 344. 6 8 Ruther ford, p. 346. 6 9 Rutherford, p. 346. 7 0 Rutherford, p. 348. 7 1 Rutherford, p. 350. - 103 -72 Hami l ton, op. c i t . , p. 132 73 Hami l ton, p. 112 7 ^ 3. L indeboom, Aust in Fr ia rs : A History of the Dutch Reformed Church in  London (The Hague: Ni jhoff , 1950), C h . 1. 7 ^ Lindeboom, p. 8. 7 ( ^ Lindeboom, p. 8. 7 7 W . A . J . Archbold, "John a Lasco, " D N B , vo l . 11, pp. 599-601. 78 Lindeboom, p. 8. 79 Hami l ton, p. 36. 8 0 Hami l ton, p. 50. 81 Lindeboom, pp. 30-31. 8 2 Hami l ton, pp. 71, 113. 8 3 Hami l ton, pp. 70-71, 85. 8 ^ Hami l ton, pp. 47-48, 113; de la Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, p. 237. 85 Lindeboom, pp. 41-45. 8 6 Hami l ton, p. 113. 8 7 Hami l ton, pp. 112-113. 88 Lindeboom, p. 45. 89 Hami l ton, p. 51. 9 0 Hami l ton, p. 51; de la Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, p. 230. 91 Hami l ton, p. 54; L indeboom, p. 46. 9 2 Thompson Cooper , "Stephen Batman," D N B , vo l . 1, pp. 1334-1335. 9 3 Bateman, f o l . A 8 . - 104 -94 Wil l iam Fu lke , A Defense of the sincere and true Translations of the holie Scriptures into the English tong, against the manifold caui l ls , fr iui lous quarels, and impudent slaunders of Gregor ie Mar t in , one of the readers of Popish diuinit ie in the trayterous Seminarie of Rhemes (London: 1583; rpt. Cambridge Universi ty press for the Parker Society, 1843), p. 36. 9"* Fu lke, p. 37. 96 Thomas Rogers, Catho l ic Doctr ine of the Church of England (London: 1585; rpt. Cambridge Universi ty Press for the Parker Society, 1854), p. 52. 9 7 T. Rogers, p. 79. 98 T. Rogers, p. 320. 99 T. Rogers, p. 280; John Rogers, Displaying, f o l . H7. 100 Wil l iam Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture against the Papists,  especial ly against Bel larmine and Stapleton, trans, and ed. W. F i tzgera ld (London: 1588; rpt. Cambridge Universi ty Press for the Parker Society, 1844), p. 298. 101 Edwin Sandys, Sermons, ed . 3. Ayre (Cambridge Universi ty Press for the Parker Society, 1842), p. 130. 1 0 2 Hami l ton, p. 135. 1 0 3 Hami l ton, p. 136; Moss, A P S , pp. 55-56. Hami l ton, p. 136; The sermon was ent i t led "The White Wolfe." 1 0 5 Edmund Jessop, A Discovery of the errors of English Anabaptists (London: 1623), p. 89. 1 0 6 Stephen Denison, The White Wolfe; or , a sermon preached at Pauls Crosse (London: 1623), p. 46. 1 0 7 Denison, pp. 38-39. - 105 -1 0 8 Strype, pp. 563-564. 1 0 9 Strype, pp. 563-564. 1 1 0 Hami l ton, p. 135. 1 1 1 Hami l ton, pp. 135-136. 1 1 2 Denison, pp. 33-34. 1 1 3 Moss, A P S , p. 56. m John Ether ington. A brief discovery of the blasphemous doctrine of fami l isme (London: 1645), quoted in Hami l ton , p. 137. 1 1 5 Hami l ton, p. 139. 1 1 6 Hami l ton, pp. 140-141; Moss, A P S , p. 69. 1 1 7 Strype, pp. 561-562. 1 1 8 I owe this suggestion to Professor C R . Fr iedr ichs. - 106 -N O T E S Chapter III * supra, p. 56. 2 Fu lke , p. 36; Knewstubb, Confuta t ion, Dedicat ion to the Reader , p. 3. 3 J . B . Mul l inger, "John Knewstubb," DNB vo l . 11, p. 224; J . and J . A . Venn, Alumni  Cantabrigensis (Cambridge Universi ty Press, 1922). Knewstub, f o l . R4. ^ Knewstubb, f o l . 52. ^ Hami l ton, p. 128. 7 Hami l ton, pp. 128-129. Joseph Foster , Alumni Oxonienses 1500-1714 (Nendeln, L iechtenstein: Kraus Reprint L t d . , 1968), III, 1274. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Foster , III, 1274. Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxonienses (London: 1691), I, 156-157. John Rogers, Displaying, f o l . A 3 . Displaying, f o l . A 5 . Displaying, f o l . E5 . Displaying, f o l . A6 . Displaying, f o l . B I . Displaying, f o l . C 8 . Displaying, f o l . B4. Displaying, f o l . F5 . - 107 -19 Displaying, f o l . C 4 . 20 Displaying, f o l . B6. 2 1 Displaying, f o l . D l . 2 2 Displaying, f o l . D3 . 2 3 Displaying, f o l . D3. 2 / t Displaying, f o l . D3. 25 Displaying, fo ls. E4 f f . 2 ^ Displaying, f o l . C 3 . 27 Displaying, f o l . C 3 . 28 Displaying, f o l . H5. 2 9 Wil l iam Wilkinson, A Confutat ion of Cer ta in A r t i c l e del ivered unto the Fami ly  of Love (London: 1579), dedication to the Bishop of E l y , i . 3 0 Wilkinson, dedication to the Bishop of E l y , i i i i . 31 Wilkinson, i n . 32 Wilkinson, i n . 3 3 Wilkinson, f o l . 31. 3 / f Wilkinson, f o l . X 2 . 3 5 Pat r ick Col l inson, The El izabethan Pur i tan Movement (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Universi ty of Ca l i fo rn ia Press, 1967), pp. 11-15. 3 6 Pat r ick Col l inson. Archibishop Gr indal 1519-1583 (London: Jonathan Cape , 1979), p. 171. 3 7 Col l inson, E P M , p. 71. 3 8 Col l inson, E P M , p. 70. 3 9 Col l inson, E P M , p. 76. * ° Col l inson, E P M , p. 78. - 108 -* 1 Bull inger to Bishop Horn, Zur ich Le t te rs , ed . H. Robinson (Cambridge Universi ty Press for the Parker Society, 1842, 1845), I, 343. 4 2 Co l l inson, E P M , pp. 84-91. 4 3 Col l inson, Gr inda l , pp. 42-46. ^ Col l inson, Gr inda l , pp. 42-44. 4 5 J . B . Mul l inger, The Universi ty of Cambridge (Cambridge Universi ty Press: 1873), II, 206. 4 6 H .C . Por ter , Reformat ion and React ion in Tudor Cambridge (Cambridge Universi ty Press: 1958), p. 190. 47 48 49 50 51 Col l inson, E P M , pp. 126, 215. Knewstubb, Confutat ion, dedication to the reader, i i . Col l inson, E P M , p. 232. Col l inson, E P M , pp. 218-219. J . B . Mul l inger, "John Knewstubb," D N B , vo l . 11, p. 244. 52 53 54 55 56 Acts of the Pr ivy Counc i l , vo l . 12, pp. 317-318. John Rogers, Displaying, f o l . F7 . Displaying, f o l . C 2 . Displaying, f o l . H6. John Rogers, The Summe of Chr is t ian i ty , reduced unto eight propositions,  br ief ly and plainly conf irmed out of the holy worde of God (London: 1578), pp. 10-12. ^ Summe, pp. 19-23. 58 Summe, pp. 10-12. 59 Summe, p. 19. 6 0 E.I. Ca r l y l e , "Wi l l iam Wilkinson," D N B , vo l . 21, p. 278; Venn and Venn, Alumni  Cantabr igensis, pt. 1, vo l . 4, p. 412. - 109 -6 1 C o n s t a n t s Hopf, M . r t i n Bucer and the Engl ish Reformat ion (Oxford: Bas i l B lackwe l l , 1946), p. 12. 6 2 Hastings Ee l l s , Mart in Bucer (New Haven: Ya le Universi ty Press, 1931), pp. 142, 217. 6 3 Col l inson, Gr inda l , pp. 49-56. 6 t f Col l inson, Gr inda l , p. 49. 6 5 Ee l l s , p. 394. 6 6 Ee l l s , p. 394. 6 7 Col l inson, Gr inda l , pp. 52-53. 6 8 Col l inson, Gr inda l , p. 53. 6 9 Ee l l s , pp. 54-64, 71. 7 0 Ee l ls , pp. 238-240. 7 1 Ee l l s , pp. 267-268. 7 2 Ee l l s , p. 64. 7 3 Por ter , pp. 107-109. n Por ter , pp. 163-164. 7 5 Por ter , p. 190 7 6 Por ter , p. 176. 77 see W.S. Hudson, The Cambridge Connect ion (Durham. N .C . : Duke Universi ty s, 1980), pp. 43-60; Mulli Col l inson, E P M , p. 129. Pres nger, Cambr idge, II, 53-64. 78 79 Col l inson, E P M , p. 129; Mark H. Cur t i s , Oxford and Cambridge in Transit ion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959), pp. 191-193. 80 C . E . Ma l le t , A History of the Universi ty of Oxford (London: Methuen and C o . , 1924), II, 115. - 110 -8 1 Col l inson, E P M , P. 129. 82 C la i re Cross, "Cont inenta l Students and the Protestant Reformat ion in England in the Sixteenth Century," Reform and Reformat ion; England and the Continent c . 1500-c. 1750, ed. Derek Baker (Oxford: Basi l B lackwel l for the Ecc les ias t ica l History Society, 1979), pp. 44-45. g 3 House of Commons Journals, I, 127, 128, 129, 130. 84 Sir J . E . Neale, El izabeth and her Parl iaments (New York : St Martin's Press, 1958), I, 410. 85 M .M. Knappen, Tudor Puri tanism (Chicago: Universi ty of Chicago Press, 1939), p. 234 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Neale, I, 250. Knappen, p. 249; Col l inson, E P M , p. 166. Col l inson, E P M , p. 258. Neale, I, 342. Col l inson, E P M , pp. 216-217; Neale, I, 252-253, 385-387. Col l inson, E P M , pp. 306-307. Mul l inger, Cambr idge, II, 180. Por ter , p. 177. Mul l inger, Cambridge, II, 181-182. Col l inson, Gr inda l , p. 287. Col l inson, E P M , pp. 154-155, 159-161. Neale, I, 369. Displaying, f o l . C 2 . Displaying, f o l . F7 . I am grateful to Professor Murray Tolmie for this insight. - Ill -B I B L I O G R A P H Y P R I M A R Y S O U R C E S Ab ia Nazarenus. A Reproofe Spoken and Given against A l l False Chr ist ians, n.p., 1579. Ac ts of the Pr ivy Counc i l of England, ed . J . R . Dasent, 1890 f f . An Apology for the Service of Love , and the People that own i t , commonly ca l led , The Fami ly of Love , n.p., (1575?). Bateman, Stephen. The Golden Booke of the Leaden Goddes. London: 1577. A Br ief Rehearsal l of the Good-wi l l ing in England, which are named the Fami ly of Love , n.p., (1575?), London: Gi les Ca lve r t , 1656. Denison, Stephen. The White Wolfe or, a sermon preached at Pauls Crosse. London: 1627. E l idad. A Good and f ru i t fu l l Exhortat ion unto the Fami l ie of Loue. n.p., (1574?). Ether ington, Stephen. A brief discovery of the blasphemous doctrine of fami l ism. London: 1645. F ide l i tas . A dist inct declarat ion of the requiring of the Loorde. n.p., (1575?). Foster , Joseph. A lumni Oxonienses 1500-1714. 2 vols. Nendeln, L iechtenste in: Kraus Reprint L t d . , 1968. Fu lke , Wi l l iam. A Defense of the sincere and true Translations of the holie Scriptures into the English tong, against the manifold caui l ls , fr iui lous quarels,  and impudent slaunders of Gregor ie Mar t in , one of the readers of Popish  diuinit ie in the trayterous Seminarie of Rhemes. London: 1583; rpt. Cambridge Universi ty Press for the Parker Society, 1843. - 112 -Gr inda l , Edmund. Remains, ed . W. Nicholson. Cambridge Universi ty Press for the Parker Society , 1843. Ha l l ywe l l , Henry. An Account of Fami l ism As It Is Revived and Propogated by the Quakers. London: 1673. House of Commons Journals. Hughes, P .L . La rk in , J . F . Tudor Roya l Proclamat ions. 2 vols. New Haven: Ya le Universi ty Press, 1969. Jessop, Edmund. A Discovery of the errors of Engl ish Anabaptists. London: 1623. Knewstubb, John. A Confutat ion of Monstrous Heresies taught by H.N. London: 1579. Po l la rd , A .W. , Redgrave, G . R . A Short-Ti t le Catalogue of Books printed in England, Scot land, and Ireland and of English Books printed abroad 1475-1640. London: The Bibl iographical Society, 1926. Return. Members of Par l iament . Part I. Parl iaments of England, 1213-1702. The House of Commons, 1878. Rogers, John. An Answers unto a wicked l ibel made by Chr is t . V i te l , one of the chief English elders of the pretended Fami ly of Love. London: 1579. . The Displaying of an horrible Secte of grosse and wicked heretiques, naming themselves the Fami ly of Love. London: 1578. . The Summe of Chr is t ian i ty , reduced unto eight propositions, br ief ly and plainly conf i rmed out of the holy worde of God . London: 1578. Rogers, Thomas, Catho l i c Doctr ine of the Church of England. London: 1585; rpt. Cambridge Univers i ty Press for the Parker Society , 1854. Ruther ford, Samuel. Survey of the Spir i tual l Ant ichr is t . London: 1648. Sandys, Edwin. Sermons, ed . J . Ay re . Cambridge Universi ty for the Parker Society, 1842. - 113 -Tobias. Mi rab i l ia Opera De i : Certa ine wonderful l works of God which hapned to  H .N , n.p., n.d. Venn, 3. and 3.A. Alumni Cantabrigensis. Part 1, 4 vols. Cambridge Universi ty Press. 1922. Whitaker, Wi l l iam. A Disputation on Holy Scriptures against the Papists, especial ly  Bel larmine and Stapleton. trans, and ed. W. F i tzgera ld . London: 1588; rpt. Cambridge Universi ty Press for Parker Society, 1844. Wilkinson, Wi l l iam. A Confutat ion of Cer ta in Ar t ic les delivered unto the Fami ly of  Love . London: 1579. Wing, Donald. A Short-Ti t le Catalogue of Books printed in England, Scot land,  Ireland, Wales, and Br i t ish Amer i ca and of English Books printed in Other  Countr ies 1641-1700. 3 vols. New York : Modern Language Associat ion, 1972. Wood, Anthony. Athenae Oxonienses. 2 vols. London: 1691. The Zurich Le t te rs . 2 vols. ed. H. Robinson. Cambridge Universi ty Press for the Parker Society. S E C O N D A R Y S O U R C E S Archbo ld , W . A . J . "John a Lasco . " D N B , vo l . 11, pp. 599-601. . "Edwin Sandys." D N B , vo l . 17, pp. 772-775. Barc lay , Robert . The Inner L i f e of the Religious Societ ies of the Commonweal th. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1879. Bax, E. Bel for t . Rise and Fa l l of the Anabaptists. London: George Al len and Unwin, 1903. Bergman, Cornel ius. "Heinr ich Bul l inger." Mennonite Encyclopedia, vo l . 1, pp. 467-468. - 1 1 4 -Burrage, Champl in . The Ear ly English Dissenters. Cambridge Universi ty Press, 1912; rpt., New York , Russel l and Russel l , 1967. Car l y le , E.I. "Wi l l iam Wilkinson." D N B , vol .21, p. 278. Ca r te r , Harry. "Rev iew of C . C l a i r , Christopher P lant in . " The L ibrary , 15 (1960), pp. 210-214. C l a i r , C o l i n . Christopher Plant in . London: Cassel l and C o . , 1960. . "Reply to Harry Carter 's Rev iew." The L ibrary , 16 (1961), pp. 216-217. Col l inson, Pat r ick . Archbishop Grindal 1519-1583. London: Jonathan Cape , 1979. . The El izabethan Puri tan Movement. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Universi ty of Ca l i fo rn ia Press, 1967. Cooper, Thompson. "Stephen Batman." D N B , vo l . 1, pp. 1334-1335. Cre ighton, Mandel l . "Edmund Gr inda l . " D N B , vo l . 8, pp. 704-707. Cross, C la i r e . "Cont inenta l Students and the Protestant Reformat ion in England and in the Sixteenth Century." Reform and Reformat ion: England and the Continent c. 1500 - c . 1750. ed . Derek Baker. Oxford : Basi l B lackwel l for the Ecc les ias t ica l History Society, 1979. Cur t i s , Mark H. Oxford and Cambridge in Transi t ion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959. Dickens, A . G . Reformat ion and Society in Sixteenth Century Europe. London: Thames and Hudson, 1966. E b e l , Ju l ia C . "The Fami ly of Love : Sources of Their History in England." Huntington L ibrary Quarter ly , X X X (1966-67), pp. 341-343. Ee l ls , Hastings. Mar t in Bucer. New Haven: Ya le Universi ty Press, 1931. E l ton , G . R . "England and the continent in the sixteenth century." Reform and Reformat ion: England and the continent c. 1500 - c . 1750. ed . Derek Baker. Oxford : Basi l B lackwel l for The Ecc les ias t ica l History Society, 1979. - 115 -Fast* Heinhold. Heinr ich Bullinger und die Taufer. Mennonitischen Geschichtsverein, 1959. Fe l l -Smi th , Char lo t te . "Henry N ic las . " DNB vo l . 14, pp. 427-431. Fontaine-Verwey, H. de l a . "Trois Heresiarques dans le Pays-Bas du XVIe S iec le . " Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance, XV I (1954), pp. 312-330. . -The Fami ly of Love . " Quarendo, VI (1976), pp. 219-271. Fu l le r , Thomas. The Church History of Br i ta in . 6 vols. ed. J .S . Brewer. Oxford Universi ty Press, 1845. Hami l ton, A las ta i r . The Fami ly of Love. Cambr idge: James Clarke & C o . , 1981. Hea l , Fe l i c i t y . "The Fami ly of Love and the Diocese of E l y . " Studies in Church History IX Schism, Heresy, and Religious Protest , ed. Derek Baker. Cambridge Universi ty Press, 1972. H i tchcock, J . " A Confession of the Fami ly of Love. " Bul let in of the Institute for His tor ica l Research, XLHI (1970), pp. 85-86. Hopf, Constant in . Mart in Bucer and the English Reformat ion. Oxford: Basi l B lackwe l l , 1946. Horst , Irvin B. The Radica l Brethren. Anabaptism and the English Reformat ion to 1558. Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf , 1972. Jones, Rufus M . Studies in Myst ica l Re l ig ion. London: Macmi l lan and C o . , 1909. K i rsop, Wal lace. "The Fami ly of Love in France. " Journal of Rel igious History, III (1964-65, pp. 103-118. Knappen, M . M . Tudor Pur i tanism. Chicago: Universi ty of Chicago Press, 1939. Knappert , L. "Hendrik N ic laes. " Nieuw Nederlandsch Biograf isch Woordenboek, vo l . 5, cols . , 367-370. Knox, Ronald A . Enthusiasm: A Chapter in the History of Rel ig ion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950. - 116 -Lindeboom, J . Aust in Fr ia rs : A History of the Dutch Reformed Church in London. trans. D. de Iongh. The Hague: Ni jhoff , 1950. Loofs , F. "Fami l i s ten . " Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie, vo l . 5, pp. 750-755. McNa i r , P.M.3. "Peter Martyr in England." In Peter Martyr Vermig l i . ed . Joseph C . McLe l land . Water loo, Ontar io: Wi l f r id Laur ier Universi ty Press, 1980. Mal le t , C . E . A History of the Universi ty of Oxford. 3 vols. London: Methuen and C o . , 1924. Mar t in , Joseph W. "El izabethan Fami l is ts and English Separat ism." Journal of Br i t ish Studies, 20 (1980), pp. 53-73. . "Engl ish Fami l is ts and other Separatists in the Gui ldford A rea . " Bul let in of the Institute for His tor ica l Research, 51 (1978). . "Chr istopher V i te l : an El izabethan Mechanik Preacher . " Sixteenth Century Journal , X (1979), pp. 15-22. Moss, Jean D ie t z . "The Fami ly of Love in England." unpublished Ph.D. Dissertat ion, West Virg in ia Univers i ty , 1969. . " 'Godded with God 1 : Hendrik Niclaes and His Fami ly of Love. " Transactions of the Amer ican Phi losophical Society , vo l . 71, part 8, 1981. . "The Fami ly of Love and English C r i t i c s . " The Sixteenth Century Journal . VI (1975), pp. 35-52. . "Variat ions on a Theme: the Fami ly of Love in Renaissance England." Renaissance Quarter ly , X X X I (1978), pp. 186-195. . "Addi t ional Light on the Fami ly of Love. " Bul let in of the Institute for His tor ica l Research, XLVI I (1974), pp. 103-105. Mul l inger, J . B . The Universi ty of Cambr idge. 3 vols. Cambridge Universi ty Press, 1873. - 117 -. -John Knewstubb." D N B , vol .11, p. 244. . "Wi l l iam Whitaker." D N B , vo l . 21, pp. 212-213. Neale, Sir J . E . E l izabeth and her Par l iaments. 2 vols. New York : St. Mart in's Press, 1958. Nef f , Chr is t ian . "Mar t in Bucer." Mennonite Encyclopedia, vo l . 1, pp. 455-460. Nippold, F r ied r i ch . "Heinr ich Niclaes und das Haus der L iebe. " Zei tschr i f t fur die historische Theologie, X X X I I (1862). Payne, Ernest A . "The Fami l is ts . " The Chron ic le , XVI (1953), pp. 28-33. Por ter , H .C . Reformat ion and React ion in Tudor Cambr idge. Cambridge Universi ty Press, 1958. Rekers, Bernard. Benito Ar ias Montano (1527-1598). Le iden: E . J . B r i l l , 1972. Rooses, Max. Christophe Plant in , Imprimeur Anversois. Antwerp: J . E . Buschman, 1897. Shaw, W.A. "Thomas Rogers." D N B , vo l . 19, pp. 142-143. Strype, John. Annals of the Reformat ion. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1824. Thomas, A l len C . "The Fami ly of Love or the Fami l is ts . " Haverford Col lege  Studies, XII (1893). Troe l tsch, Ernst . The Social Teaching of the Chr is t ian Churches. 2 vols, trans. Ol ive Wyon. London: George A l len and Unwin, 1931. Van Dorsten, J . A . The Radica l A r t s . Le iden: Leiden Universi ty Press, 1970. Voet , Leon. The Golden Compasses. 2 vols. Amsterdam: A . L . Vangendt and C o . , 1969. Wi l l iams, G . H . The Radica l Reformat ion. Phi ladelphia: The Westminster Press, 1962. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095783/manifest

Comment

Related Items