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.

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

T H E FAMILY O F L O V E AND THE C H U R C H O F E N G L A N D By M A R K WILLIAM KONNERT B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1979  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT O F T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E D E G R E E O F MASTER O F ARTS  in THE F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E STUDIES (Department of History) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY O F BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1983 (c7) Mark William Konnert, 1983  JE-6  In presenting  this  thesis i n partial  f u l f i l m e n t of the  r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that it  freely  the Library shall  a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study.  agree t h a t permission f o rextensive for  financial  copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s  gain  Department  of  It i s thesis  s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  permission.  History  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 1956 Main Mall Vancouve r , Canada V6T 1Y3  (3/81)  thesis  s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e h e a d o f my  understood that  Date  I further  copying of t h i s  d e p a r t m e n t 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 . for  make  August 1 1 , 1 9 8 3  Columbia  written  - ii -  ABSTRACT  The F a m i l y of Love was a sixteenth-century m y s t i c a l s e c t . It was founded by Hendrik N i c l a e s , a Low G e r m a n m e r c e r , better known by his pseudonym " H . N . " . The standard h i s t o r i c a l view has maintained that while N i c l a e s did a t t r a c t a following in the L o w C o u n t r i e s , the F a m i l y of L o v e had its greatest impact in England. This view is based primarily on the large amount of hostile attention which the sect a t t r a c t e d , both in the form of polemical literature and o f f i c i a l repression, culminating in a R o y a l Proclamation against it in October, 1580. It is the contention of this thesis that the standard historical view of the F a m i l y of Love is based on a misapprehension, that the amount of hostile attention which the sect a t t r a c t e d in England is not a reliable indicator of the sect's fortunes. The first chapter gives the necessary background on H.N.'s l i f e and ideas. It then goes on to examine the historical literature on the F a m i l y of L o v e , showing how contemporary perceptions of the sect as a real and imminent threat have persisted to the present day. This has occurred because the F a m i l y of Love has been used as a pawn in ideological battles, either to demonstrate the excesses of religious f a n a t i c i s m , or to c l a i m the F a m i l y of Love as a predecessor of a modern denomination, especially the Quakers. The second chapter examines the sources for the history of the F a m i l y of L o v e in England. It is shown that the standard historical view is an o p t i c a l illusion based on a small core of t r u t h : the f a c t that there actually were small groups of the F a m i l y of Love in Cambridgeshire and in London. This small core of truth has been distorted by a number of f a c t o r s , producing the standard historical view.  - iii -  The third chapter examines the three works which lie at the core of contemporary and historiographical perceptions of the F a m i l y of L o v e : John Knewstubb's A Confutation of Monstrous Heresies taught by H . N . (1579); John Rogers' The Displaying of an horrible Secte of grosse and wicked Heretiques . . . (1578); and W i l l i a m Wilkinson's A Confutation of C e r t a i n e A r t i c l e s delivered unto the F a m i l y of Love (1579). Virtually every charge and accusation against the F a m i l y of Love arises from one or more of these works. By looking at these men and their works, alternative explanations are advanced both for the disproportionate scale of the attack on the F a m i l y of L o v e , and for the timing of that a t t a c k .  - iv -  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I would like to thank my f a c u l t y advisor, Professor C R . F r i e d r i c h s , for his invaluable guidance and encouragement. Thanks are also due to Professor M . Tol whose instincts and insights steered me in the proper directions. Of course, any errors that remain are entirely my own. Special thanks to my f a m i l y , whose unstinting support, both financial and m o r a l , has not gone unappreciated. And especially to C a n d y , who inspired me in ways she w i l l never know.  - V -  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Abstract  Acknowledgements  Table of Contents  Chapter I  1  Chapter II  34  Chapter III  61  Notes  92  Bibliography  111  -1  -  CHAPTER I  On October 3, 1580 a R o y a l Proclamation was issued entitled "Ordering Prosecution of the F a m i l y of L o v e . " l  In it the Queen expresses her displeasure at  "certain persons which do secretly in corners make privy assemblies of divers simple unlearned people . . . [ t o ] teach them damnable heresies, d i r e c t l y contrary to divers of the principal articles of our belief and Christian f a i t h . " This s e c t , identified as the F a m i l y of L o v e , "is maintained by c e r t a i n l e w d , h e r e t i c a l and seditious books f i r s t made in the D u t c h tongue and lately translated into English . . . the author whereof they name H . N . " The Queen goes on to command "that a l l her officers 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 writings 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 c o m m i t t e d 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 c o m m i t t e d 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 Elizabeth's reign to be directed solely against a single h e r e t i c a l s e c t . The proclamation was accompanied and preceded by a substanial body of polemical literature which r e f l e c t e d a widespread concern with the F a m i l y of L o v e . The assumption of this l i t e r a t u r e and of the R o y a l Proclamation was that the F a m i l y of Love posed a real  -2 -  and imminent threat which required swift and e f f e c t i v e counteraction. This assumption has persisted through the centuries and is now r e f l e c t e d in a considerable body of modern h i s t o r i c a l literature on the F a m i l y . Neither then nor since, however, has it been asked if indeed the F a m i l y of Love posed such a threat. The purpose of this thesis is to ask just that question. And if, as we shall suggest, the F a m i l y of Love posed no real danger and was neither as large or as important as contemporaries thought, why did it provoke such a vehement reaction? Before we attempt to answer these questions however, two preliminary problems must be dealt w i t h . F i r s t we must describe the origins and the nature of the F a m i l y of L o v e ; how did the works and ideas of the Low G e r m a n H . N . (Hendrik Niclaes) find their way to England? Our second preliminary task w i l l be to examine the ways in which the contemporary perception of the F a m i l y of L o v e and its underlying assumption have been transmitted through h i s t o r i c a l and polemical l i t e r a t u r e down to the present day. Thus this f i r s t chapter w i l l describe briefly the life and teachings of H . N . and w i l l then examine the historical literature on the F a m i l y of L o v e .  * * *  The basic documentary sources for the history of H . N . and the F a m i l y of Love are three manuscripts in the Bibliothek der Maatschappy van Nederlandsche Letterkunde in Leiden.2 These are: 1. Chronika des Husgesinnes der L i e f t e n , by D a n i e l , an elder in the F a m i l y of L o v e . This is a m y s t i c a l account of the l i f e of Niclaes and the history of the F a m i l y of L o v e .  - 3 -  2. A c t a H . N . , by Zacharias, also an elder in the F a m i l y of L o v e , is an account of Niclaes' l i f e and visions.  3. Ordo Sacerdotis, 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 followers. These three manuscripts form the basis for the earliest major study of Niclaes and the F a m i l y of L o v e , that of F r i e d r i c h Nippold in 1862.3 Virtually a l l subsequent treatments rely to some degree on Nippold's monograph.^ Hendrik N i c l a e s (Niclas, N i c o l a s , Nicholas) was born in 1501 or 1502. The place of his birth cannot be stated with absolute c e r t a i n t y .  Numerous commentators state  that he was born in Muhster. This is not unlikely given the Low G e r m a n dialect in which he wrote.^  A precocious youngster, according to the chroniclers, he was  raised a devout C a t h o l i c by his extremely pious parents. He began to experience visions at an early a g e , but because of his parents' disapproval, he learned to keep his m y s t i c a l ideas to himself. Stimulated by M a r t i n L u t h e r , he began to read the Scriptures for himself. Though he disapproved of C a t h o l i c persecution of Lutherans, he could not bring himself to agree w i t h Luther's rejection of the entire Roman C h u r c h and his solafidianism. Nevertheless, his involvement with Lutherans, with whom he had met to discuss S c r i p t u r e , brought him to the attention of the authorities on suspicion of heresy in 1529. However, he apparently satisfied them as to his orthdoxy for he was quickly released. Shortly thereafter, in about 1530, he and his f a m i l y (he had been married when he was about twenty years old) moved to A m s t e r d a m . In the early years of the R e f o r m a t i o n , before the Muhster debacle, Amsterdam had acquired a not unwarranted reputation as a centre of toleration.6  Whether  Niclaes moved there for this reason, or because of business opportunities is unclear.  - * -  In any case, he found himself in Anabaptist circles and was again hauled before the authorities in 1532 or 1533. He was brought before the Court of Holland but was again exonerated. Among the sectaries living in Amsterdam at this time was David Joris who had moved through the ranks of the Anabaptists and subsequently founded his own Spiritualist sect. Niclaes and Joris were acquainted at least by reputation if not personally. Nevertheless, later statements that Niclaes was a disciple of J o r i s , or as John Rogers put i t , " D a v i d George [ J o r i s ] layde the egge, but H . N . brought f o r t h the chickens,"? appear exaggerated. It appears indeed that they have "confused spiritual kinship with dependence."8 In the aftermath of Munster and an attempted Anabaptist uprising in Amsterdam in 1534, that c i t y became a good deal less tolerant.  Nevertheless, Niclaes continued to live there until 1539 or 1540,  possibly because of his business interests and Amsterdam's growing importance as a c o m m e r c i a l entrepot. In 1539 or 1540, Niclaes experienced several more revelations instructing him to take three elders, D a n i e l , E l i d a d , and Tobias, to move to E m d e n , and to set down the " t r u t h of G o d " in the written word.9  As a result he moved to Emden where he  was to live 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 allowed to coexist. 10 Niclaes lived there without attracting any o f f i c i a l a t t e n t i o n , 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 circulated in the Low Countries under the pseudonym of H . N . He became a c i t i z e n of that town in 1542. However, it was in Emden that Niclaes first attracted a following and the F a m i l y of Love had its origins. He lived quietly in the East Frisian town for the next twenty years, his sectarian a c t i v i t i e s and m y s t i c a l writings a  - 5 -  closely guarded secret. His business gave him ample opportunity to t r a v e l and he spread his following throughout the business and mercantile centres of the Low C o u n t r i e s . Whether or not he travelled to England is unclear. Fuller states that he caused troubles in the Dutch C h u r c h in London during the reign of Edward VI. U C e r t a i n l y his business would have given him opportunity to go to England, but there is no concrete evidence for an English journey either under E d w a r d , or, as some have s a i d , in 1561 or 1562 under Elizabeth.12 In any case, in 1560, suspicion was again cast upon N i c l a e s . Not wishing to again endure imprisonment and t r i a l , possibly knowing that this time he would not get off so e a s i l y , he secretly f l e d E m d e n , leaving his f a m i l y to join him l a t e r . Apparently, he made his move just in t i m e , for a short time later the authorities ordered his wife to persuade him to refute the charges against h i m . The anxiety attached to this demand allegedly caused her death. Niclaes thereupon provided the requested vindication. Not convinced, the authorities confiscated and searched his house and belongings for evidence of h e r e t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s . Niclaes' l i f e from the f l i g h t from Emden to his death is shrouded in mystery. Apparently he led a peripatetic existence t r a v e l l i n g from place to place, spending quite a bit of t i m e in Kampen and finally in C o l o g n e , where he died in 1580 or 1581. While it is not the purpose of this study to examine Niclaes' writings or beliefs in depth, something must be said of his works and circumstances of their printing, and of the core of his doctrine. Niclaes wrote voluminously and frequently.  His  chief work, The Glass of Righteousness (Den Spegel der Gherechticheit) runs to more than eight hundred folio pages. His style was obscure and d i f f i c u l t , f i l l e d with Scriptural references and m y s t i c a l allegories. John Rogers dismissed his works as "the drowsy dreams of a doting D u t c h m a n . " ! 3 others have called it "strange m y s t i c r i g a m a r o l e " , ! ^ and "extreme mistiness."15  - 6-  During his l i f e , Niclaes wrote numerous works in both prose and verse. It is unnecessary to go over a l l of t h e m . We w i l l concentrate on his major works and of those the ones that were translated into E n g l i s h . Previous observers have made the mistake of going through a l l of Niclaes' works and t r y i n g to combine them into a single s y s t e m . While this is valuable in that it provides one w i t h the outline of what is in Niclaes' works without actually having to read t h e m , 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 c u m stances of the printing of Niclaes' works are i l l u m i n a t i n g . N a t u r a l l y , cautious merchant that he was, Niclaes would not use either of the two printers in Emden.17 H i s earlier works were printed by Dirk van den Borne in Deventer. It was this same Van den Borne who had printed D a v i d Boris's chef d'oeuvre, T'Wonder-Boek, and got six months in prison for his trouble. 18 Nevertheless, it cannot be concluded that Van den Borne was a disciple of Niclaes. R a t h e r , it seems to have been a matter more of economics than of ideological c o n v i c t i o n . The last work printed by Van den Borne for Niclaes was the prospectus for Den Spegel der Gherechticheit.19 Upon his death in 1557 or 1558, it became necessary for Niclaes to look for a new printer. The relationship between Niclaes and the great Antwerp printer Christopher P l a n t i n was first alluded to by Nippold in 1862.20 it was subsequently developed by Max Rooses, curator of the P l a n t i n - M o r e t u s Museum in A n t w e r p , in his monograph Christophe P l a n t i n : Imprimeur Anversois in 1882.21 Plantin was born about 1520 near Tours and was brought up in L y o n s . During the 1530's and 15Ws he led a wandering l i f e , spending time in Orleans and Paris before settling in A n t w e r p in about 1548. Speculation that he had already been converted to the F a m i l y of Love while  - 7 -  living in Paris and that this was the reason for settling in A n t w e r p seems unfounded.22 it seems much more probable that P l a n t i n , as a young man seeking to establish himself in the trade would naturally gravitate to A n t w e r p because of the great opportunities which that c i t y o f f e r e d . 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 Plantin was converted to the F a m i l y of L o v e . C e r t a i n l y N i c l a e s , in his business as a m e r c e r , would have had many occasions to t r a v e l to A n t w e r p . A l s o , Niclaes' son F r a n z was living in Antwerp.23 in any case, it is certain that Plantin was converted at about this t i m e . It also seems likely that it was N i c l a e s who enabled Plantin to set up his own printing shop.2^ The f i r s t work which Plantin printed for Niclaes was Den Spegel der G h e r e c h t i c h e i t . For obvious reasons, this work was published without the date or place of publication, or even with the printer's name. Typographical e x a m i n a t i o n , however, has shown it to be the work of Plantin's press.25 In January 1562, it came to the attention of the authorities 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 Calvin's Briefve instruction pour prier.26 To prevent the confiscation of his assets, Plantin quickly engineered a bankruptcy, and his shop and its contents were bought at an auction by Lodewijk van Somere and Cornelius van Bomberghen, two of Plantin's friends and prominent Calvinists.27 By June of 1563, Plantin had managed to convince the authorities of his innocence and was able to return to A n t w e r p . For the next four years Plantin was in partnership w i t h Van Bomberghen, his cousin K a r e l , and several other members of his f a m i l y .  - 8 -  Niclaes sent one of his earliest and most loyal (for the t i m e being, anyways) disciples, Augustijn van Hasselt to work with Plantin in A n t w e r p for periods of several months at a t i m e in 1565 and 1566. 1566 and 1567 were the years of iconoclasm and Alva's repression, marking the beginning of the Dutch R e v o l t . As a result, in November 1566, Plantin instructed Van Hasselt to set up a shop in V i a n e n , in the t e r r i t o r y of the rebellious lord of Brederode, where the King's legal authority did not extend. In May 1567, Vianen was occupied by Alva's f o r c e s ; however, Van Hasselt had managed to escape with his press and fled 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 likely printed himself!). A l s o , he had professed his C a t h o l i c orthodoxy and was happily making money printing editions of the Vulgate, missals, breviaries, and the works of many C a t h o l i c writers.29 Should his interest in the press at Wesel, which was busily churning out Protestant propaganda, be discovered, it would surely go hard for h i m . Niclaes suggested an ingenious solution. He was about to move to Cologne where he would engage in the revision of his works. For this, he needed a printer.  If Plantin were to  turn his press in Wesel over to Niclaes to be run by Van H a s s e l t , two birds could be killed with one stone: P l a n t i n would sever his potentially embarassing connection with the h e r e t i c a l press in Wesel, while Niclaes would have the printer he needed in Cologne. And this is precisely what happened. Plantin went on to engage in one of the most spectacular efforts in sixteenth-century printing, the Polyglot B i b l e , and would later become printer to the University of L e i d e n . Niclaes went w i t h Van Hasselt to Cologne where the two worked together on new editions of H.N.'s works until the printer broke with Niclaes in 1573.30  - 9 -  Who Niclaes' printer was from the schism in the F a m i l y of Love in 1573 until his death is not c l e a r . Some of these editions appear with the name Nicholas van Bomberghen. There is no record of any printer by this name in C o l o g n e , nor were any of the A n t w e r p Van Bomberghens in Cologne at this time.31 It was also at this t i m e that the first English translations of Niclaes' works appear. There is no place of publication on these, but since they were definitely not printed in England, one may reasonably assume that they were the output of this mysterious Cologne press.32 One of the most fascinating aspects of the history of the F a m i l y of Love is the quasi-Familist c i r c l e which centred around P l a n t i n in A n t w e r p . These were not the poorly educated craftsmen among whom such spiritualist mysticism is usually seen to have its greatest appeal. On the c o n t r a r y , these were highly educated humanists, some of them among the most prominent of the i n t e l l e c t u a l merchant/scholar class of the sixteenth century. Why these enlightened individuals chose to a f f i l i a t e themselves w i t h a sect which professed to despise "book-learning" and worldly wisdom seems at first p u z z l i n g . Upon closer consideration, however, perhaps it does not seem so strange. With the religious and p o l i t i c a l upheavals going on in the Netherlands, their way of l i f e was threatened. What they desired most was peace and tranquility in which to pursue their business and i n t e l l e c t u a l endeavours. The F a m i l y of L o v e was to them a way of escaping both f a n a t i c a l C a t h o l i c i s m , whose deeds they had witnessed in Alva's campaigns, and f a n a t i c a l C a l v i n i s m . The F a m i l y of Love was a politique solution: F a m i l i s m , therefore, was taken as a creed by c e r t a i n humanists, but it was they who adapted it to their own convictions rather than altering their convictions to suit the demands of Hendrik Niclaes.33  - 10 -  Here was a creed which allowed them to conform outwardly to the authorities' demands, while at the same t i m e maintaining an inner f a i t h which afforded them real spiritual s a t i s f a c t i o n . A m o n g this group, as mentioned above, were some of the i n t e l l e c t u a l luminaries of the later sixteenth century. There was the geographer O r t e l i u s , whom P l a n t i n had known since 1558 and who at different times expressed varying degrees of c o m m i t m e n t to the F a m i l y of L o v e . 3 ^ There were the Hebrew scholar Andreus Masius and the N e o - S t o i c i s t Justus Lipsius.35 Through Plantin's friendship with the Parisian apothecary Pierre P o r r e t , this kind of F a m i l i s m spread to Paris. The e c c e n t r i c French Orientalist G u i l l a u m e Postel and his disciple Guy L a Fevre de l a Boderie were also possibly Familists.36 These men were tied together by their humanist education and outlook, by common p o l i t i c a l views, by their friendship with P l a n t i n , and especially by their involvement in Plantin's great publishing endeavour, the Polyglot B i b l e . The A n t w e r p P o l y g l o t , as envisioned by P l a n t i n , would replace C a r d i n a l Ximenes' Trilingual Complutensian P o l y g l o t , adding to the Hebrew, G r e e k , and L a t i n texts of this earlier P o l y g l o t , A r a m a i c and Syriac versions.37 Such a huge undertaking required more c a p i t a 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 P h i l i p II, who agreed to underwrite the project on the condition that his chaplain, Benito A r i a s Montano, go to A n t w e r p to supervise the project.38 A r i a s Montano arrived in A n t w e r p in 1568. Revolted by Alva's e x t r e m i s m , his letters were largely responsible for the Duke's r e c a l l and the appointment of Requesens as governor.39 A r i a s Montano found the i n t e l l e c t u a l atmosphere in A n t w e r p much to his l i k i n g . Although Plantin and his friends kept their F a m i l i s t  -11 -  sympathies secret at f i r s t - - A r i a s Montano was, after a l l , an agent of the K i n g of Spain and of the Inquisition — by 1575, he had become a member of the F a m i l y of Love.40 The schism in the F a m i l y of Love about 1573 has already been alluded to. The F a m i l i s t chronicles attribute the split to Plantin's i l l w i l l and greed and the treason of Niclaes' disciple Hendrik Jansen van B a r r e f e l t . B a r r e f e l t had been w i t h N i c l a e s since E m d e n . In f a c t , it was Barrefelt whom Niclaes had sent to Deventer to supervise Van den Borne's printing of his works.41 A c c o r d i n g to the F a m i l i s t chroniclers, Plantin had deceitfully used Niclaes and the F a m i l y of Love to set up his shop and keep his presses running. Not only did he use the sect to make money, he a c t i v e l y stole from it. There was the affair of the P r o v e n c a l jeweller who, having died in Paris in the early 1560's, entrusted a cask of jewels to Pierre Porret to be given to the s e c t . Plantin apparently took part of the bequest as payment for a debt which the jeweller owed h i m . A c c o r d i n g to the chronicles, he pocketed the rest. This version of events is most likely sour grapes. Plantin and Niclaes kept up their relationship for the next decade or so without any noticeable coolness between them.4  2  In r e a l i t y , it was probably N i c l a e s himself who provoked the schism. A f t e r the flight f r o m E m d e n , as he involved himself in the revision of his works, he also wrote Ordo Sacerdotis. This work outlines the new rigidly h i e r a r c h i c a l structure which he tried to impose on his followers.43 N  0  doubt this alienated many, especially the  Antwerp humanists whose allegiance to the sect lay precisely in its unstructured i n f o r m a l i t y and emphasis on inward spirituality.  A m o n g those who deserted H . N .  were B a r r e f e l t , Van Hasselt, and Plantin and his c i r c l e of humanist friends. B a r r e f e l t , who began to c a l l himself " H i e l " , or the " l i f e of God",44 assumed N i c l a e s '  - 12 -  mantle as the prophet of the new s e c t . It was to this H i e l i s t branch of the F a m i l y of Love to which A r i a s Montano and the others belonged. It has already been stated that the purpose of this study is not to examine H.N.'s writings and doctrines in any great d e t a i l . However, one point is c r u c i a l : the teachings of Niclaes and the F a m i l y of L o v e , while i d i o s y n c r a t i c , were not unique. This is important because many historians have assumed that any s i m i l a r i t y of doctrine or practice between two groups is evidence of a link. R a t h e r , these S p i r i t u a l i s t / m y s t i c a l ideas have been a common currency of C h r i s t i a n i t y f r o m the days of the E a r l y C h u r c h right down to the present. As we have already seen, many commentators have concluded that because their doctrines and sects were quite s i m i l a r , Niclaes must have been a disciple of David J o r i s . This is simply not so. The ideas were there, ready to be used, and it only took several individuals so inclined to draw on this reservoir and f o r m a s e c t . Niclaes' doctrines, then, were neither new nor unique. They were also not concisely w r i t t e n . To c a l l this hodge-podge of ideas, proverbs, and admonishments a theology is misleading. One cannot (though some have tried) unify H.N.'s teachings into a coherent system and reconcile the contradictions. R a t h e r , the approach to take is one of looking for the constants, those things that remain f i r m and unchanged in a l l of his writings. A t the core of H.N.'s teachings is the concept of Vergottung or "begoddedness". The spirit is of prime importance, the internal takes precedence over the e x t e r n a l . Man can only be righteous when infused w i t h the Spirit of L o v e of Jesus C h r i s t . This m y s t i c a l infusion does not, as some c r i t i c s have c l a i m e d , e n t i t l e the believer to c l a i m equality with C h r i s t . This is a m y s t i c a l union in which the w i l l of the believer is united with and subsumed in the w i l l of G o d . H o w e v e r ,  - 13 -  Niclaes did not make this idea up. This is a tradition as old as C h r i s t i a n i t y i t s e l 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 i o r e , Tauler and E c k h a r t , Thomas a K e m p i s , Hans Denck, Sebastian F r a n c k , and the Theologica Germanica.45 The idea of a m y s t i c a l union with G o d , Vergottung, of the inner light and spiritual inspiration were common fare in the religious discourse of the sixteenth century. This emphasis on the inner life led to some particular positions on the burning religious questions of the day. For instance, on the E u c h a r i s t , H . N . could bypass the whole R e a l P r e s e n c e / M e m o r i a l debate simply by maintaining the uselessness and i n e f f i c a c y of outward forms and ceremonies. So also on the Scriptures: what counted was not scholastic quibbling over Greek and L a t i n verb tenses, but the interpretation which G o d put into one's heart. The Scriptures themselves were only ink and paper, an outward signification of the true Word which God reveals to the believer. This de-emphasis of outward forms and ceremonies led to one of the most consistently observed characteristics of the F a m i l y of L o v e : their Nicodemism or their willingness 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 F a m i l y of L o v e . Niclaes himself maintained his C a t h o l i c orthodoxy, while urging his followers to conform to the government's requirements, knowing a l l the while that it really 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 c r u c i a l distinction between " F a m i l i s t " and "member of the F a m i l y of L o v e " ; that i s , between people and groups who exhibit c e r t a i n of the characteristics and teachings of H . N . , and who may look upon him and his writings as instructional and  - 14 -  inspirational and those who follow him as one who has received revelation and whose writings 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 like something Niclaes might have said, "There goes the F a m i l y of L o v e , " would be to tremendously exaggerate the sect's numbers and i m p o r t a n c e . A s we shall see, especially in England in the seventeenth century, the name " F a m i l i s t " was hurled about as an epithet, and to conclude that everyone who was called a F a m i l i s t was a member of the sect called the F a m i l y of L o v e , even if they exhibited " f a m i l i s t " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , is simply not justifiable.  * * *  H i s t o r i c a l treatment of the F a m i l y of Love in England may rightly be said to have started with Thomas F u l l e r , whose C h u r c h History of B r i t a i n first appeared in 1662. Fuller states that around the 1578 the F a m i l y of Love began "to grow so numerous, f a c t i o u s , and dangerous that the privy council thought fit to endeavour their s u p p r e s s i o n . " ^ The F a m i l y , founded by Niclaes (Fuller erroneously states that he was born in A m s t e r d a m ) , f i r s t found its way to England when N i c l a e s visited near the end of the reign of Edward VI when he caused trouble in the Dutch Church in London "seducing a number of a r t i f i c e r s and silly w o m e n ; amongst whom two daughters of one Warwick . . . were his principal p e r v e r t s . ^  His errors were  "zealously confuted" by M a r t i n Micronius and Nicholas Carinaeus, but "their antidotes pierced not so deep as his p o i s o n e . " ^ As a result of Niclaes' a c t i v i t i e s in England, the F a m i l y of Love began to spread in various parts of England, to the point where the Privy C o u n c i l was provoked to action culminating in the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n of 1580.  - 15 -  F u l l e r objected especially to Niclaes' pretension and claims to be "raised up by the highest G o d from the death . . . godded w i t h G o d in the Spirit of his l o v e ; made heir with C h r i s t in the heavenly goods of the riches of G o d ; illuminated in the Spirit with the heavenly t r u t h , the true light of the perfect being . . ."49 in addition to H.N.'s presumption of divine election and inspiration, Fuller condemns their allegorical interpretation of Scriptures, making them " a i r y , empty, nothing,"50 and their antinomianism: " Y e a , St. Paul's Supposition 'Shall we continue in s i n , that grace may abound?' was their position."51  In connection with their antinomianism,  he alludes to their lascivious conduct and their l i b e r t i n i s m , as seen above in the quote about "seducing silly women" and the play on words, substituting "perverts" for " c o n v e r t s " . Fuller's account, while wrong about many things concerning the F a m i l y of L o v e , and despite its highly p o l e m i c a l tone, is nevertheless the f i r s t treatment of the F a m i l y of Love in an historical 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 F a m i l y and its suppression as for its contributions to later treatments. The next noteworthy account (and certainly more detached and scholarly) is in John Strype's Annals of the R e f o r m a t i o n . While in basic outline, his account is very similar to Fuller's (from whom he undoubtedly derived much material) the tone is less strident and the treatment more extensive. For instance, he is more s p e c i f i c about dates and places: "It was derived from H o l l a n d ; where one H . N . (i.e. Henry Nicholas) was the founder of it. A company of these were discovered in the parish of Balsham in Cambridgeshire, the Bishop of Ely's diocese." These, including one R o b e r t Sharp, were examined before D r . Perne and made " a declaration and  - 16 -  confession of this. . . . A l l which was c e r t i f i e d and given by D r . P e r n e , D e c e m b . anno 1 5 7 4 . "  52  Strype is also doubtful of the moral laxity which F u l l e r concludes was t y p i c a l of the F a m i l y : Whether this sect of the service of love were of such profligate principles and practices may be doubted; but that anabaptists and libertines (of whom those crimes were too true) shrouded themselves under those of this denomination may be justly suspected.53 If, however, Strype was doubtful of their libertinism and less strident in tone than F u l l e r , this, of course, does not mean that Strype approved of the sect or found them any less dangerous than did F u l l e r . Strype disapproves especially of their denial of the spiritual authority of the C h u r c h : " A l s o , they cried out against a l l spiritual offices and officers . . . whom . . . they called . . . dumb dogs, and sleeping hounds, w i t h such like n a m e s . " ^ He also c r i t i c i z e s the f a c t that H . N . allowed his followers to conform outwardly to the religious practices demanded by the authorities. This of course includes the Mass in C a t h o l i c countries, resulting in lingering suspicion of the F a m i l y of L o v e as papist subversives; t h a t , in John Roger's words, they were " a chicken of the church of R o m e . " 5 5 This was, in the era of the Popish P l o t , the Glorious R e v o l u t i o n , and Louis X I V , the kiss of death. Nevertheless, even if they were not really C a t h o l i c s in sheep's c l o t h i n g , Strype condemns them for their lack of principle in hiding their beliefs. Strype describes several other sects which he considers to be offshoots of the F a m i l y of L o v e . There is the F a m i l y of the Mount, who held " a l l things in c o m m o n , and lived in contemplation altogether; denying a l l prayers, and the resurrection of the body."56 There is also the F a m i l y of the Essentialists who, "had their opinions f r o m one M r s . 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 k e , were the spawn and improvements of this f a m i l y of l o v e , of the which Henry N i c h o l a s , of Holland was the founder. . . ."57 If Strype is less strident in his tone than F u l l e r , it is perhaps because, w r i t i n g forty years l a t e r , he senses them less as an ever-present danger: " F o r I remember, a gentleman, a great admirer of that s e c t , within less than twenty years ago, told m e , that there was then but one of the f a m i l y of love s t i l l a l i v e , and he an old man."^8 Nevertheless, despite the differences in tone, both Fuller and Strype may be seen as spokesmen of the Anglican establishment in that their chief complaints against H . N . and the F a m i l y of Love are that they undermine the foundations of an authoritative state c h u r c h . More recent treatments of the F a m i l y of Love f a l l into two general categories. One of these is the condemnation of the f a n a t i c a l persecution of harmless mystics who posed no danger to the state or the social order. The other is parallel to the f i r s t , but has more to do with a "quest for roots" on the part of modern denominations, especially on the part of Quakers and Baptists. Before going on to examine these traditions more closely, it would be useful to review the ideas of Ernst T r o e l t s c h , whose classification of C h r i s t i a n churches did much to make the study of the " L e f t Wing of the R e f o r m a t i o n " possible.59  i  n  general, Troeltsch distinguished three basic types of C h r i s t i a n i t y . The church-type, C a t h o l i c or Protestant,"works through the ministry, the Word and the sacraments; it is objective in its approach and attempts to supply the spiritual needs of the masses as well as those of the religiously gifted."60  The sect-type as typified by various  brands of A n a b a p t i s m , "stresses Christ's role as lawgiver, and tries to follow his recorded commandments by forming voluntary groups, withdrawn from the rest of  - 18 -  s o c i e t y . " These were usually "quiet, biblicist congregations", but were occasionally susceptible, as at Munster, to resorting to violence to hasten the a r r i v a l of God's Kingdom on earth."61 The third type which Troeltsch distinguishes, and the one which concerns us most here, is the Spiritualist or m y s t i c a l type. This type stresses direct inspiration f r o m G o d , the reception of C h r i s t as an "inward experience", and that the Bible is only an outward manifestation of the Word of G o d . To grasp the true meaning of the Scriptures, one must be aided and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Because of its inwardness and subjectivity, there is l i t t l e interest in or use for e c c l e s i a s t i c a l organization (as in the church-type) or in withdrawn communities of believers (as in the sect-type). What is important here is one's own inward experience and inspiration, not outward organization or conformity.62 One must keep in mind, however, that these are the distinctions of a twentieth-century G e r m a n , and not those of contemporaries. For those participants caught up in the religious and social upheaval of the R e f o r m a t i o n , there was no distinction between churches, s e c t s , and m y s t i c s ; there was only the true C h u r c h and the heretics. Nevertheless, Troeltsch's classifications 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 F a m i l y of Love is illustrative of his c l a s s i f i c a t o r y system. He classified Niclaes in the tradition of " M y s t i c i s m and Spiritual Idealism within P r o t e s t a n t i s m " along w i t h such other groups and individuals as Munzeri., C a r l s t a d t , Schwenckfeld, F r a n c k , David J o r i s , and the Quakers; he does not identify H . N . w i t h " s e c t s " such as the Anabaptists, Mennonites, L e v e l l e r s , Diggers, and Moravians.  - 19 -  N i c l a e s , according to T r o e l t s c h , "swung over into a visionary 'Enthusiasm', combined w i t h the f a m i l i a r ideas of German m y s t i c i s m , of 'deification' and of 'tranquillity', of the 'Divine Spark' of Light and L o v e ; he also taught an ethic of religious perfection with its v i c t o r y over 'the flesh' and 'the letter."'64  This places  H.N.'s doctrines f i r m l y in the tradition of the Theologica G e r m a n i c a , of Joachim of F i o r e , and of medieval mysticism in general. Although, according to T r o e l t s c h , " A t the English R e v o l u t i o n , the movement d i s a p p e a r e d , " ^ its influence continued to be f e l t . Bunyan used the prophet's T e r r a Pacis as a model for Pilgrim's Progress. In p a r t i c u l a r , 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 F a m i l y of L o v e is worthy of n o t i c e . This is Robert Barclay's The Inner L i f e of the Religious Societies of the C o m m o n w e a l t h . B a r c l a y , as a Quaker, wrote a ringing vindication of the Friends' role in the establishment of religious liberty in England. Although Barclay finds H.N.'s books overly mystical,67  n e  concludes that his teachings were in the main quite orthodox.  The F a m i l y of Love's main contribution, however, lies in their anticipation of George Fox and John Wesley. It was groups such as the F a m i l y of Love who kept the "doctrines of sanctification and perfection"68 alive 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 Niclaes arrived in England, Barclay does not e x p l a i n , except for a short note on Christopher V i t e l l , "the first preacher sent by N i c l a e s , . . . who came from Delph to Colchester . . . in 1555."7  U  They d i d , however, grow and  survived o f f i c i a l repression under E l i z a b e t h , lasting until the time of the C o m m o n w e a l t h when they "silently disappeared in the f i e r c e and open struggle of the time between truth and error."71  - 20 -  Here we begin to see the tendency outlined above: the desire to place the F a m i l y of Love in a Spiritualist tradition whose heirs can be traced down to the present day. T y p i c a l of this is Rufus Jones' interpretation.72  Jones, as a Quaker,  identifies many of the beliefs of the F a m i l y of L o v e w i t h the original Quakers of the late seventeenth century. His tone is admiring. Here was a group that was "at its best the exponents of a very l o f t y type of mystical religion," whose founder "was a very extraordinary c h a r a c t e r , and his voluminous writings contain spiritual insights and religious teachings which deserve to be rescued from the oblivion into which they have largely fallen."73 Jones especially commends their emphasis on an inward t r a n s f o r m a t i o n , their p a c i f i s m , their "concern that the l i f e should be put above forms,"74 their insistence "on spiritualizing this l i f e rather than on dogmatizing about the next life,"75 and their desire for moral rectitude.  Jones is also concerned  w i t h intolerance and f a n a t i c i s m , thus bringing together both streams of historical treatment mentioned above. He castigates H.N.'s c r i t i c s as not penetrating "the meaning of [his] deep m y s t i c a l t e a c h i n g , " ? ^ as w r i t i n g in " a spirit of bigotry and intolerance and in ignorance of the real teachings" of the F a m i l y of Love.77 However, Jones' ultimate purpose is to show that the F a m i l y of L o v e influenced George F o x and the earlier Quakers, as well as the Seekers and R a n t e r s , in an effort to place the Quakers in an honorable and long-standing, if widely misunderstood, tradition. Jones' treatment of the origins and history of the F a m i l y of Love in England is wholly standard, drawing on the usual sources: F u l l e r , Strype, B a r c l a y , and Nippold. Nowhere has he attempted to re-examine the historical evidence relating to the F a m i l y of L o v e ; indeed, to do so is unnecessary for the standard view accords very nicely w i t h his own thesis. His view is dependent on the F a m i l y of Love surviving  - 21 -  into the late seventeenth century and beyond, in order for them to have influenced the Quakers. Indeed, he goes so far as to state that " [m ]any F a m i l i s t s must ;have joined with Friends," although he does admit that "there is l i t t l e positive proof of the f a c t that they d i d . " * 7  5  Another Quaker, like Jones' writing from H a v e r f o r d C o l l e g e , although some years e a r l i e r , is A l l e n C . Thomas.79 i  n  f a c t , Jones uses Thomas as an authority on  the F a m i l y . Thomas does state that the Quakers are the true spiritual heirs of the F a m i l y of L o v e ; a l l that was really 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 followers.80 Nevertheless, Thomas' main concern is the intolerance which greeted a sect w h i c h , "though fundamentally wrong in many points . . . its members apprehended much that the church around them ignored or failed to comprehend."81 P r i m a r y to his concern is that the F a m i l y of L o v e were really not all that bad and aroused such a hostile reaction only because of the blindness and pigheadedness of the religious authorities. He goes through the teachings of H . N . in some d e t a i l , refuting the c r i t i c s ' charges of antinomianism and i m m o r a l i t y , their dissembling before authority, concluding that on "the main doctrines of C h r i s t i a n i t y the F a m i l i s t s seem to have been orthodox."82 They did not deny the divinity of C h r i s t , nor did H . N . grant himself divine status.83 His historical account of the F a m i l y i s , like Jones', entirely standard, following in all important aspects Strype, N i p p o l d , and B a r c l a y . P a r t i c u l a r l y as concerns the F a m i l y of Love in England, he accepts without question that "their doctrines seem to have taken deeper root in England."84 A n d , "["w]e find l i t t l e public notice of the  - 22 -  sect in England after the address to K i n g 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 r e v i v a l of the s e c t , 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 F a m i l y of L o v e in England is to be found in E . Belfort Bax's Rise and F a l l of the Anabaptists. In the chapter "The Anabaptist Movement in E n g l a n d " , after a brief account of Anabaptism in the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and M a r y , we come upon the astonishing statement that during Elizabeth's reign, "English Anabaptism took definite shape in the form of a sect or party c a l l i n g themselves the F a m i l y of L o v e . " ^ ^ The bulk of the rest of the chapter is devoted to the F a m i l y of L o v e . C l e a r l y , Bax has succumbed to the invective of writers hostile to H . N . , and while recognizing their polemical purposes and tone, has not thought fit to question their historical assumptions: The most flourishing period of this sect is not quite easy to determine from the evidence, but between 1570 and 1580 it undoubtedly created considerable stir in the country, so much so that E l i z a b e t h ' s lords of C o u n c i l sent urgent letters to the Bishop of N o r w i c h , pressing him to take f o r t h w i t h most stringent measures for its suppression.88 While Bax cannot bring himself to approve of H.N.'s doctrines (at one point he calls them "strange m y s t i c rigamarole,"89 he does lament their disappearance: With the name A n a b a p t i s m , the thing itself went. The old fervour, the z e a l , the s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e , the i d e a l i s m , that stopped at nothing in their aim to revolutionize a l l l i f e in accordance with the conception of C h r i s t i a n i t y as the religion of the disinherited, have long ceased to exist in the C h r i s t i a n sects of the modern w o r l d / ™ Another interpretation of the F a m i l y of Love which f a l l s more or less into the "plea for t o l e r a n c e " category (although, as we shall s e e , in a backhand sort of way)  - 23 -  is Ronald A . Knox's Enthusiasm; A Chapter in the History of R e l i g i o n . K n o x , as a C a t h o l i c , admits quite freely that his book was originally 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 C a t h o l i c unity is lost! A l l this confusion, this prigishness, this pedantry, this e c c e n t r i c i t y and worse, follows d i r e c t l y from the rash step that takes you outside the fold of Peter! . . . But somehow, in the w r i t i n g , my whole treatment of the subject became d i f f e r e n t ; the more you got to know t h e m , the more human did they become, for better or worse; you were more concerned to find out why they thought as they did than to prove it wrong.91 Nevertheless, after a very long book in which he traces C h r i s t i a n enthusiasm from the E a r l y Church through John Wesley and beyond, he concludes that "enthusiasm is not a wrong tendency, but a false emphasis." Enthusiasts "saw clearly . . . something true and valuable; the exaggerations, the e c c e n t r i c i t i e s , were hatched by the heat of controversy."?^ Thus enthusiasm is necessary, if sometimes inconvenient, f o r , " [m]en w i l l not live without vision . . . [ i ]f we are content w i t h the humdrum, the second-best, the hand-over-hand, it w i l l not be forgiven us."93 The book is thus a vindication of visionary enthusiasts (especially C a t h o l i c visionary enthusiasts) who, while going to e x t r e m e s , restored true spirituality. On the F a m i l y of L o v e in s p e c i f i c , K n o x is entirely unoriginal, following Bax in concluding that they were a type of Anabaptist sect.94 C l e a r l y , though, for K n o x the main importance of the F a m i l y of L o v e is their legacy to the Quakers. Indeed, his main passage on the F a m i l y is included in a " N o t e on Chapter V H P entitled " O n the prehistory of Q u a k e r i s m . "  9 5  His h i s t o r i c a l treatment is entirely standard. The  sect had its beginnings in England in the 1550's, grew rapidly through the 1570's until the repression of the late '70's and '80's. It then enjoyed a brief r e v i v a l about the t i m e of the Commonwealth after which it disappeared from the scene. A c c o r d i n g to K n o x , Niclaes's doctrines "are l i t t l e better than cloudy nonsense. . . . But it is clear  - 24 -  that the meetings of the F a m i l y must have been a seed ground from which innerlight theologies l i e . the Quakers ] might have been expected to spring."96 Champlin Bur rage, in his book The E a r l y English Dissenters (1550-1641), though certainly not as misguided as B a x , has nevertheless made some astonishing assertions concerning the F a m i l y of L o v e . Indeed, he considers the history of the F a m i l y as in need of no further research: A f t e r what has been written concerning the F a m i l y of Love by D r . F. Nippold and M r . Robert B a r c l a y , there seems l i t t l e need to devote much t i m e to that rather mysterious sect.97 While he is certainly c o r r e c t in stating that they were not Anabaptists, the rest of what l i t t l e t i m e he devotes to the F a m i l y of Love i s , to say the least, unsupportable. Basing his account primarily 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 early 1580's "seem [s ] to have f a i l e d , for the F a m i l y of Love was certainly well known in England as an existing society during the reigns of 3anr.es I and Charles I."98 A l s o : Before 1600 the F a m i l y of Love can have a t t r a c t e d few converts in England, and even until 1620 and later it must have made slow progress.99 Obviously, he does not recognize that in the seventeenth century, the name " F a m i l i s t " was indiscriminately hurled about as an epithet without necessarily (or even probably) referring to devotees of H . N . and his F a m i l y of L o v e . The chief heirs of the F a m i l y of L o v e , he identifies not as the Quakers but rather the Seekers, although, as he himself admits the two groups were frequently confused and the connections are somewhat t e n t a t i v e . 100 In a short a r t i c l e written in 1953, Ernest A . Payne, while not denying the influence of the F a m i l y of Love on the Quakers, widens the denominational spectrum of H.N.'s heirs:  - 25 -  Rufus Jones is a sympathetic and discriminating defender of the F a m i l i s t s . "They had," he says, "for more than a hundred years, maintained in England a steady testimony to the spiritual nature of religion, to the f a c t 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 it is certain that the Baptists of the modern world are among the Spiritual kinfolk of the F a m i l i s t s and have no reason for repudiating a l l connection with them. 1 0 1  Payne's historical treatment (one is beginning to see a pattern here) is again entirely standard. He may quibble over the extent of David Joris' influence on Niclaes and other points, but as regards the F a m i l y in England, he follows the path already charted by F u l l e r , Strype, B a r c l a y , and Jones. H . N . found his largest following in England, beginning with V i t e l l in the 1550's, continuing through H.N.'s alleged visit 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 i a l repression ensued. Upon repression the group went underground, surfacing o c c a s i o n a l l y , as in the address to James I, and enjoyed a brief r e v i v a l at the t i m e of the C o m m o n w e a l t h .  1 0 2  The culmination of this stream of historical treatment of the F a m i l y of Love may be found in G . H . Williams' massive study, The R a d i c a l R e f o r m a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g to W i l l i a m s , the "English F a m i l i s t s were c o m m u n i t a r i a n , p a c i f i s t i c Anabaptists. . . . Morphologically and to a certain extent genetically, the English F a m i l i s t s represent a transitional stage between evangelical Anabaptism and the completely nonsacramental Spiritualism of Q u a k e r i s m . " 0 3 1  A t the risk of being overly repetitive (the point, however, is crucial) one must say that Williams' historical treatment is entirely unoriginal. It is unnecessary at this point to repeat the basic outline of the standard history of the F a m i l y of Love in England. In Williams we see the apotheosis of the tendency to mold the various  - 26 -  Anabaptist and Spiritualist groups of the sixteenth century into a single movement, a " R a d i c a l R e f o r m a t i o n " . In this movement, H . N . and the F a m i l y of Love played an admittedly tiny part, but links can be drawn both backwards and forward in history, and the influence of such groups lives on long after their o f f i c i a l expiration. Emerging from the streams of historical treatment outlined above are attempts to describe and explain the F a m i l y 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 f a n a t i c i s m ; rather these attempts try to describe and explain the F a m i l y of Love as a concrete h i s t o r i c a l phenomenon. The boundaries between these two types of treatment are d i f f i c u l t to draw and perhaps even harder to explain, but they are there nevertheless. Perhaps it is more a difference in emphasis than kind. Perhaps under the influence of Williams historians are more cognizant than before of seemingly obscure and unimportant groups and ideas. There can be no doubt that the concept of a " R a d i c a l R e f o r m a t i o n " has opened up new avenues of research. Whatever the reason, in the last twenty years or so, the F a m i l y of Love has a t t r a c t e d more attention in and of itself 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 t o , of necessity, rely on what has gone before. From Nippold they derive the l i f e and writings of H . N . , f r o m Rooses, the connection to Plantin and the A n t w e r p humanists, and so o n . And herein lies its chief f a i l i n g . For in relying on previous research and interpretation, the standard outline of the history of the F a m i l y of Love in England has assumed the proportions of a received t r u t h , or at least of conventional wisdom. This i s , of course, not to deny the value and indispensible nature of the work of  - 27 -  Nippold, Rooses, B a r c l a y , Jones, W i l l i a m s , e t . a l . R a t h e r , later commentators have been caught up in the minute examination of one t r e e , quibbling about the shape of its cones, the colour of its needles, and its lifespan, without stepping back to see if there is indeed a forest. Thus we have arguments about H.N.'s views on the Mass, on baptism, the a f t e r l i f e , the B i b l e , the nature of C h r i s t , ad nauseum. What no one has thought worthwhile is to re-examine the conventional wisdom, particularly as regards the nature and extent of the F a m i l y of L o v e in England. Before we embark on the minute examination of one t r e e , we had better make sure of the nature of the forest. H i s t o r i c a l treatment of the F a m i l y of Love in and of itself may be said to have started (apart from Nippold's monograph) with the work of Herman de l a F o n t a i n e Verwey. In 1942 he published a bibliography of a l l known editions of H.N.'s w o r k s . °4 In 1954, he compared H . N . w i t h Joris and H i e l . l ° 5 A n d then in 1976, he 1  attempted to draw the whole thing together.1^6  De l a F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , as do most  recent commentators, approaches the F a m i l y 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 F a m i l y of L o v e was a widespread underground movement with a large number of adherents, then it becomes important "in the greater understanding which has developed of the significance 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 crisis of European consciousness at the end of the seventeenth century and the emergence of the modern world. For an understanding of this f a c t the study of sects in the sixteenth century provides one of the keys." 107 Thus we see that the F a m i l y of L o v e is not so  - 28 -  important in i t s e l 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 l a Fontaine-Verwey distinguishes f i v e principal religious currents in sixteenth-century Europe: the Tridentine C a t h o l i c C h u r c h , L u t h e r a n i s m , C a l v i n i s t (Reformed), Anabaptists, and Spiritualist, called in another place " l i b e r t i n e s " .  We can see that he has followed Troeltsch's  categories quite closely, or more e x a c t l y , he has applied Troeltsch's ideal categories to an actual historical situation. He is obviously concerned w i t h the last category, and his work on Niclaes and the F a m i l y of L o v e is seen as a contribution to the history and understanding of the Spiritualist " t y p e " . To this end he is concerned with the similarities of these groups and their founders, especially of the "trois heresiarques" mentioned above. As for the F a m i l y of Love in England, one may already guess what his approach might be. It is not necessary to again repeat the standard v i e w , but a few quotations w i l l suffice to show de l a Fontaine-Verwey's adherence to i t : there were F a m i l i s t s as early as 1553, at the beginning of Queen Mary's reign. Their leader was a cabinetmaker from D e l f t , Christopher V i t t e 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 . . . [ t h e ] F a m i l i s t s , too, now appeared on the scene of opposition to the c h u r c h . 109 There have since been other lengthy treatments of the F a m i l y of L o v e . Jean D i e t z Moss, in her 1969 P h . D . dissertation states that "there are many contradictory statements about the F a m i l i s t s in modern histories of the period. . . . there is considerable confusion among modern historians as to who and what F a m i l i s t s 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 F a m i l y ' s teachings, as expressed by the founder, and their impact upon E n g l i s h m e n . " ! 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 reconcile the contradictions and state definitively the origins, history, and doctrines of the F a m i l y of L o v e . 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 a c c u r a t e l y the origins of the F a m i l y of Love in Vitell's missionary a c t i v i t y , ^ 12 the practices of early English F a m i l i s m , ! 13  a n c  j its subsequent spread  and repression.! 14 One constantly comes across statements like the following: A f t e r Niclaes' works began to appear in English, in 1574, there were numerous references to the F a m i l i s t s . From this t i m e on the society must have developed rapidly.  In the years from 1581 until the Queen's death there are fewer and fewer references to F a m i l i s t s . The directives issued in the proclamation of the Queen and the vigilance of the bishops must have been successful in accomplishing the suppression of the s e c t . ! 16  That f a m i l i s m , i t s e l f , was destroyed cannot be concluded for it emerged again as soon as vigilance was relaxed after Elizabeth's d e a t h . U 7  That F a m i l i s t s were active again [under James I] is borne out by the frequent references to individual F a m i l i s t s , preaching elders, and their congregations.! 18 A f t e r the revolution there is a brief resurgence of f a m i l i s m . . . . New editions of Niclaes' works were printed in the 1640's and 1650's.H9 In the last f i f t e e n years or so there have been numerous other works on the F a m i l y of Love in England. It is unnecessary to go through them all and show how they have a l l , w i t h minor v a r i a t i o n , followed the same approach. There has been only one other lengthier treatment of the F a m i l y of L o v e . 120 i  n  it A l a s t a i r  H a m i l t o n provides the most useful and concise account of the Niclaes and the  - 30 -  F a m i l y of Love to date. E s p e c i a l l y valuable are the chapters on the spiritual traditions within which the F a m i l y of Love was originated, and on the humanist c i r c l e in A n t w e r p around P l a n t i n . Nevertheless, when he comes to treat the F a m i l y of Love in England, we come up against the same old story. G r a n t e d , Hamilton is a l i t t l e more judicious than some others in his use of sources, for he doubts that the 1561 Surrey confession was really one of devoted followers of H . N . and the "most we can say, therefore, is that the sectarians of 1561 were ready to receive the F a m i l i s t doctrine."121  Other than such minor qualifications on the main outline, 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 Niclaes works and the missionary a c t i v i t y of 1  V i t e l l , provoking o f f i c i a l repression inducing the sect to go underground where it eventually died out sometime in the f i r s t half of the seventeenth century.  Hamilton  is more willing than some others to admit that "the numerical power of the F a m i l i s t s 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 F a m i l i s m and the number of works written against the F a m i l y of L o v e , 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 F a m i l y in the sixteenth century. Here we are at the heart of the problem. A s we shall see, there is very l i t t l e objective evidence about the F a m i l y of Love in England. Of necessity, historians have had to base their accounts on hostile sources. There is nothing wrong with this in itself, as long as the hostile and polemical purposes of the writers are kept in mind. Of the recent commentators on the F a m i l y of L o v e , not one has taken the accounts of John Rogers and other hostile writers at face value. There are lengthy  - 31 -  passages to show that the early c r i t i c s misinterpreted either unknowingly or w i l l f u l l y , H.N.'s writings and doctrines. 123 Thus, as mentioned above, we have seemingly endless quibbling about various aspects of H.N.'s doctrines: What were his views on the Mass, on baptism, on regeneration, on s i n , on the Scriptures, e t c . ? Thus, while admitting that H.N.'s c r i t i c s were motivated by polemical purposes, and pointing out that the particulars of their attacks must be c a r e f u l l y weighed, the sheer volume of these attacks must serve as some sort of guide to the rise and f a l l of the F a m i l y of L o v e : Information about N i c l a s ' Elizabethan followers comes to us almost entirely through hostile channels: the "confessions" of e x - F a m i l i s t s or of persons suspected of being F a m i l i s t s , statements made in books a t t a c k i n g the sect . . . and actions taken by the government against the F a m i l y . But the inferences seem trustworthy when one finds persistent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in the l i f e of this sect that were not s i m i l a r l y prominent in other contemporary groups. 124  In f a c t , the evidence of the state papers seems to indicate that the period of F a m i l i s t a c t i v i t y singled out by Strype for particular attention marked the peak of F a m i l i s t a c t i v i t y throughout E n g l a n d ; this zenith in the sect's fortunes extended from 1575, when V i t e l l s ' translations first appeared in England, to 1580, when the sect was o f f i c i a l l y suppressed by royal p r o c l a m a t i o n . 125  One can notice a rising concern among the public developing from 1578 through 1579 and culminating in a proclamation of the Queen in October of 1580.126  In the face of o f f i c i a l suppression following the proclamation, f a m i l i s m waned and did not wax again until the early years of K i n g James' reign. 127 The underlying assumption is that even w i t h the paucity of a c t u a l documentary sources, one can follow the fortunes of the F a m i l y of Love by looking at its c r i t i c s and at governmental attempts to suppress it. This seems reasonable enough. Or is  - 32 -  i t ? The great failing of this approach is that it assumes a constant attitude on the part of i n t e l l e c t u a l s , churchmen, and governmental authorities. If these people were always equally concerned with stamping out sects such as the F a m i l y of L o v e , then this approach would be justified. But in f a c t they were not. It is as if an historian, several centuries from now, were to examine the U . S . A . in the early 1950's. Using this sort of approach, he would inevitably conclude, on the basis of Senator M c C a r t h y and the House U n - A m e r i c a n A c t i v i t i e s C o m m i t t e e , that the Communist P a r t y of the United States was a t t r a c t i n g a large number of members and was actually about to overthrow the government. By broadening the picture, we can place the F a m i l y of L o v e , and hence the reaction to i t , in its proper c o n t e x t . But f i r s t we must examine the a c t u a l evidence for the history of the F a m i l y in England. This, it w i l l be argued, is of three types: a c t u a l documentary sources, confessions of F a m i l i s t s , government records, and the l i k e ; works attributed to F a m i l i s t authors including H . N . himself; and works written by authors hostile to the F a m i l y of L o v e . The earliest English c r i t i c s of the F a m i l y of L o v e - John R o g e r s , John Knewstubb, and W i l l i a m Wilkinson - on whom virtually a l l other accounts rely so heavily, w i l l be put into a broad i n t e l l e c t u a l and c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n . This tradition is Continental in o r i g i n , primarily Swiss, and was transmitted to England by returning Marian e x i l e s , by constant communication between Zurich and England, and through M a r t i n Bucer and Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y . Then there is also the matter of t i m i n g : Why was the F a m i l y of Love perceived as such a threat at this precise t i m e in the late 1570's (the works of R o g e r s , Knewstubb, Wilkinson, and the Proclamation a l l appeared within three years of each other)? The standard answer i s , as we have seen, simply that there were more F a m i l i s t s at this t i m e . The key to the solution of this problem lies not so much in any inexplicable  - 33 -  and unprovable growth in the F a m i l y of L o v e , but in the perception of the authorities, in Elizabethan religious politics. In other words, they found F a m i l i s t s because they were looking for t h e m .  - 34 -  C H A P T E R II  What are the sources for the history of the F a m i l y of L o v e in England? They f a l l into three general categories. F i r s t , there are actual documentary sources, confessions, l e t t e r s , and government reports which allude to the sect's e x i s t e n c e . Then there are works of the F a m i l y of Love in E n g l i s h , either translations of H.N.'s works, several of which make reference to followers in England, translations of the works of other continental F a m i l i s t writers, or works attributable to English members of the F a m i l y of L o v e . L a s 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 f e w . The first we come across is a confession taken in G u i l d f o r d May 28, 1561 by William M o r e . l This confession was given by Thomas Chaundeler and Robert Sterete. John Rogers included it in his Displaying of 1578. In i t , the two men describe a group of sectaries complete w i t h secret conventicles, passwords, rituals, and a code of e t h i c s . Many of the articles to which the two subscribed sound very much indeed like the teachings of N i c l a e s . Significantly, however, neither the F a m i l y of Love nor H . N . are once mentioned by name. However, in one a r t i c l e (omitted by Rogers) there is a passing reference to " H e n r i k e , a D u t c h m a n , the head of all the congregation."2 T h i s , for some, is conclusive evidence that this Surrey group was a c e l l of the F a m i l y of L o v e . 3 The two men also allude to connections that their Surrey group had with other cells "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 l y and London are especially t a n t a l i z i n g ,  - 35 -  f o r , as we shall see, in these places there is evidence that the F a m i l y of L o v e was a c t i v e . In f a c t , Chaundeler says that his wife was "fetched out of the Isle of E l y by two of the congregation, the man and the woman being utter strangers before they came together to be married."^  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 itself should make us wary of accepting a l l the articles of this confession carte blanche. Were these two men and the group they describe F a m i l i s t s ? Perhaps, in the sense alluded to above: they did exhibit certain characteristics which are vaguely similar to Niclaes' teachings. Were they members of the sect called the F a m i l y of L o v e ? Probably not. Tempting as it is to identify the " H e n r i k e " of the confession with N i c l a e s , in the absence of more conclusive evidence, the connection cannot be made. Remember that even in the R o y a l Proclamation of 1580, Niclaes was identified only as H . N . Nowhere in the evidence is any part of his name given. So it seems unlikely that even if they were followers of H . N . , they would know any more of the prophet's identity than his i n i t i a l s . In addition, the t i m e frame is a l l wrong. Niclaes' works were not translated into English until the mid-1570's. The Surrey sectaries are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by More as " a l l unlearned, saving that some of them can read English and that not very p e r f e c t l y . " ^  Thus, it seems impossible that they  could have read H . N . in E n g l i s h , let alone i n the original L o w G e r m a n . Additional evidence has been adduced by Joseph M a r t i n to try to show that this was a c e l l of the F a m i l y of Love.7 Following the career of Thomas A l l e n of Wonersh, identified in the confession as an elder, he concludes that this must have been the F a m i l y of L o v e . Looking into the later papers of Sir William M o r e , the Surrey magistrate found that A l l e n possessed . . . " a booke of h n prevelye hidden at  - 36 -  the verye tyme of my comynge for I sawe his wyf when she dyd secretlie 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 e n " (even if it is the same person — no C h r i s t i a n name is given for the later Allen) was a member of the F a m i l y of Love in 1561. In addition Christopher V i t e l l , when confronted with this confession by John Rogers some eighteen years l a t e r , denied that they were at that t i m e members of the F a m i l y of L o v e : "of H . N . his doctrine at that time they knew not."9  What i s , of course,  entirely possible is that in the meantime they had become acquainted with the F a m i l y of Love and become followers of H . N . This would account for " A l l e n ' s " possession of H.N.'s books. Indeed Hamilton seems to be right on the mark when he says, " [t]he most we can say, t h e r e f o r e , is that the sectarians were ready to receive the F a m i l i s t doctrine." 10 Then there is the case of F a m i l y of Love a c t i v i t y at C o u r t . On September 28, 1578, the P r i v y C o u n c i l sent a l e t t e r to A y l m e r , then Bishop of London, "requiring him to c a l l unto him Robert Seale, Thomas Mathewe, Lewes Stewarde, Anthony Enscombe and W i l l i a m E l i n g , Yeomen of the G a r d e , persons noted to be of the secte c a l l e d the F a m i l i e of L o v e , and to conferre w i t h them for their reformation i n Relligion . . . " U However, a week and a half l a t e r , A y l m e r informed the C o u n c i l that "those of her Majesties Garde suspected to be of the F a m i l y of Love . . . are in a l l pointes of Religion verie sound." No further action was taken at this t i m e , except that the Councillors reaffirmed the accused in their positions, and gave them some time 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 l a t e r , however, on October 9,1580 (note the t i m i n g — the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n was issued on October 3), two Yeomen of the G u a r d , identified as - Seale and Mathewe — (obviously the same Robert Seale and Thomas Mathewe) were " c o m m i t t e d to the prison of Marshallsea, refusing to subscribe unto certain erroneous and false articles gathered out of the bookes of one H . N . , supposed to be the author of a certaine Secte called the F a m i l i e of L o v e , whereof they were vehemently suspected to be, and order geven to the C l e r k e of the C h e c k e to take her Majesties coate f r o m them."13 Shortly thereafter Anthonie Ediscombe (obviously the Anthony Enscombe of 1578), "being suspected to be one of the sect of the F a m i l i e of L o v e , denied the same before ther Lordships. . . . " 1 * On November 30, 1580, Thomas Seale (a relative of Robert Seale?), "charged before their Lordships w i t h certen lewde and irreverent speeches of the C o u n c e l l , tending to charge them w i t h injustice in the punishing of certen persones . . . being of the Secte c a l l e d the F a m i l i e of L o v e , " was c o m m i t t e d to Marshallsea, "there to remayne to be furder examined and proceded with all as shold appertaine."15 The only other bit of evidence regarding this case is an undated manuscript among the H a r l e y manuscripts in the British Museum which would seem to be a confession of the accused guards: The confesion of sele ely and mathew/beinge of the f a m e l y of Love &/of her maisties gard/They must be deyfyed in god & god in t h e m / [T ]he 3ugement & resurexion is past already/ We are eylewmynatid that is to saye of the / [?resurexsion ] & restoryd to the parfection that A d a m / [ ? h a d ] before his f a l e / [ T h ] e L i t e r a 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 g o s t / [ T h e ] y may l a w f u l l y deny religion of faithe before any/ [if] ther be any cause of persecusion/[The] r ought not to be any maiestarts amongest crystyans/16  - 38 -  Whether it was w r i t t e n by a secretary or by the guardsmen themselves is impossible to determine. The " s e l e " and "mathew" are obviously Robert Seale and Thomas Mathewe, while the " e l y " could possibly be the W i l l i a m E l i n g of the group accused in 1578. With this confession, this group vanishes from the r e c o r d . G r a n t e d , this is not much to go on; nevertheless, these men were almost certainly members of the F a m i l y of L o v e , and we shall have occasion to refer to them again. That the F a m i l y of Love's centre of a c t i v i t y was Cambridgeshire and the Isle of E l y becomes apparent in several other confessions. In D e c e m b e r , 1574, D r . Andrew Perne, the Dean of E l y , alarmed by reports of private assemblies in the parish of B a l s h a m , examined six villagers, among whom was one Robert Sharpe, parson at S t r e t h a l l , in Essex, Edmund R u l e , and two members of the Lawrence f a m i l y . 17 Perne was apparently satisfied w i t h their answers — Sharpe "signed a lengthy confession attesting to his and his disciples' orthodoxy,"18  a n  d  n  o  further  action was taken. However, some six months later Robert Sharpe, along with five others recanted their belief in the F a m i l y of Love at Paul's C r o s s . 19 That Sharpe, and by extension the Balsham groups were members of the F a m i l y of L o v e , there is l i t t l e doubt. Sharpe admitted in his recantation 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 P r i v y C o u n c i l wrote to Sandys, then Bishop of London "touching order to be taken with Anabaptists and those of the F a m i l y of Love."21 In 1580, R i c h a r d C o x , the Bishop of E l y , at the urging of William Wilkinson, who had dedicated his Confutation to the Bishop, embarked on a campaign to hunt down the F a m i l y 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. A g a i n , note the  - 39 -  t i m i n g : Cox's campaign is simultaneous with the promulgation of the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n . 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 it is thought to London . . .)22 recanted their belief in H . N . and the F a m i l y of L o v e . What happened to this group afterwards is unknown. C e r t a i n l y , they may h a v e , as F e l i c i t y H e a l suggests, returned to the sect.23 This would be quite consistent with the behaviour alleged as t y p i c a l of the F a m i l y of L o v e . 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 B a r w i c k e , minister," by Bourne's apprentice, 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 beliefs. Most interesting from our point of v i e w , however, is his allusion to their connections at C o u r t : for it being reported upon a t i m e that a commission was granted f o r t h against us of Wisbech we had a letter from the F a m i l y of Love in the court, from one Dorrington and Z e a l e , wherein we were advertised 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 c o n v e y e d . ^ 2  Here is the only evidence of any connections between different groups of the F a m i l y of L o v e . It appears that "Dorrington and Z e a l e " (probably either Robert or Thomas Seale), a c t i n g upon their inside i n f o r m a t i o n , had informed their co-religionists at Wisbech of the upcoming persecution. The possibility remains, however, that Romsey's confession was somewhat manufactured. A l a s t a i r Hamilton believes that the confession played too perfectly into the hands of the authorities to be as voluntary as advertised.26 There is also the possibility that Romsey had been embittered against his employer and purposely  - *0  -  sought to damage h i m . In his confession, Romsey states that the sect was planning an armed uprising "when they are of sufficient number to undertake the matter."27 C e r t a i n l y H . N . would never have approved of this. Perhaps this was an idiosyncratic 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 r y i n g to make himself seem more important in the eyes of the authorities. In 1576, David Thickpenny, curate of Brighthelmstone in the diocese of C h i c h e s t e r , was accused by his bishop, R i c h a r d C u r t e y s , of being of the F a m i l y of Love.28 Thickpenny denied the charge and appealed to the C o u n c i l which turned the matter over to Archbishop G r i n d a l . G r i n d a l , having looked into the matter and examined Thickpenny, concluded that "my said lord [the Bishop of Chichester] shewed no sufficient ground of his said opinion."29 Thickpenny was restored and ordered to preach several sermons against the F a m i l y of L o v e . However, Thickpenny was again called on the carpet before Bishop C u r t e y s . We do not know what became of the m a t t e r . C e r t a i n l y Thickpenny's behaviour seems in accordance w i t h the behaviour of other F a m i l y members when confronted by authority; confess, recant, and when set f r e e , continue as before. However, not having heard from Thickpenny himself, only f r o m his accusers, it would seem an unwarranted assumption to make him a member of the F a m i l y of L o v e . A f t e r a l l , we know nothing of his beliefs, and members of the F a m i l y of Love were certainly not the only ones to falsely confess and recant. The second category of evidence for the history of the F a m i l y of L o v e in England consists of written works attributed to members of the F a m i l y . C h i e f among these, of course, are the translations of H.N.'s own works. Though published without date or place of printing, the dates can be established with a fair degree of  - 41 -  a c c u r a c y . (The Short T i t l e Catalogue has, seemingly a r b i t r a r i l y , assigned dates of 1574 or 1575 to most of them.) C e r t a i n l y they were printed after the 1573 schism — they were not printed by Plantin in A n t w e r p or by Van Hasselt in Cologne — and before the 1580 Proclamation where several of them are mentioned by name. Robert Sharpe seemingly had access to H.N.'s works as early as 1574. It seems likely therefore, without being too s p e c i f i c , that English translations of H . N . started appearing shortly after the schism in 1573 and t r i c k l e d slowly into England over the next six or seven years. A s for the place of printing, the best we can do is a t t r i b u t e them to the mysterious Cologne press described in Chapter One. Although a number of H.N.'s works were translated (the S T C lists sixteen) only a few are really noteworthy for our purposes. These are;30 1. Evangelium R e g n i . Ein F r o l i c k e Bodeschop vam R y k e . (Antwerp, 1555-1562); in English, Evangelium R e g n i . A joyfull Message of the K i n g d o m .  2. Prophetie des Geistes der L i e f t e n . (Antwerp, 1555-1562); in English, The Prophetie of the Spirit of L o v e . 3- Den Spegel der G h e r e c h t i c h e i t . (Antwerp, 1562); the entire work was never translated into English. R a t h e r , its two i n t r o ductions were published separately under the t i t l e s A n Introduction to the holy Understanding of the Glasse of Righteousness and A Figure of the true and Spiritual Tabernacle according to the inward Temple of the House of God in the Spirit.  E x h o r t a t i o . De Eerste Vormaninge H . N . Tot syne kinderen, unde dem Husgesinne der L i e f t e n . (Cologne, 1573): in English. Exhortatio I. The first exhortation of H . N , to his C h i l d r e n , and to the F a m i l y of L o v e .  5. R e v a l a t i o D e i . De openbaringe Godes, und syne grote Prophetie. (Cologne c . 1575); in E n g l i s h , R e v e l a t i o D e i . The Reuelation of G o d , and his great Propheatie: which God now; in the last D a y e ; hath shewed unto his E l e c t .  _ ii2  -  6. T e r r a P a c i s . Ware getugenisse van idt geistlich Landtschap des Fredes. (Cologne, 1580); in E n g l i s h , Terra Pacis. A True T e s t i f i c a t i o n of the Spirituall Lande of Peace; which is the S p i r i t u a l l Lande of P r o m y s e , and the holy C i t i e of Peace or the Heauenly Jerusalem. A s 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" l e f t off, or an " s " appended. Thus, V i t e l , V i t t e l l , V i t e l l s , etc.) We have already come across the name Christopher V i t e l l in connection with the F a m i l y of Love in England. He is described by both Rogers and Wilkinson as the chief elder of the F a m i l y 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 irrelevant. He does seem to have been the chief spokesman of the F a m i l y of Love in England, and was certainly the leader w i t h the highest p r o f i l e . Even if he was D u t c h , it appears V i t e l l had been living in England for quite some t i m e . There are references to him as far back as Henry's reign: . . . in K i n g Henry's reign . . . unconstant, in K i n g Edward's reign, a dissembler, and Queen Mary's reign, a plain A r i a n , and now in this our Princes' r e i g n , a chief teacher of the F a m i l y of Love.33 V i t e l l makes his f i r s t appearance on the scene in 1555 in C o l c h e s t e r . William Wilkinson, in his C o n f u t a t i o n , includes the account of one Henry C r i n e l l (Orinell) of Willingham in Cambridgeshire.34 O r i n e l l states that to escape C a t h o l i c persecution he went to C o l c h e s t e r , and while there, in an inn frequented by Protestants, heard a discussion between V i t e l l and another m a n . V i t e l l , of course, took the h e r e t i c a l side, denying infant baptism, predestination and e v e n , according to O r i n e l l , the divinity of C h r i s t . It seems certain that at this t i m e , V i t e l l was not a member of the F a m i l y of L o v e . A l t h o u g h , according to O r i n e l l , he did mention a man "who lived as he sayd beyond the seas an holy life,"35 it is not clear whether this refers to  - 43 -  H . N . , D a v i d J o r i s , or someone else. A l s o , the views attributed t o V i t e l l by O r i n e l l bear l i t t l e resemblance to the teachings of H . N . , or at least, what l i t t l e resemblance they do bear could certainly have come from other sources. In any case, sometime early in Elizabeth's reign, he recanted his A r i a n views at Paul's Cross.36 How and when V i t e l l was converted to the F a m i l y of L o v e is not known.  It  happened certainly some t i m e between his recantation at Paul's Cross and 1577, when he is f i r s t mentioned by a hostile writer.37  By that t i m e , he appears to have  emerged as the chief leader of the F a m i l y in England. Although he is often referred to as "Christopher V i t e 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 F a m i l y and his own l i b e r t y .  Rogers states that his wife  in London had not seen him in two years.39 V i t e l l must have travelled to the C o n t i n e n t , for his writings betray an intimate f a m i l i a r i t y 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 f a c t , if indeed the books were printed in C o l o g n e , would indicate Continental t r a v e l . C e r t a i n l y some contact w i t h N i c l a e s would have been likely for the accomplishing of this task. What eventually happened to V i t e l l , we do not know. A f t e r John Rogers' Answere unto a wicked libel in 1579, nothing further is heard of h i m . One would think that if he had been arrested or interrogated, one would certainly have heard of it in the polemical l i t e r a t u r e . Several of H.N.'s works are remarkable in that they make reference to his followers in England. The f i r s t of these is " A n Epistle sent unto two daughters of Warwick." F u l l e r , as we have seen, used this as evidence of Niclaes' visit to England under E d w a r d ; these daughters of Warwick were, after a l l , his two principal "perverts."41  H o w e v e r , since Niclaes signed the letter "your unknown friend," it  - 44 -  seems unlikely that he knew them personally.42 This letter exists in two f o r m s . One, from about 1579, is a manuscript to be found in L a m b e t h Palace.43 Then, in 1608, it was reprinted with a refutation in Amsterdam by the separatist Henry Ainsworth.44 it is not known when the letter was originally w r i t t e n , though H a m i l t o n dates it sometime during Mary's reign.45 The advice contained in this letter was grist to the authorities' m i l l : No my beloved, no, the confession of C h r i s t must stand in greater force or e f f e c t than to be confessed with the mouth, in the ceremonial service . . .46 The second exists only in manuscript form in L a m b e t h Palace.47 This is "The Epistle of H . N . . . . unto the right Reverend Bishops." This letter is similar to the vindication Niclaes sent to the authorities in Emden some twenty years e a r l i e r , although "the epistle had a belligerent note" lacking in the former.48 This letter 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 i v i l and e c c l e s i a s t i c a l representatives."49 As far as the works of H . N . himself are concerned, these are the only two references to followers in England. F r o m time to t i m e , members of the F a m i l y of Love took it upon themselves to defend themselves in print f r o m their adversaries. The f i r s t of these is the anonymous Brief R e h e a r s a l l , printed in 1575.50 Although there are no copies of this edition extant, the date seems c e r t a i n , for the reprinted edition of 1656 bears that date, and 3ohn Rogers mentions having read it. The date is significant in that this document seems to have been a response to campaign against the F a m i l y of Love undertaken at the t i m e . It was in late 1574 that D r . Perne undertook the examination of Robert Sharpe and the Privy C o u n c i l wrote to the Bishop of London regarding the F a m i l y of L o v e .  - h5  -  As might be e x p e c t e d , the thrust of the Brief Rehearsall is that the F a m i l y of Love is no threat. Throughout, the author or authors protest their l o y a l t y , obedience, and peacef ulness: And to that end, obey we also our Sovereign Lady the Queen, and the Magistrates our foregoers, both spiritual and t e m p o r a l : and that of Gods behalf, and even for our conscience and the peaces cause: paying a l l tribute unto these said Magistrates, living obediently and Subject-like, even as is meet and right under their Laws . . .51 As also might be e x p e c t e d , the author of the Brief Rehearsall downplays the foreign origins of the sect and its heterodox nature: And for that cause, to the end that we might uprightly shew f o r t h the same, both in the deed and truth . . . not using any other C e r e m o n i e s , L a w , Statues, nor Sacraments of B a p t i s m , then such as are ministered in the Church of England.52 Nevertheless, it does seem to be an authentic document of the F a m i l y of L o v e . For one t h i n g , the name " F a m i l y of L o v e " is used in the t i t l e and throughout the work. Nowhere is this name used (except by c r i t i c s ) where it applies to anything other than H.N.'s s e c t . 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 F a m i l y of Love among the minor functionaries at C o u r t . This seems to be the most likely source of any apologetics for the F a m i l y of L o v e . The significance of this document is not easy to assess. It does show that there were definitely members of the F a m i l y sufficiently l i t e r a t e to pen i t , sophisticated enough to couch it in the proper language, and powerful enough to have it printed. Who these people w e r e , as mentioned above must remain a matter of speculation. A s a creed of the F a m i l y of L o v e , it is certainly not entirely t r u t h f u l , and here the sectaries may have been giving their enemies ammunition, for surely those who wanted to could find out that A Brief Rehearsall o m i t t e d more  - 46 -  than it included. Thus, it could be seen as yet another example of the group's d e c e i t f u l nature. Another anonymous work attributed to the F a m i l y of Love is A n Apology for the Service of L o v e . This work is in the form of a play, a discussion between three c h a r a c t e r s : E x i l e , a member of the F a m i l y of L o v e , C i t i z e n , and C o u n t r y m a n . A g a i n , this is an attempt on the part of the F a m i l y of Love to answer the charges against t h e m . However, rather than, as in A Brief Rehearsall where only general statements are made about the group's loyalty and orthodoxy, in A n Apology charges are answered in s p e c i f i c : C i t i z e n : Wilt thou deny the Sacrament of Baptisme? Exile: 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 B a p t i s m e , which signifieth regeneration in C h r i s t and is ministered unto Infants, though some have most unjustly so reported to u s . ^ 5  The upshot of the discussion i s , of course, that C i t i z e n and Countryman are convinced of E x i l e ' s orthodoxy. The question of authorship, here as with A Brief R e h e a r s a l l , must remain in the realm of speculation. However, in the case of A n Apology, we are at least given a c l u e . In the p r e f a c e , the author describes himself as "one of her Majesties menial servants, who was in no s m a l l esteem with H e r , for his known wisdom and godliness."  55  The category of "menial servants" would seem to f i t the Yeoman  Guards, among whom, as we have seen, the F a m i l y of Love was popular. The s i m i l a r i t i e s between A Brief Rehearsall and A n Apology do not end there. Both are extant only in editions printed in 1656 by G i l e s C a l v e r t . In the case of A Brief R e h e a r s a l l , C a l v e r t ' s edition bears the date 1575, but for A n Apology, there is no such date. Strype says the original edition was published in 1575,56 and it was certainly published between 1575 and 1 5 8 0 .  57  Thus, A n Apology, like A Brief  - 47 -  R e h e a r s a l l , seems to have been a response to what was possibly perceived as a growing antagonism within o f f i c i a l c i r c l e s . In addition to the English translations of Niclaes' works, there are several other English translations of C o n t i n e n t a l F a m i l i s t t r a c t s . One of these is A Good and f r u i t f u l l Exhortation unto the F a m i l y of Love by " E l i d a d " , identified only as a " f e l l o w elder with the Elder H . N . " Though published without date or place of publication the S T C lists the date as 1574. " E l i d a d " was one of the three elders Niclaes took with him f r o m Amsterdam to E m d e n . Whether this " E l i d a d " and the " E l i d a d " who wrote A Good and f r u i t f u l l Exhortation are i d e n t i c a l is unknown. Perhaps the name refers to an office rather than a particular person. In any case, A Good andt Iriuitfull Exhortation seems to have been written after the H i e l i s t r i f t , which would date the original " B a s e - A l m a y n e " version out of which the English translation was made sometime after 1573: But ye shall not contend or dispute; . . . with that bring-in Variaunce and make Breach.58  any of a l l those  The emphasis in this work is on unity and uniformity within the F a m i l y of L o v e . Written, as one supposes, after the split in the sect (which, by the way, seems not to have a f f e c t e d the F a m i l y of Love in England at all), this is indeed understandable. It dwells at length on relationships within the F a m i l y of L o v e . L i k e the English translations of H.N.'s works, A Good and f r u i t f u l l Exhortation was not printed in England; the most likely spot seems to have been C o l o g n e . A s far as who did the translating, this is unknown, but as with H.N.'s works, the most likely candidate would seem to be Christopher V i t e l l . Another of these works is A distinct declaration of the requiring of the L o r d , by " F i d e l i t a s " , a fellow elder w i t h H . N . in the F a m e l i e of the L o u e . " L i k e A Good and f r u i t f u l l E x h o r t a t i o n , it was "translated out of the B a s e - A l m a y n e " and printed  - 48 -  without date or place. (The S T C lists the date as 1575). This also, like the f o r m e r , appears to have been written after the split in the s e c t . If " E l i d a d " is a compassionate father, guiding the F a m i l y in its internal relations, then " F i d e l i t a s " 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 shewf o u r t h no Repentaunce/ nor w i l l assemble them wherunto they are called and bidden through the gratious Woord and his Service of L o u e , to their preservation in the G o d l i n e s s . 5 9  Yes/even-then w i l l the Lorde himself with his A r m e / a n d the A r m e s of his holy ones, be the true Judge upon the E a r t h / and cleanse the universall E a r t h , from all the Unrighteousness and Falshood that the Chldren of Men . . . have practised and erected upon the earth. 6 0  A third work is A Reproofe Spoken and G i v e n against a l l False Christians by " A b i a Nazarenus." J u l i a Ebel has speculated that this is pseudonym for V i t e l l himself, but this is without substantiation.61  This t r a c t , unlike the others bears a  d a t e , 1579, but like the others, no place of printing.  A s its t i t l e suggests, it is an  a t t a c k on the c r i t i c s of the F a m i l y of L o v e . Especially interesting from our point of view is a preface which appears to have been w r i t t e n s p e c i f i c a l l y for the English translation. (Perhaps this is by Vitell.) In it the three earliest English c r i t i c s are mentioned by name: Stephen Bateman, John R o g e r s , and John Knewstubb.62 Another F a m i l i s t work translated into English is M i r a b i l i a opera D e i : C e r t a i n e wonderfull works of God which hapned to H . N , by "Tobias." " T o b i a s " , like " E l i d a d " , is the name of one of the three elders H . N . took with him f r o m Amsterdam to E m d e n . This is an hagiographical account of H.N.'s l i f e and works which runs parallel to the Chronika by " D a n i e l " and A c t a H . N , by "Zacharias."63  - k9  -  What do these works t e l l us about the F a m i l y of Love in England? A p a r t from the preface to A Reproof e, England or English people are not mentioned at a l l . Y e t the very f a c t that these works were translated from "base-almayne" or "netherSaxon" into E n g l i s h , indicates that somebody thought the task was worthwhile.  The  expense and labour of translating, printing, and (after 1580, surreptiously) transporting them into England, indicates that they were not shots in the dark, so to speak. Somebody was on the receiving end; there had to be a demand for t h e m , however s m a l l . That these works a c t u a l l y found their way to England and were read by English members of the F a m i l y of Love is borne out by other sources. In the confession of the F a m i l y of Love at Wisbech, John Bourne admitted that among the works of H . N . which he possessed were also the works of " E l i d a d " and " F i d e l i t a s . " 6 ^ The only other document we have which definitely is a work of the F a m i l y of Love is a petition addressed to James I upon his accession in 1604.65 This petition, couched in the subservient language of humble subjects addressing their monarch, seeks to correct His Majesty's view of the s e c t . In Basilikon Dor on, published in 1599 as a work of instruction for his son, the K i n g identified them with the Puritans: F i r s t t h e n , as to the name of Puritanes, I am not ignorant that the stile thereof doth properly belong only to that vile sect amonst the Anabaptistes called the F a m i l i e of love . . .66 The petitioners doe beseech your P r i n c e l y Majesty to understand that the people of the family of l o v e , or of G o d , doe utterly disclaime and detest a l l the said absurd and self-conceited opinions and disobedient and erroneous sorts of the Anabaptists, Browne, Penry, Puritans, and a l l other proud minded sects and heresies whatsoever, protesting upon paine of our l i v e s , that wee are not consenting with any such brainesicke preachers, nor their rebellious and disobedient sects whatsoever, but have been, and ever w i 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 l a i m , probably somewhat dishonestly, for they must have known of the 1580 P r o c l a m a t i o n , "Against which Authour and his books we never yet heard nor knew any L a w established in this R e a l m e by our late gracious Sovereigne."69 They have been v i c t i m i z e d by "malicious and slanderous reports," and by magistrates who "have framed divers and subtle articles 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 i n g only read H.N.'s work for himself and meet with elders of the F a m i l y of Love to discuss t h e m . Interestingly, they offer to procure some of the learned men out of that Country (if there be any yet remaining alive that were w e l l acquainted with the Author and his works in his l i f e t i m e , and which likewise have e x e r c i z e d his works ever since) to come over and attend upon your Majesty at your appointed t i m e convenient, who can much more sufficiently 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 petition, and even if he had, it surely would not have made any d i f f e r e n c e . This petition again seems to have been the work of someone at C o u r t , c e r t a i n l y of someone l i t e r a t e enough to be able to write i t , and f a m i l i a r enough with the proper forms of address to the K i n g . H a m i l t o n believes that it was the work of Thomas or Robert Seale, more likely the latter.72 The 1604 petition is the last direct evidence we have for the existence of the F a m i l y of L o v e in England. No more is heard from the s e c t . A l l we get from now on are hostile accounts and innuendo. It does indeed seem likely that the 1604 petition represents the sect's last gasp, or at least its last attempt at justifying  - 51 -  itself before the authorities. If there were any members after this, they probably kept their beliefs to themselves, giving up any hope of evangelization or v i n d i c a t i o n . The F a m i l y of Love seems to have existed in England on two different levels.73 The f i r s t , the one which we have concerned ourselves with mostly up until now, is the F a m i l y of Love made up of Englishmen, c h i e f l y in London and the Isle of E l y . The second revolved around the f o r e i g n , s p e c i f i c a l l y the D u t c h , 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' C h u r c h at Austin Friars was to be completely autonomous of the bishops' jurisdiction and authority, "to act and organize matters in our own w a y , even if we deviate in our ceremonies and church customs from the A n g l i c a n . " ? ^ The C h u r c h was divided into a Walloon section and a D u t c h s e c t i o n , M a r t i n 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 R e f o r m a t i o n . In 1540 he settled 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 Frisian churches. Thus, he would almost certainly have heard of H . N . and his F a m i l y of L o v e , even if he did not know that he and the prophet were l i v i n g in the very same t o w n . A Lasco first went to England in 1548 at Cranmer's invitation and settled there permanently in 1550 when he was appointed superintendent of the Strangers' C h u r c h . In 1553, he l e f t England, never to return.77 M a r t i n M i c r o n i u s , one of the pastors (along w i t h Wouter Delen)78 f the Dutch Q  C h u r c h , was a F l e m i n g from G h e n t . He had studied in Basel and Z u r i c h . He met a Lasco in London upon the Pole's first visit there in 1548 and returned with him to  - 52 -  Emden. Friars.  He returned in 1549, and shortly thereafter became pastor at A u s t i n 7 9  Upon Edward's death and Mary's accession, the leaders of the Dutch Protestant community, seeing which way the wind was blowing, fled England, most of t h e m , including Micronius, to E m d e n . While in " e x i l e " from England, Micronius edited the attack on H . N . by Adrian de K u i p e r , a Protestant pastor from B r e d a , and later revised and published i t himself .80 Upon Elizabeth's accession, the Dutch C h u r c h returned from its " e x i l e . " Although the church at Austin F r i a r s was re-established, its independence was curtailed and it was now subject to the authority of the Bishop of L o n d o n . ^ Given the international nature of the i n t e l l e c t u a l and merchant community of the sixteenth century, and the close ties which the D u t c h refugees in London maintained w i t h the homeland, it would be surprising indeed if something of the F a m i l y of Love did not surface at A u s t i n F r i a r s . Although there is no conclusive evidence for i t , some interesting inferences may be made. L i v i n g in London at this time were people who had connections with the F a m i l y of Love on the Continent. One, the historian Emmanuel van M e t e r e n , was a relative of Ortelius.82  Another,  Jacob C o o l the Elder (the name had been anglicized f r o m Coels) was a silk merchant who was married to Ortelius' sister and was thus related to both the geographer and Van M e t e r e n . He may also have been a relative of Martynken C o e l s , an a c t i v e member of the F a m i l y on the Continent.83 y t another was Johann Radermacher e  the E l d e r , a friend of Ortelius'; he had been involved in a scheme with Niclaes and Plantin to export Hebrew Bibles to Jewish communities in Morocco.84 In 1559 a new preacher appeared at A u s t i n F r i a r s . This was Adrian van Haemstede. Van Haemstede's reputation preceded h i m . He had already been in  - 53 -  trouble in the Low Countries — there was a price on his head85 __ for being "soft" on the Anabaptists. In London, Van Haemstede attracted both followers and enemies. Among his followers were Van Meteren and by implication the Cools and Radermacher.86 The poet K a r e l Utenhove accused the preacher of F a m i l i s m in a letter to his brother J a n , one of the founders of the Dutch C h u r c h and now an elder there.87  Although there is no solid evidence to support this accusation, 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 r e that Van Haemstede was a member of the F a m i l y of L o v e , one of the triplets (of whom two lived) born to his wife during their flight f r o m England, was named " C h a r i t a s . " To take Van Haemstede's p l a c e , a young pastor named Nicholas Carinaeus was persuaded to leave his church in J e n l e t , 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 C o n f u t a t i o n . Carinaeus arrived in London in 1562 and died of the plague the next year.91 Any statements about the F a m i l y of Love in Austin Friars must be accounted speculation, but not completely uninformed speculation. If we cannot agree with F u l l e r that Niclaes caused trouble in the Dutch Church under E d w a r d , it seems likely that his reputation or his doctrines did. Perhaps the "two daughters of Warwick" to whom he wrote were somehow a f f i l i a t e d 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 likely to have l e f t their prejudices back in East Friesland. We come now to the third type of evidence concerning the F a m i l y of Love in England; the most plentiful and certainly the most misunderstood: hostile writings  - 54 -  against the s e c t . For now, however, we shall only be looking at minor and incidental treatments.  In the next chapter we shall deal w i t h the three major a n t i - F a m i l y of  Love works, putting them into a p o l i t i c a l , religious, and diplomatic context: John Rogers' Displaying of an Horrible Secte of grosse and w i c k e d heretiques, John Knewstubb's Confutation of Monstrous Heresies, and William Wilkinson's Confutation of C e r t a i n A r t i c l e s delivered unto the F a m i l y of L o v e . A s 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 p o l i t i c a l convictions of their authors and the general p o l i t i c a l and religious situation. The three works are strikingly similar in style and substance, and it was indeed these three which formed the core of o f f i c i a l and public perception of the F a m i l y of L o v e , and the picture they presented influenced a l l those who came a f t e r . The f i r s t English literary a t t a c k on the F a m i l y 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 , L o r d Hunsdon (for whom, in 1582 Bateman was to become c h a p l a i n ) ^ i 9  s  a  catalogue of "the vayne imagination of heathen Pagans and  c o u n t e r f a i c t C h r i s t i a n s . " A m o n g the " c o u n t e r f a i c t C h r i s t i a n s " are Niclaes and the F a m i l y of L o v e . Bateman appears to have been the first to put together the letters H . N . w i t h N i c l a e s in print, although it seems unlikely that he made the connection himself. Here also we find the first mention of Christopher V i t e l l in connection w i t h the F a m i l y of L o v e . In a short section on the F a m i l y of L o v e , ^ Bateman 9  condemns Niclaes as an "extravagant heretike" adding a list of his works. Interestingly, it was B a t e m a n , who having already spoken on the subject, that Rogers got to write the preface to his Displaying. In 1583, W i l l i a m Fulke that Puritan troublemaker of St. John's, C a m b r i d g e , 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 c a u i l l s , friuilous quarels, and impudent slaunders of Gregorie M a r t i n , one of the readers of Popish diuinitie in the trayterous Seminarie of Rhemes. Martin had accused the Protestants of having no authority save Scripture, and no authority to interpret that, and had illustrated the inevitable fragmentation: Luther shall judge for Lutherans, C a l v i n for the C a l v i n i s t s , C a r t w r i g h t for the Puritans, and another for the brethren of love: B r i e f l y , themselves w i l l be judges of councils and fathers . . . and every youth among t h e m . . . w i l l saucily control not only one, but all the fathers consenting together. . . .94 Fulke naturally denies this. He takes exception especially to the inclusion of the F a m i l y 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 like to you than to us.95 Thomas R o g e r s , chaplain to Archbishop Bancroft, in his C a t h o l i c Doctrine of the C h u r c h of E n g l a n d , an exposition of the T h i r t y - N i n e A r t i c l e s , found something in the F a m i l y of Love to object to in discussing almost every a r t i c l e . Here is a small sampling: C h r i s t took not flesh of the Virgin M a r y ; so did the Valentinians think, and so think the Anabaptists, and the F a m i l y of L o v e , who make an allegory of the incarnation of Christ.96  To t h e m , f i n a l l y , are we adversaries, which above the Scriptures do prefer their own . . . imaginations: as did the Manichees, David G e o r g e , and the F a m i l y 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 temporizing F a m i l i s t s , who . . . keep a l l external orders, albeit in their hearts they scorn all professions and services but their own.98 This is only a small part of what Rogers has to say about the F a m i l y . They are mentioned frequently, almost always in connection with other heretical groups, both  - 56 -  ancient and contemporary: Valentinians, Manichees, Cerinthians, Ebionites, Anabaptists, Sabbatarians, Davidjorists, e t c . A l m o s t every charge against them is to be found in John Rogers' Displaying, from their propensity to swear falsely to their baptism at age t h i r t y (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 C h r i s t i a n s deny the scriptures, such as the Schwenkfeldians, Anabaptists, and in England the F a m i l i s t s and Superilluminati. . . . These are not Christians truly but equivocally . . . i U U  Which practice the F a m i l y of Love hath lately drawn to a precept, and hath newly broached it as a saleable doctrine, that men need not openly be of any religion whereby they may endanger themselves: that it is good Christendom to l i e , swear, and forswear . .101 One could no doubt find much more on the F a m i l y of Love in contemporary literature.  The F a m i l y was the object of universal obloquy, and as such, was  attacked by almost everyone who put his pen to paper on the subject of religion. The c r u c i a l point however, is the repetitiveness of the charges and their origin. A l m o s t every accusation against H . N . and the F a m i l y of Love can be traced back to the works of Rogers, Knewstubb, and Wilkinson. We w i l l return to these works in the next chapter. When the F a m i l y of Love vanished f r o m the historical record after the petition to James I, the attacks upon it did not cease. A f t e r a l l , what could be easier than a t t a c k i n g a group that would not or could not defend i t s e 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 F a m i l y of L o v e maintained its existence and even grew during the first half of the seventeenth  -57 -  century. H o w e v e r , this view is a result of faulty methodology. In Hamilton's words, "the numerical power of the F a m i l i s t s in the seventeenth century was very far f r o m corresponding to the ever more frequent complaints against them."102 i  n  f a c t , if  we look at the complaints against t h e m , we see that those being c a l l e d F a m i l i s t s , even if they shared H.N.'s m y s t i c a l views, even if they had read and approved of his works, were not members of his F a m i l y of L o v e . They were called F a m i l i s t s because that was one of the worst names their c r i t i c s could think of. A case in point is the affair of John Etherihgton (Hetherington).  Etherington  had a t t r a c t e d a certain amount of notoriety in the first two decades of the seventeenth century as a London non-conformist preacher. D r . 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 stating his errors. 104 Interestingly, while Denison does c a l l him a " F a m i l i s t " , he is not once connected to " H . N . " or "the F a m i l y of L o v e . " Indeed, the only reference to H . N . is contained in a brief attack on Edmund Jessop, whose Discovery of English Anabaptists had appeared in 1623. Jessop had called the F a m i l y of L o v e "the most blasphemous and erroneous sect this day in the world."105 No doubt Denison would have agreed with this e v a l u a t i o n , but, he says, Jessop is another kind of F a m i l i s t , not one of H.N.'s F a m i l y of Love.106 in this connection, Denison describes various types of F a m i l i s t s : C a s t a l i a n F a m i l i s t s , Gringletonians (Grindletonians), F a m i l i s t s of the M o u n t a i n , of the V a l l e y , and of the C a p . l ° 7 These are the groups which Strype described as "the spawn and improvements of this f a m i l y of l o v e , 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 " F a m i l i s t s " is to posit that they were not offshoots of H.N.'s F a m i l y of L o v e , but  - 58 -  rather were independent and unconnected groups who were linked together as F a m i l i s t s only by their c r i t i c s . Indeed, Strype himself informs us that the F a m i l y of the Mount were followers of a Scottish woman, a M r s . Dunbar. 109 This is further illustrated by the Grindletonians, so named after G r i n d l e t o n , the Yorkshire village where they were f i r s t d i s c o v e r e d . ! 10 They were followers of Roger B r e a r l y , not N i c l a e s . Although the two groups share some t r a i t s , there are substantial differences as w e l l . The Grindletonians did not revere the writings of N i c l a e s , and many of Brearly's views were vastly different from H . N . ' s . ! H To return to Etherington. Although accused by Denison of being a " F a m i l i s t " , as we have seen, he is not connected w i t h H . N . or the F a m i l y of L o v e . The articles against him do not include accusations of F a m i l i s m , only that he scandalized "the whole C h u r c h of E n g l a n d , in saying it is no true C h u r c h of C h r i s t , and publishing other erroneous opinion, proceeding from that i l l ground."! 12 Therefore, Jean D i e t z Moss' assertion that "Denison may indeed have cornered a seventeenth-century F a m i l i s t , " ! 13 appears unfounded. Etherington himself vehemently denied Denison's charges in several later works: Although I confesse, as touching my self, I being in my youth zealously a f f e c t e d , was very inquisitive into those several sorts of Religions which I heard of, then professed. . . . And as touching this of H . N . especially (praised be the Lord) I never had any the least inclination in my mind t o w a r d , but have always . . . opposed the same as a very blasphemous d e c e i t , though I have bin by some very falsely charged w i t h i t . H ^ The reprinting of many of Niclaes' works in the 1640's and 1650's has been seen by some as evidence of resurgence in the F a m i l y ' s fortunes. However, most of these editions were printed by G i l e s C a l v e r t who also printed many Quaker and L e v e l l e r works, the f i r s t English translations of H i e l , as w e l l as translations of Jacob Boehme, of whose works he published just as many as he did of N i c l a e s ' . ! 15 This  - 59  -  indicates a renewed interest in Spiritualist religion and r a d i c a l m y s t i c i s m , but not a new period of growth for the F a m i l y of L o v e . These editions of H . N . were r e a d , appreciated or c a s t i g a t e d , depending on the reader; but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that they were in any way tied in w i t h any r e v i v a l of the F a m i l y of L o v e . Throughout the C i v i l War period and even into the R e s t o r a t i o n , the name " F a m i l i s t " was a term of abuse. It was used because of its connotations of l i b e r t i n i s m , p e r f e c t i o n i s m , antinomianism, and d e c e i t . It was quite simply one of the worst things to be c a l l e d . It was used in much the same way the epithet " F a s c i s 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 c e r t a i n A r m y prophets: John Saltmarsh, William D e l , and others. L a t e r on, it was used against the Quakers, as in Henry Hallywell's A n A c c o u n t of F a m i l i s m A s It is R e v i v e d and Propagated by the Quakers. One of the last, t a n t a l i z i n g references to the F a m i l y of L o v e is contained in the diaries of John E v e l y n . He recounts that several people of the F a m i l y of Love had presented a petition to James II in 1687. When the K i n g asked about their form of worship, they describe themselves as " a sort of refined Quakers . . . not above three-score in all . . . c h i e f l y belonging to the Isle of E l y . " U 6 Perhaps, after a l l , a small 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 s e c t , within less than twenty years ago, told m e , that there was then but one of the F a m i l y of Love a l i v e , and he an old m a n . ^ 7 If, however, this group did survive, it was only because they were so insignificant as to escape o f f i c i a l notice and repression. A far cry indeed from the view which hostile writers (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 small r e v i v a l , or an already e x i s t i n g , but unconnected group may have appropriated the name for themselves. Thus we see that the standard view of the history of the F a m i l y of Love in England, as described in the first chapter, is an optical illusion based on a small core of t r u t h . The small core of truth is that there were groups of the F a m i l y of Love in Cambridgeshire and London. A t no t i m e , however, were these large or significant. Although the F a m i l y vanishes from sight after the petition to James I, it may have survived (but just barely) in the Isle of E l y into the last half of the seventeenth century. This core of truth was distorted by several f a c t o r s , resulting in the standard view. F i r s t there was the general prevalence of " F a m i l i s t " ideas. These are to be found everywhere in C h r i s t i a n i t y , from ancient heresies to the Spiritualist sects and writers of the R e f o r m a t i o n . They are in no way unique to the F a m i l y of L o v e . There was also the experience of the Dutch C h u r c h in London. A L a s c o , Micronius, and Carinaeus a l l had had experience with H.N.'s doctrines in the Low Countries and were likely f a c e d with the same spectre in London with the Van Haemstede a f f a i r .  Their experience seems to have made an impression on  Englishmen. L a s t l y , and most importantly, the standard historical view is based on the volume and vehemence with which the F a m i l y 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 t h r e a t . What remains now is to explain why such an insignificant and harmless sect provoked such a violent response.  - 61 -  CHAPTER 3  We come now to our c e n t r a l problem. If the F a m i l y of L o v e was so tiny and insignificant, why did it provoke such a reaction? To answer this question, we shall have to look at the three works which initiated the attack and at their authors, putting them in a general context of Elizabethan religious p o l i t i c s . It has already been mentioned that the core of the reaction to the F a m i l y of Love lies in three l i t e r a r y works published within several years of each other and the R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n : John Knewstubb's A Confutation of Monstrous Heresies taught by H . N . (1579); John Rogers' The Displaying of an horrible Secte of grosse and wicked Heretiques (1578); and William Wilkinson's A Confutation of C e r t a i n e A r t i c l e s delivered unto the F a m i l y of Love (1579). V i r t u a l l y all other attacks took their cue f r o m these three. We have already seen how Thomas Rogers derived his information on the F a m i l y of L o v e f r o m John Rogers' Displaying. * W i l l i a m Fulke's assertion to Gregory M a r t i n that "the brethren of love . . . are more like to you than to us," is l i f t e d almost word for word f r o m K n e w s t u b b .  2  These are only a couple of examples.  A l m o s t every charge against the F a m i l y which later writers pronounced can be found first in either R o g e r s , Knewstubb, or Wilkinson. Therefore, it would certainly be worth our while to examine these men and their works more closely. John Knewstubb was the c r i t i c w i t h the highest profile 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 finally B . D . in 1576. In that same year he began his attack on the F a m i l y of Love in a sermon preached at Paul's Cross on Good F r i d a y . This sermon was appended to his Confutation published several years l a t e r . In this sermon, the  - 62 -  F a m i l y 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 F a m i l y 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 C h r i s t . H . N . , says Knewstubb, affirms that Christ became G o d , or was "begodded," only after his suffering. only by turning Scripture into a l l e g o r y .  This he can affirm  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 C h u r c h 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 E a r l 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 L o v e . Though the Papists profess to hate the F a m i l y , they do not suppress it, for they have a great deal in common with it. Though the F a m i l y 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 identified only as " W . C . " H a m i l t o n identified " W . C . " as W i l l i a m C e c i l , although he adduces no evidence to support this a s s e r t i o n .  6  The text of the Confutation itself is a long-winded, involved theological argument in which Knewstubb takes various of H.N.'s points of doctrine and refutes them w i t h the same passages of Scripture w i t h which H . N . had supported t h e m . 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 t e x t , as we have seen, are Knewstubb's Paul's Cross sermon, as well as Micronius and Carinaeus against the F a m i l y of L o v e . There is also "The judgement of an other godly learned man," signed " L . T . " , whom H a m i l t o n identifies 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 i b e l made by Christopher V i t e l . . . , we are considerably less w e l l - i n f o r m e d . In f a c t , we do not even know exactly who he was. There are two candidates, however, both having been educated at O x f o r d . There was a John Rogers who graduated B . A . in 1554, M . A . in 1556, and became a fellow at Queens' C o l l e g e in 1559.8 Another John Rogers graduated B . A . f r o m Merton C o l l e g e in 1569-70 and M . A . f r o m St. Alban's H a l l in 1576.9 w h i c h of these two wrote the a n t i - F a m i l i s 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 w i t h Knewstubb at C a m b r i d g e . Rogers' Displaying was obviously intended for a different readership than Knewstubb's C o n f u t a t i o n . Knewstubb's book is f i l l e d with Scriptural and p a t r i s t i c references and was obviously intended for the theologically 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 clearly aimed at a wider, more popular audience. In the p r e f a c e , Rogers states that he wrote the book to rescue a friend who had fallen into the errors of the F a m i l y of L o v e . Whether this is true, or just a literary device is not c l e a r . However, Rogers does display a good deal of f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h H.N.'s works and doctrines. L i k e Knewstubb, Rogers' chief concern is that the f a m i l y be repressed which is his "duetie which I owe unto Christs C h u r c h . . .  to cleanse and purge [ it]  f r o m such errours and false  doctrine."^ 1 Throughout the Displaying, one of Rogers' chief complaints against the F a m i l y of L o v e , and especially against V i t e l l , is their hypocrisy in outward confirmity: if the doctrine of H . N . be a trueth, why is it taught in corners? Why dare none step foorth to maintaine the doctrine of H . N . being euerywhere spoken a g a i n s t ? ! ^ Why do they not come forward plainly and declare their beliefs, "creepe in corners," as Rogers puts i t ? 13 Because "their doctrine dareth not abide the light." 14 Thus the fact that they keep their beliefs secret is enough to condemn their doctrines as false. There is also a preface by Stephen B a t e m a n , as already mentioned. The emphasis here is also on repression, "or else w i l l assuredly followe the like plague on us, as was at M u ' n s t e r . " !  5  Rogers' account, much more than Knewstubb's, is  concerned w i t h the origins and history of the F a m i l y of L o v e . The t e x t of the Displaying itself begins with an account of the l i f e and heresies of David George (David Joris), whose disciple, Rogers assures us, Niclaes was: D a v i d George was the hatcher of this heresie, and layde the egge, but H . N . brought f o r t h the chickens.  - 65-  Henrie Nicholas . . . after the death of David George tooke upon him to maintaine the same doctrine, not in the name of D a v i d , but in his owne name. . . 17 Many of the same c r i t i c i s m s are shared by Rogers and Knewstubb. Rogers maintains that H . N . turns Scripture into allegory, that "there is nothing left certaine."18 H.N.'s books are not w r i t t e n in a simple and godly s t y l e , but "subtiley and darkely" to "dasell the simple." 19 The accusations of licentiousness and libertinism with which the F a m i l y of Love was so frequently charged in later years seem also to have originated w i t h Rogers.20 A g a i n , Rogers shares w i t h Knewstubb the conviction that the F a m i l y of L o v e are really a f i f t h column of Papists: Wherein they followe the steppes of the Pelagians and Papists d i r e c t l y , whose doctrine of works . . . doth in divers treatises manifestly appeare, destroying the worke wrought by C h r i s t our Lord.21 A n d least the Papists should imagine that this H . N . should be a professor of the G o s p e l 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 w i t h R o m e on the authority of the Pope, on the Mass, and on the e f f i c a c y of works.23 i  the matter of confession, he exceeds even the  n  C a t h o l i c s , "for where the Pope requireth but a confession of the  [acte?]  c o m m i t t e d , H . N . requireth a declaration of the thought."24 As mentioned above, it is f r o m Rogers that we derive much of our information concerning Christopher Vitell.25 i  n  f a c t it was Rogers' Displaying which prompted  V i t e l l to refute the charges against him and the F a m i l y of L o v e . Vitell's r e f u t a t i o n and Rogers' answer are contained in Rogers' A n Answere unto a wicked and infamous L i b e l . . . (1579). In essence, it is a rehashing of what Rogers said in his Displaying and is more interesting for what V i t e l l says (after a l l , this is all we have of his writing) than for what Rogers repeats. A f t e r an exhortation to the F a m i l y of L o v e to repent, and a section t i t l e d " C e r t a i n absurd speeches taken out of the bookes of  -66-  H . N . as errours of the F a m i l y of L o v e , " and an admonition to V i t e l l , Rogers concludes with the 1561 confession of the Surrey sectarians. Throughout the Displaying, Rogers is very conscious of f i r i n g the opening shots in an ongoing campaigns: No man hitherto (that I can learne) hath endeavoured to confute them in writing.26 He is also very conscious that others must carry on the battle: Notwithstanding, so many as either by the doctrine 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 c a p a c i t i e is not able to supply. . . . 27 It is enough for me to beginne the skirmishe, to display the F a m i l i e , to make readie the way, and discrie their f o r c e , that others may come after and overthrow their camp.28 It was not long before Knewstubb and Wilkinson accepted the challenge laid down by Rogers. The third of our three major attacks on the F a m i l y of L o v e is W i l l i a m Wilkinson's A Confutation of C e r t a i n e A r t i c l e s delivered unto the F a m i l y of L o v e , also published in 1579. It is the longest of the three books, close to three hundred pages, and it is also the least w e l l - o r g a n i z e d . It has something of a rush job about i t , for Wilkinson's text itself is but a small part of the t o t a l , the balance being made up of sections from various contributors. The customary dedication to an eminent personage is to R i c h a r d 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 l e treatise of M . Wilkinsons, I could not but alowe his diligence and painefull trauell in this h e r e t i c a l l and schismaticall w o r l d , and I would hartely wishe of G o d , that our C h u r c h of England might be w e l l weeded f r o m to to [sic ] grosse errors, for it is high tyme.29  - 67 -  The dedication itself is not remarkable, touching all the f a m i l i a r bases. The church must be guarded from Satan, and especially from the F a m i l y of L o v e , "the most pestiferous and deadly Heresie of a l l others."30 The F a m i l y of Love is increasing rapidly, especially in the Bishop's diocese. The dedication ends with the f a m i l i a r c a l l to action and repression. The dedication to the reader is unremarkable, except that Wilkinson relates how he communicated with the F a m i l y of L o v e , and how they supplied him with their replies to his allegations. There follows " A very brief and true description of the first springing up of the H e r e s i e , termed the F a m i l i e of Loue . . . "  After a  thumbnail history of the "the fury of the Romishe Baalamites" under M a r y , we are told how Colchester became a place of refuge for true Christians.31 But Satan "styrred up divers s c h i s m a t i c a l l spirites,"32 among whom was Christopher V i t e l l .  It  is here that we get the description and testimony of " H e n r y C r i n e l l [ O r i n e l l ] of Willingham in the County of C a m b r i d g e , " as described in the last chapter. Now there comes "Notes upon the book entitled Evangelium R e g n i , " by John Y o u n g , Bishop of R o c h e s t e r . Young brings up such f a m i l i a r bugbears as the F a m i l y of Love as Papists, H.N.'s pretention of divinity, and his allegorization of Scripture. Appended to Young's commentary are "Errours and absurde asseuerations out of H . N . his Euangelie, gathered by William Wilkinson." F o l l o w i n g this is " H e r e t i c a l l a f f i r m a t i o n s , and ungodly expositions of Scriptures by H . N . out of the documentall sentences." ("Documentall sentences" refers to D i c t a H . N . Documentall sentences; eaven as those-same were spoken fourth by H . N . , one of Niclaes' works translated into English.) F i n a l l y we are at the heart of the work: " A r t i c l e s which I exhibited into a frend of mine, to be conuaied unto the F a m i l i e of loue, that I might be c e r t i f i e d of  - 68 -  the doubts in them contayned. Which for my further instruction one Theophilus sent me w i t h a l e t t e r , and an E x h o r a t i o n , in the following manner."  It appears that  somehow Wilkinson was able to contact some members of the F a m i l y of Love and confront them with his charges. "Theophilus," described only as " a supposed Elder in the sayd F a m i l y e , " refuted Wilkinson's charges in a l e t t e r . Wilkinson, in the same way Rogers dealt with Vitell's l e t t e r in his A n s w e r e , published "Theophilus"' reply along with his own defense of his original charges. These charges are contained in fourteen a r t i c l e s , among which are such as: " H . N . sayeth we have no t r u t h , " " H . N . sayeth we have no M i n i s t r i e , " and so o n . There is one aspect of the a t t a c k on the F a m i l y of Love which remained very much in the background in the books of Knewstubb and Rogers, but is e x p l i c i t l y stated by Wilkinson. This is the a f f i r m a t i o n that the F a m i l y of Love is very much a type of Anabaptist sect. In Rogers we had the a f f i r m a t i o n that H . N . was a disciple of J o r i s , and Bateman emphasized that England must suppress the F a m i l y or suffer the fate of Munster. Wilkinson, however, states the relationship quite baldly: "Therefore are they [the F a m i l y of L o v e ] Anabaptists and D a v i d Georges Schollers."33 Indeed, sprinkled liberally throughout the t e x t are references to Heinrich Bullinger, that Swiss scourge of Anabaptists. The clear implication is that the F a m i l y of Love are really Anabaptists and should be dealt with by the same rules. As if to hammer the point home, after dealing with the fourteen a r t i c l e s , Wilkinson includes " C e r t a i n e profitable notes to know an H e r e t i q u e , especially an A n a b a p t i s t . With the opinions, the behaviour of them out of various Authors." C h i e f among the "various Authors," of course, is Bullinger himself, but also C a l v i n and Z w i n g l i . The i d e a , of course, is to "know your enemy," and who better to perform this task than three pre-eminent continental theologians, a l l of whom had had extensive dealings and struggles against Anabaptists.  - 69 -  Lest we think, however, that identification of the F a m i l y of Love with the Anabaptists exonerates them from charges of Popery, it must be stated that to many Protestants, Anabaptism and R o m e were working hand in hand. In Wilkinson's paraphrase of Bullinger: "Anabaptists were hartned by those which desired the overthrow of the Gospell and the restoring of Popery."34 Thus, in the same way modern-day revolutionaries have been known to try and establish an extreme l e f t wing regime by fomenting conditions in which an extreme right-wing regime may f l o u r i s h , so, according to Protestants, did the Anabaptists threaten, either knowingly or unwittingly, 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 c a l l "puritans." One hesitates to use such an overworked and anachronistic t e r m . Though an anachronism, it is nevertheless indispensible; however, we must be c a r e f u l not to attach too broad a definition to it. Over the centuries the name has acquired accretions of meaning which would never have occurred to contemporaries. If we are not using it in its broadest sense, neither are we using it 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 l e r g y , especially the wearing of the square cap and the surplice. The term w i l l be used here in P a t r i c k Collinson's sense.35 Puritans were those who believed that the C h u r c h of England was "but halfly reformed." They believed, to a greater or lesser degree, that the Elizabethan church retained popish vestiges in ceremony and government that denied it the status of a truly " R e f o r m e d " church, such as existed in S w i t z e r l a n d , G ermany, and among French Huguenots. Even this definition is misleading. For if we define "puritan" as those who wished to see the  - 70 -  English church further r e f o r m e d , we would have to include almost a l l of the church leadership in the early years of Elizabeth's reign, composed as it was almost entirely of Marian exiles but recently returned from the continent where they had been exposed to the R e f o r m e d churches of Strasbourg, Z u r i c h , and G e n e v a . That they did not accomplish a further reformation is largely due to E l i z a b e t h herself, and to Archbishops P a r k e r , W h i t g i f t , and Bancroft. If we are to make this our definition of "puritan," we shall have to include such widely divergent characters as the cautious, conservative reformers G r i n d a l , Sandys, and C o x , firebrands such as C a r t w r i g h t , Sampson, and Humphrey, and out-and-out rabble-rousers such as John F i e l d , Thomas Wilcox (authors of the Admonition to Parliament) and P e r c i v a l Wiburne in the same category. Obviously this w i l l not do. We need finer categories of analysis if we are to understand Elizabethan religion and politics and tie the attack on the F a m i l y of Love into a general context. In essence, there were as many kinds of Protestantism as there were Protestants. For the sake of analysis, however, it is possible to define several broad categories. In the f i r s t p l a c e , as mentioned above, there were cautious, conservative reformers. Leading the way in this category were most of the first Elizabethan bishops, w i t h the notable exception of Matthew P a r k e r , Elizabeth's first Archbishop of C a n t e r b u r y . Drawn almost exclusively from the ranks of returned Marian e x i l e s , this includes such prominent figures as Edmund G r i n d a l (Bishop of London, 1559-1570; Archbishop of Y o r k , [570-1575-, and of Canterbury, 1576-1583), Edwin Sandys (Bishop of Worcester, 1559-1570; of London, 1570-1577; Archbishop of Y o r k , 1577-1588), and R i c h a r d C o x (Bishop of E l y , 1559-1581). We might also include in this category other luminaries such as William C e c i l as well as other P r i v y C o u n c i l l o r s . In general, these m e n , while not entirely satisfied with the Elizabethan  s e t t l e m e n t , recognized that a Protestant Queen, even if not as Protestant as they would have l i k e d , was infinitely preferable to the more plausible alternatives:  civil  religious war, or foreign invasion and the restoration of the Roman C h u r c h . They hoped to further reform the church by slow increments, gently nudging the Queen in the right d i r e c t i o n . This indeed was their reason for accepting positions of leadership in the church when many of their "hotter" Protestant colleagues urged them not to have anything to do with a semi-papistical c h u r c h . A t the t i m e , of course, they had no way of knowing that the settlement 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, especially in London and East A n g l i a , who were very outspoken about Popish remnants in the c h u r c h . In this category we would include the radical Londoners F i e l d and W i l c o x , Wiburne, Anthony G i l b y , and Robert F i t z . It was, in fact to puritans of this stripe that the name was f i r s t applied. The name " p u r i t a n " first appeared in connection with the vestiarian controversy of the 1560's. C h i e f among the offending a r t i c l e s of clothing were the " P o p i s h " vestiges of the surplice and the square c a p . In f a c 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 investiture, and it was the chief cause of strife in the English church at Frankfurt and the resulting victory of the " C o x i a n s " over the " K n o x i a n s . " In the 1560's diversity of practice crept i n , 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 u n i f o r m i t y . In f a c t , even the relatively conservative churchmen described above had no great love for the garments and what they represented. Grindal himself told some radical  - 72-  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 indifferent, adiaphora, neither prescribed nor prohibited by Scripture. Therefore, if the prince orders that they be worn, they must be worn and need cause no one an uneasy conscience. B u t , replied the radicals, if they are indifferent, the Queen ought not to make us wear t h e m . In the words of Henry Barrow: " E v e n now yow said it was a thing indifferent; if it be so, ther is no powr can bringe me in bondage to my libertie."37 In January 1565, the Queen had w r i t t e n to Parker ordering that he enforce the R o y a l Injunctions ordering conformity of dress among c l e r g y . In t y p i c a l fashion, however, she declined to back him up w i t h royal authority.  A s a result, Parker's  orders were contained in " A d v e r t i s e m e n t s " of "doubtful constitutional validity."38 Parker was l e f t dangling, drawing a l l the abuse and c r i t i c i s m , while the Queen remained above the f r a y . The Advertisements were printed and c i r c u l a t e d in M a r c h 1566 and drew immediate hostile r e a c t i o n , especially in London and C a m b r i d g e . Thirty-seven nonconforming London clergy were suspended and threatened w i t h deprivation.39 A long and virulent pamphlet war ensued against "this bloody beast's gear," "lordly bishops," and " f i l t h y ware."40 L e t t e r s were fired off by both sides to Bullinger and G u a l t e r in Z u r i c h , B e z a in Geneva, and John Knox in Scotland. The Zurichers were sympathetic to the bishops and said so.41 B e z a was more inclined 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 e x t r e m e s , one suspects, were the majority of educated, a r t i c u l a t e , and Protestant Englishmen. If they were dissatisfied with the pace of r e f o r m in the 1560's and 70's, neither were they able to condone the radical  - 73 -  nonconformity, and ultimately the separatism, of "London's Protestant Underworld."43 It should be emphasized, however, that the situation was extremely f l u i d . There were no party lines, only floating coalitions which coalesced and disbanded as circumstances d i c t a t e d . A s E l i z a b e t h moved the church more in her own direction under Archbishop Whitgift in the 1580's and 90's, the situation became less fluid and puritan opposition more cohesive. However, in the 1560's and 70's, the situation remained fluid and the "puritans" remained within the embrace of the C h u r c h 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 " e x e r c i s e s , " there was substantial agreement on the single most burning religious question of the t i m e : the E u c h a r i s t . Though the Queen herself was probably more inclined to a Lutheran view, it is significant that the question of R e a l Presence versus M e m o r i a l Supper is very rarely a bone of contention. V i r t u a l l y 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 Protestantism or another purely out of religious c o n v i c t i o n . In an age where religion was indissolubly intertwined with politics and c u l t u r e , it is often d i f f i c u l t if not impossible to distinguish m o t i v a t i o n . The best example of this in E l i z a b e t h a n England is the career of R o b e r t Dudley, E a r l of L e i c e s t e r . L e i c e s t e r ' s personal religious convictions are a a mystery to us today, yet he aligned himself w i t h , and built a patronage network among, the more r a d i c a l puritans, and led the expedition to the Netherlands in aid of the D u t c h Protestants, i t seems, out of a desire for personal glory and aggrandizement. C o n v e r s e l y , many must have aligned  - 74 -  themselves w i t h Leicester's party, not out of religious scruple, but out of sheer opportunism. On a more mundane l e v e l , Mullinger relates the humourous anecdote of a student at Cambridge who, alone among his colleagues, showed up at chapel without his surplice, thinking to make a point of conscience. When haled before the dean however, he admitted 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 c a l l a radically-tinged moderate. No friend of vestments and square caps, in his days at Cambridge he had petitioned in favour of Cartwright.46  He had also taken part in "prophesyings" or conferences of  ministers designed to e l i c i t the true meaning of Scripture and instruct unlearned clergy.47 it was Grindal's refusal to suppress the prophesyings, and worse yet, his attempt to justify his disobedience to E l i z a b e t h herself, which led to his f a l l f r o m favour. Y e t for Knewstubb, there was no question of separation. The conclusive, damning evidence for Knewstubb of the falseness of Papists, A r i a n s , and Anabaptists is that they have removed themselves f r o m the church.48 The question was not one of whether there ought to be an authoritative church coterminous with the nation, but rather, what f o r m that church ought to take. Viewing Knewstubb's career in retrospect one might think that he would be anathema to the authorities. He was after all one of the leaders of the crypto-Presbyterian 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 i z a b e t h or her C o u n c i l , which had to answer to her, to entrust w i t h much responsibility. Y e t we find him preaching at Paul's Cross on Good F r i d a y , presented to the living of C o c k f i e l d in Sussex, and, most relevant for our purposes, the P r i v y C o u n c i l , at the  -75 -  height of the F a m i l i s t " s c a r e " in early 1581 (1580 o.s.), appointed him as a sort of consultant to the bishops in the repression of the F a m i l y of Love.52 Not knowing very much about John R o g e r s , we must extapolate from his writings to gain any idea of his religious convictions. 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 C h u r c h . G r a n t e d , this was commonplace, but his continued repetition of charges against the Papists would lead one to believe that there is more to it than l i t e r a r y fashion. There is also his black and white view of the religious situation. Not for him were Parker's " m e d i o c r i t y " or an Elizabethan via m e d i a : with the bloudie Papistes with their f i r e and fagot, continual w a r r e , w i t h horrible murders on the one side, and the Anabaptistes, F r e e w i l l men, A r r i a n s , Pelagians, and the F a m e l i e of Loue on the other side, C h r i s t e s C h u r c h hath l i t t l e rest, and small favour in the sight of m a n , but spurned on euery side.53 Some of his assertions would s e e m , at f i r s t sight, to imply his approval of the C h u r c h of England as it then e x i s t e d : . . . in a l l ages, when the C h r i s t e s Churches did most flourish in p e r f e c t i o n , then was errour and heresies most rife . . .54 . . . when the Gospell began to shine againe, then began Sathan . . . to envie the prosperities of the Gospell.55 However, conspicuously absent are any references to "the C h u r c h of England," "the English C h u r c h , " "our C h u r c h , " or the T h i r t y - N i n e A r t i c l e s . R a t h e r , " c h u r c h " is used in a universal sense, the body of believers, the invisible church, the Bride of C h r i s t . C l e a r l y , the Gospel shining again refers not to the English church s p e c i f i c a l l y , but to the R e f o r m a t i o n in general. Keeping this in mind, his approval would more likely have gone to the continental reformed churches.  - 76 -  Besides the Displaying and the A n s w e r e , the S T C attributes only one other work to our John R o g e r s . This is The Summe of C h r i s t i a n i t y . . . (1578). A s its t i t l e suggests, this is a sort of primer in the basics of C h r i s t i a n theology. Its very existence suggests that Rogers was more inclined to the " h o t t e r " Protestants. It implies that the Prayer Book is not enough, that it need a "briefe and plaine" supplement. In particular, Rogers' emphasis on the ultimate authority of Scripture,  5 6  on preaching and d i s c i p l i n e ,  5 7  and on a godly l i f e , & would seem to put 5  him on the puritan side of things. It is not a question of theology: anyone but a C a t h o l i c would have to agree with his theological assertions. R a t h e r , it is a question, and the judgment is admittedly subjective and speculative, of tendency and emphasis. There is only one clear reference to the religious controversies of the day: . . . abstinence even from lawful pleasures and profits, when they are either offensive unto others, or h u r t f u 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 . 59  This would seem to be a reference to the vestiarian problems, when, as we have seen, the question of " l a w f u l " versus "offensive" was at the heart of religious debate. In the case of William Wilkinson, we know more about him than we do about John Rogers, but less than we know about Knewstubb. He m a t r i c u l a t e d a sizar of Queens' C o l l e g e , 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 a c t i v i t i e s at C a m b r i d g e , it would be a safe assumption to say that he was inclined to the puritan side in the religious controversies of the day, the vestiarian problems and the resistance against the new statutes for the university in 1570.  - 77 -  That Wilkinson, l i k e Knewstubb and R o g e r s , was a puritan, is evident not only f r o m his C o n f u t a t i o n , wherein he made prodigious use of Bullinger and other R e f o r m e d theologians, but also from his other writings. In 1580 while residing in London, he published A very godly and learned treatise of the exercise of F a s t y n g , described out of the word of G o d , very necessarye to bee applyed unto our churches in England in these perillous t i m e s .  A g a i n , as w i t h Knewstubb, one notices that  even though one would place him in the "puritan opposition," this did not prevent him f r o m advancing his career within the C h u r c h of England. In 1588, though a l a y m a n , he became prebend of Fridaythorpe in Y o r k C a t h e d r a l , which post he was to hold until his death in 1613. Thus, again we see that even though on some issues he and the " A n g l i c a n s " were opposite sides, this did not hinder his preferment within the c h u r c h , nor did this opposition prevent the sides from cooperating on the really important issues: the C a t h o l i c threat, and s e c t a r i a n i s m , the threats from right and l e 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 C a m b r i d g e , 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, similar in age, background, education, and religious conviction a l l undertook to a t t a c k the F a m i l y of Love within two years of each other is no a c c i d e n t . R a t h e r , it was the result of their education, the way they had been taught to view the w o r l d , especially the religious situation and the c h u r c h . To understand these men and their writings, we must go back to their days at university, when their ideals and convictions were f o r m e d .  - 78 -  Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y , of course, had acquired a reputation as a hotbed of Protestantism as early as the 1520's and the meetings in the White Horse Inn. From W i l l i a m Tyndale on through Cranmer and R i d l e y , the University had provided English Protestants with models, heroes, and m a r t y r s . Under Edward Cambridge was much more the royally favoured university. A n d it is under Edward that we must seek the origins of the teachings which inspired Knewstubb and Wilkinson to attack the F a m i l y of Love in the career of M a r t i n Bucer. Bucer was indeed one of the luminaries of the R e f o r m a t i o n . If he does not occupy the same l o f t y rank as a L u t h e r , a C a l v i n , or a Z w i n g l i , that is no r e f l e c t i o n on the man himself. Before he was invited to England by C r a n m e r in 1548, he had long been a c t i v e in R e f o r m a t i o n p o l i t i c s . Generally speaking,' he was one of the more tolerant of r e f o r m e r s , and worked tirelessly for concord among Protestants. However, this attitude only earned him the enmity of both sides: the Swiss thought he inclined too much to the Lutheran view of the E u c h a r i s t , and the Lutherans mistrusted him as being too close to the Swiss. In f a c t , in reading the reaction of some English Protestants to Bucer's arrival in England, one might be forgiven for thinking that he was C a r d i n a l or a J e s u i t , or some other such lackey of the Whore of Babylon: In case of his [Bucer's] death, England w i l l be happy and more favoured than all other countries, in having been delivered in the same year from two men. of most pernicious t a l e n t , namely Paul [Fagius ] and Bucer.61 Thus wrote Burcher, an English partisan of Bullinger's, to the master in Z u r i c h . However, this smacks of the followers being more ardent in the struggle than the principals, for Bucer and Bullinger maintained correspondence over a period of years, and though they had their differences, Bullinger protected Bucer on several occasions, restraining intemperate attacks on him.62  -79-  In any case, just as C r a n m e r renewed his invitation to Bucer in 1548 (he had offered his hospitality once before, in 1547), Bucer was looking to move o n . In refusing to accept the Augsburg Interim (his endorsement had been diligently sought) he had become persona non grata in Imperial and Lutheran c i r c l e s and he deemed it expedient to leave Strasbourg, his home for the previous three decades. Bucer arrived in England in the spring of 1549 and stayed for a t i m e with C r a n m e r at L a m b e t h and at Croydon before he was appointed Regius Professor of D i v i n i t y at C a m b r i d g e . Though only at Cambridge for a short t i m e (he was to die in 1551) and i l l much of the t i m e he was there, he l e f t a lasting impression. His influence was to be felt for generations. A m o n g those who sat at his feet were a number of future bishops: G r i n d a l , Sandys, P a r k e r , and P i l k i n g t o n . Thus we can see that Bucer's influence survived in a direct way, a f f e c t i n g church and state under E l i z a b e t h . Grindal especially was a favourite of the reformer, and Bucer was the dominant influence in the l i f e and thinking of the future Archbishop of Canterbury.63 Besides these luminaries, hundreds of other subsequently prominent leaders must have listened to and been taught by B u c e r . A c c o r d i n g to contemporary observers, one never forgot having been taught by M a r t i n Bucer.64 But what was it these eager students learned? We have already mentioned Bucer's eirenic message and nature. T h i s , doctrinal disputes aside, was one of his major reasons for opposing the Augsburg Interim—it was a compromise imposed by force.65 i f however, Bucer was more tolerant than other reformers, there were t  limits to his t o l e r a n c e . Beyond a c e r t a i n point he would not go. For a l l his efforts at concord, he would not compromise on the core of his f a i t h , on justification by f a i t h , for instance.66 Diversity of practise was also not to be tolerated. G r a n t e d , he was fairly indulgent when it came to drawing the l i n e , and his view of adiaphora  - 80 -  was especially generous. But diversity of essential religious p r a c t i c e ? N e v e r . 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, G o d 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, " e f f e c t i v e in teaching and discipline, free from secular attractions."68  His concern for the essential unity of  church and state is reflected in his attitude towards the Anabaptists. His arguments condemned not so much their denial of infant baptism as their tendency to withdrawal and separation, thus rending the unity of the C h r i s t i a n community.  He  urged stringent measures against the Anabaptists in Strasbourg during the Peasants' R e v o l t and had C a r l s t a d t expelled from the city.69 A s an advisor to Philip of Hesse, he suppressed Anabaptism there.70 A t the Smalkald C o n f e r e n c e , he took the lead in drafting a petition to suppress various Anabaptists and Separatists.71 Though more inclined to persuade than to burn, he nevertheless was not above using physical force when he deemed it necessary.72 This then was the dominant i n t e l l e c t u a l and theological influence at Cambridge for years a f t e r w a r d , and it could not have helped but to shape Elizabethan religious p o l i t i c s , both d i r e c t l y through men such as G r i n d a l and Sandys, and indirectly through the lasting impression which Bucer l e f t on the U n i v e r s i t y . And it was to this university that young men such as Knewstubb and Wilkinson c a m e . Cambridge in the 1560's must have been an e x c i t i n g place for a young m a n . 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 it. 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 A r t s 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 incline more to the puritan side is not surprising since there was an "anti-Establishment" tinge to the whole thing. In many ways St. John's C o l l e g e was at the centre of religious controversy in C a m b r i d g e . The first great dispute was a r e f l e c t i o n of the vestiarian controversy already mentioned. The Archbishop's orders applied just as much to Cambridge dons as to London c l e r g y . Needless to say, the square cap and surplice had many enemies at C a m b r i d g e . C h i e f among them was W i l l i a m F u l k e , fellow of St. John's. Fulke a t t r a c t e d a following preaching sermons on popish remants and caused no small problem in the university. Interestingly, one of Fulke's chief opponents was R i c h a r d C u r t e y s , later Bishop of C h i c h e s t e r , who accused David Thickpenny of belonging to the F a m i l y of L o v e . So far the controversy had been l i m i t e d to clothing. In 1570, however, Thomas C a r t w r i g h t , L a d y Margaret Professor of D i v i n i t y applied the concept of "popish dregs" to church government.  In a series of lectures he dismissed the o f f i c e and  function of bishops and commended a Presbyterian system as the only one scripturally sanctioned. The reaction of the authorities was not hard to predict. G r i n d a l , newly appointed Archbishop of Y o r k , urged C e c i l as Chancellor of the University to refuse C a r t w r i g h t the grace for his doctorate of d i v i n i t y .  On June 29,  during the meeting of the Senate for the purpose of electing the members of the Caput Senatus (a sort of executive council of the Senate composed of the V i c e C h a n c e l l o r , three doctors, one non-regent, and one regent master), the regents, who, (as outlined above) possessed the decisive m a j o r i t y , vetoed the election of any who opposed C a r t w r i g h t .  John M a y , the V i c e - C h a n c e l l o r , refused C a r t w r i g h t his grace  - 82 -  anyways. Petitions were flung back and f o r t h . John Knewstubb of St.John's was prominent among C a r t w r i g h t ' s supporters.75 How William Wilkinson lined up we do not know, although if his later career is anything to go by, he certainly would have been a C a r w r i g h t i a n . John W h i t g i f t , Regius Professor, Master of T r i n i t y , future Archbishop of Canterbury and Cartwright's great opponent, urged C e c i l to action and prepared a new set of statutes for the University.76 These new statutes received royal assent in September, and removed e f f e c t i v e power from the regents and gave it to the V i c e - C h a n c e l l o r and Heads of C o l l e g e s . In November, Whitgift himself was e l e c t e d V i c e - C h a n c e l l o r . In D e c e m b e r , C a r t w r i g h t was hauled on the carpet and was deprived of his professorship and forbidden to preach. Shortly afterward he went to G e n e v a . This was the opening round in a battle which was to rage for the next t h i r t y years. However as we have seen, Knewstubb's support for C a r t w r i g h t did not overly hinder his career. The whole affair smacks of academic intrigue and f a c t i o n a l p o l i t i c s . There were those who supported C a r t w r i g h t not out of sympathy for his convictions, but to protect the ancient rights and liberties of the U n i v e r s i t y , which they f e l t the new statutes v i o l a t e d . The point is that in many ways this kind of controversy resembles the row over Greek pronunciation in the 1530's, w i t h its mixture of personal, f a c t i o n a l , a c a d e m i c , and p o l i t i c a l motives, rather than a life and death struggle over the future of the church.77 Only in rare cases, when someone proved as outspoken and intractable as C a r t w r i g h t were such severe measures t a k e n . Cambridge has quite rightly a t t r a c t e d the limelight so f a r . There is the " f a m i l i a r image of puritan Cambridge and churchy, conservative Oxford."78 The reputation of Cambridge has overshadowed the significant, if numerically much smaller, puritan influence at O x f o r d . Part of the reason for this stereotype is  - 83 -  simply that we know more about Cambridge graduates than we do about O x f o r d a l u m n i . A l s o , Oxford's hinterland was not as heavily Protestant as that of the other university.79 A s Cambridge had been the royal favourite under E d w a r d , so O x f o r d was under M a r y . Upon Elizabeth's accession, the University was staunchly C a t h o l i c . Over the next several years the university was gradually purged and reliable Protestants put into positions of authority. The point is that puritan influence, if less than at C a m b r i d g e , was not completely lacking at O x f o r d . L e i c e s t e r , that patron of puritans, was appointed Chancellor in 1564 and took an a c t i v e role in administration.80  A n d those puritans  which Oxford did produce tended to be of a more radical stripe, "brought up, it may be, in a harsher school."81 F i e l d and Wilcox were both Oxonians. There was also the influence of Laurence Humphrey at Magdalen, Thomas Sampson at C h r i s t C h u r c h , and John Reynolds at Corpus C h r i s t i . There was also the influence of the Italian reformer Peter M a r t y r V e r m i g l i . Peter M a r t y r had, like Bucer, been invited to England by Cranmer after the death of Henry VIII. Indeed, M a r t y r f i l l e d much the same role at Oxford as did Bucer at C a m b r i d g e . M a r t y r , however, had a much tougher time of it. A s Regius Professor of D i v i n i t y he constantly came up against the predominantly C a t h o l i c prejudices of the university. It seemed that the only thing that kept him going were his correspondence w i t h Bucer and the presence of foreign Protestant students, especially f r o m Switzerland.82 The Swiss presence at Oxford began in the 1530's when Rodolph G u a l t e r , Bullinger's foster son and later his son-in-law, paid a short v i s i t . Under Edward there was a v i r t u a l exchange program between Oxford and Z u r i c h . A m o n g the Zurichers who studied at Oxford were John ab U l m i s , John Stumphius, and Thomas Blaurer. A simple glance at the Zurich L e t t e r s will confirm  -  u  -  the lasting friendships and enduring influence on both sides. The Zurich connection was especially important in the f i r s t half of Elizabeth's reign. Among the English correspondents were Sandys, J e w e l , F o x e , L e v e r , Sampson, C o x , G r i n d a l and (familiar names!) M a r t i n Micronius and Jan Utenhove. On the Swiss side there were Stumphius, G u a l t e r , Rodolph Zwingli (son of the reformer), and, of course, Bullinger himself. These ties which were established under Edward were strengthened under Mary when many English Protestants found refuge in Z u r i c h . The c r u c i a l point is that even though O x f o r d has justly acquired the label " C a t h o l i c , " puritan influences were not l a c k i n g . Continental reformed theology was brought to the university through Peter M a r t y r , foreign students and the influence of Z u r i c h , 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 time at O x f o r d . The thrust of this chapter has been that it was Englishmen more inclined to the puritan side in religious controversy who took the lead in the attack on the F a m i l y of L o v e . This f a c t is underlined very nicely by an episode in Parliament.83 On February 15, 1581 a bill for the suppression of the F a m i l y 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 first offense, branding for the second, and felony for the t h i r d . Sent to c o m m i t t e e after Second Reading on February 16, the c o m m i t t e e returned with a new bill the next week. This new bill received Second Reading and was c o m m i t t e d , but it never returned and would seem to have been lost in the shuffle. It may be that the bishops opposed it on jurisdictional grounds. In any case no more is heard of it.  - 85 -  What is interesting about this episode is the committee members responsible for it. Since this was not a bill of overwhelming importance, those who sat on the committees were likely those who had some interest in the m a t t e r . Most of those whom we can identify are of pronounced puritan leanings. G e n e r a l l y speaking, there was a whole bundle of issues tied together on which the puritans usually took the same side; what in our day is known as "linkage:" seemingly unconnected p o l i t i c a l and cultural issues which a t t r a c t support from much the same constituency. Sixteenth-century "linkage" (and these were not exclusively puritan issues) consisted of several great issues: the fate of Mary Queen of Scots, increased penalties for recusant C a t h o l i c s , a more aggressively Protestant foreign policy including concrete aid to Dutch Protestants and French Huguenots, and, of course, further purification of the c h u r c h , which for some meant its presbyterianization. G e n e r a l l y speaking, the issues that a person took on these issues is a f a i r l y reliable guide to his religious convictions. In any case, our c o m m i t t e e members were definitely puritans of v a r y i n g degrees of r a d i c a l i s m . Sir Thomas Scott had supported a bill to enforce the A c t of U n i f o r m i t y against C a t h o l i c s only, leaving puritan ministers free to vary the Prayer Book service as they wished.85 He was a chief enemy of M a r y Stuart and consistently urged her execution.86 s i r Henry K i l l i g r e w , the diplomat, was in league with L e i c e s t e r and Walsingham in urging a more aggressively Protestant foreign policy on the Queen. He connived in promoting puritan influence in the English church at Antwerp.87 His w i f e was a friend and confidante of Edward Dering.88 Robert B e a l , C l e r k of the P r i v y C o u n c i l , was an enemy of A y l m e r and W h i t g i f t . It was he who c a r r i e d Mary's death warrant to Fotheringay.89 Thomas N o r t o n , Cranmer's son-in-law and translator of C a l v i n ' s Institutes, was a consistent advocate of Mary's execution and  - 86 -  supporter of the a n t i - C a t h o l i c bill 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 William M o r e , the same William More who had taken Chaundeler's and Sterete's confession twenty years e a r l i e r , indicating a continued interest in the F a m i l y of L o v e . Thus f a r , we have seen that it was the "hotter" Protestants who initiated the attack on the F a m i l y of L o v e . Even so, this was an issue on which everyone could agree. Puritans and their erstwhile "enemies" in the o f f i c i a l church establishment cooperated wonderfully in this arena. A s we have seen, Bishop C o x of Ely (who was soon to die) hunted down the F a m i l y of Love in his diocese. Among those who aided him in his questioning of the villagers of Wisbech was W i l l i a m F u l k e , the same William Fulke who had stirred up trouble at S t . John's over vestments. Andrew Perne, who conducted the earlier interrogations at Balsham, was hardly what we would c a l l a puritan. He had conformed under E d w a r d , M a r y , and E l i z a b e t h and was therefore naturally suspect to the puritans.92 A s Master of Peterhouse he had taken the o f f i c i a l side in the vestment troubles at Cambridge and was a f i r m opponent of Cartwright.93  Under Mary he testified against Bucer at his posthumous t r i a l and  the burning of his bones. Under E l i z a b e t h he participated in his rehabilitation.94 A l l of which gave rise to the derogatory t e r m , " P e r n e c o a t . " Y e t on the F a m i l y of L o v e , he was foursquare in agreement with his puritan "enemies." The lords of C o u n c i l recognized the "danger" and, as we have seen, appointed Knewstubb as a consultant to the bishops. The point is that underneath the seeming division, underneath the vestments controversy, C a r t w r i g h t , and the prophesyings, there lay a solid bedrock of consensus: separatists and sectarians must not be tolerated and must be made to conform. Even E l i z a b e t h herself shared this opinion, despite not wanting "to make windows into men's souls," as witnessed by her R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n .  - 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 E u c h a r i s t , though puritans were naturally very sensitive to anything they thought implied worship of the Host. Though the Queen herself was perhaps more inclined to a Lutheran v i e w , among churchmen themselves there was almost complete agreement on this most contentious issue. Puritans recognized also that a "halfly r e f o r m e d " 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 i t what it once had been. F o r 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 F a m i l y of Love was attacked almost because i t was pro f o r m a , the thing t o do. Again here the influence of continental theologians is f e l t . Depsite the bitter disputes between Wittenberg, Z u r i c h , and G e n e v a , 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 f e l t l e f t out. Having no real indigenous Anabaptists to hunt, they came up with a more than adequate replacement: the F a m i l y of L o v e . To be more s p e c i f i c , there was a small group of ambitious Englishmen who were looking for a target to a t t a c k . Remember that Knewstubb, Rogers, and Wilkinson were a l l r e l a t i v e l y young men when they wrote their a n t i - F a m i l y works, perhaps in their  - 88 -  early t h i r t i e s . Their careers were really just s t a r t i n g . What better way to cut one's teeth than to write in a tried and true genre graced by such illustrious names as Z w i n g l i , C a l v i n , and especially Bullinger. We have already seen how frequently the F a m i l y of Love is tied to Anabaptism by its c r i t i c s . In P a t r i c k Collinson's words, "there is ample evidence of a kind of i n f o r m a l agreement prevailing in many quarters that ' c i v i l wars of the Church of G o d ' would be abandoned in favour of an affirmation of those things in which a l l protestants assented, against papists, against such sectarian threats as the F a m i l y of Love . . ' I  95  There remains one large question to be answered: Why just then? Why did the a t t a c k on the F a m i l y of Love begin and reach its peak in the late 1570's and early 1580's? As we have seen, the standard historical answer w i l l not do, that the F a m i l y of Love was a t t r a c t i n g 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 vestiarian controversies, C a r t w r i g h t , and the Admonition to P a r l i a m e n t . The puritans had a sympathetic Archbishop of Canterbury in Edmund G r i n d a l , whose great troubles s t 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 C a t h o l i c i s m 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 infinitely preferable to a C a t h o l i c monarch and a restoration of the Roman C h u r c h . We must never forget that the C a t h o l i c threat lies behind virtually a l l aspects of Elizabethan politics and religion. 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 victories of Don John in the Netherlands. On every side Protestant Europe, and especially England, seemed threatened. The K i n g of Spain's "English Enterprise" was thought to be imminent.  In 1579 a Papal force landed in  Ireland and was soon reinforced f r o m Spain. In 1580 the English Jesuits Edmund Campion and Robert Parsons arrived to bring succour to English C a t h o l i c s . In addition the Queen had hinted once again that she was open to m a t r i m o n i a l overtures to the Duke d'Alencon, the French King's brother. Then there was the perennial trouble spot of the Queen of Scots, a rallying point for English C a t h o l i c s while she l i v e d . It was a time indeed in which Laurence Humphrey could w r i t e to Switzerland: There are the signs preceding the end of the world . . . Satan is roaring like a l i o n , the world is going m a d , A n t i c h r i s t is resorting to every e x t r e m e , that he may w i t h wolf-like f e r o c i t y devour the sheep of Christ.97 That the F a m i l y of L o v e should be the object of persecution then is no surprise. There was, as we have seen, lingering suspicion of the F a m i l y of Love as c r y p t o - C a t h o l i c s , a Popish f i f t h column ready to revolt at any t i m e . On a deeper l e v e l , there was the feeling that now more than any other time concord and unity were essential. Wrote John Rogers: How the wicked take occasion by these and like errours [the F a m i l y of L o v e ], to speake euil of Christs C h u r c h , the eares of many godly doe heare, Especially the Papists: who speak and w r i t e , and nothing is heard more common in their mouths, then these tearmes, ye are at variaunce amongst your selves: no unitie of doctrine is observed: ye are of divers opinions and sectes.98  - 90 -  If euer there were disturbers of the C h u r c h . . . I thinke that now is the t i m e : For what with the bloudie Papistes with their fire and fagot, continuall w a r r e , with horrible murders on one side, and the Anabaptistes, F r e e w i l l men, A r r i a n s , Pelagians, and the F a m i l i e of Loue on the other side, Christes Church hath l i t t l e rest, and small favour in the sight of man, but spurned on euery side.99  This indeed is a theme w h i c h , if not e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d , was certainly always in the background. Now was not the time to engage in " c i v i l wars of the C h u r c h of G o d ; " now was the t i m e to combat the C a t h o 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 all Protestant Englishmen. That puritans took the lead in attacking the F a m i l y of L o v e is perhaps attributable to their greater sensitivity to the Roman threat and to their greater emphasis on a completely godly life as opposed to f o r m a l religious p r a c t i c e . Though they led the w a y , a l l joined i n , a t t a c k i n g a threat which never really e x i s t e d . That the a t t a c k was pursued with such gusto is perhaps attributable to those things which "puritans" and " A n g l i c a n s " had in c o m m o n , especially their belief in an authoritative 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 l a t e r . There was also a careerist aspect to the origins of the attack on the F a m i l y of L o v e . ^ ^  It is significant 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 i c i a l m a t u r i t y . John Rogers' three works were a l l printed within two years of each other. A l l of John Knewstubb's writings were published during an eight year period in the late 70's and early 80's. For the rest of his long c a r e e r , he did not publish another thing. William Wilkinson's other major book was published in 1580, one year after his C o n f u t a t i o n . The f a c t that these men's o f f i c i a l careers were just starting, that they  - 91 -  were looking for some issue with which to make their mark, when the F a m i l y of Love presented itself as a t a r g e t , and when conditions within England and the church were most conducive to such an a t t a c k , only served to intensify the campaign against the F a m i l y of L o v e . The F a m i l y of Love in England was unimportant and insignificant in the grand scheme of things. However, for the reasons outlined above, it provoked a response out of a l l proportion to any threat it may have presented. This vehement attack has magnified the marginal significance of the F a m i l y of L o v e in Elizabethan England beyond recognition. This has been transmitted to the present through historical writings which were more concerned with making an ideological or genealogical point than with establishing the real historical significance of the F a m i l y of L o v e . By a c r i t i c a l evaluation of sources, it has been established that the standard view of the F a m i l y ' s history in England is a vastly distorted version of the t r u t h . The only reason it has become a subject of research at all is because a peculiar conjunction of circumstances led certain Englishmen to attack it in a certain way. The F a m i l y of L o v e , and the attack on i t , are a mirror in which we see r e f l e c t e d the concerns and attitudes of Elizabethan England.  - 92 -  NOTES  Chapter I  *  P . L . Hughes, J . F . L a r k i n , Tudor R o y a l Proclamations (New H a v e n : Y a l e  University press, 1969), II, 474-475. 2 Jean D i e t z Moss, "The F a m i l y of Love in England," Diss. West Virginia 1969, pp. 10-14. 3 Moss, Diss., pp. 10-11; Rufus M . Jones, Studies in M y s t i c a l R e l i g i o n , (London: M a c m i l l a n , 1909), p. 429 n. 1. 4 F r i e d r i c h N i p p o l d , " H e i n r i c h Niclaes und das Haus der L i e b e , " Z e i t s c h r i f t fur die historische Theologie, 32 (1862). ^ Accounts of Niclaes' l i f e are quite numerous. Almost everyone includes a short biography of the founder and leader of the F a m i l y of L o v e . The information for the f o l l o w i n g sections are taken primarily f r o m the following sources: C h a r l o t t e F e l l - S m i t h , "Henry N i c l a s , " Dictionary of National Biography, X I V , 427-431. Moss, Diss. A l a s t a i r H a m i l t o n , The F a m i l y of Love (Cambridge: James C l a r k e , 1981). F. L o o f s , " F a m i l i s t e n , " Realencyclopadie fur Theologie, V, 750-755.  protestantische  L. K n a p p e r t , "Hendrik N i c l a e s , " Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek, V, cols. 367-370. H . de l a F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , "The F a m i l y of L o v e , " Quarendo VI (1976), pp. 219-271. ^  H a m i l t o n , pp. 27-28  - 93 -  ^  John R o g e r s , The Displaying of an horrible Secte of grosse and wicked  Heretiques, naming themselves the F a m i l y of Love (London: a L o o f s , p. 752.  1578).  Q  H a m i l t o n , p. 31 ^ 1 1  H a m i l t o n , p. 32. Thomas F u l l e r , The Church History of B r i t a i n , e d . J . S . Brewer, (Oxford  University Press, 1845), IV, 409-410. 12 H a m i l t o n , p. 119; Moss, Diss., pp. 25-26 13 John Rogers, Displaying. ^  E. Belfort B a x , Rise and F a l l of the Anabaptists (London: George A l l e n and  U n w i n , 1903), p. 343. ^  A l l e n C . Thomas, "The F a m i l y of Love or the F a m i l i s t s , " Haverford College  Studies, XII, (1893), p. 26. ^  De l a F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , Quarendo, p. 226.  ^  Jean D i e t z Moss, '"Godded w i t h G o d ' : Hendrik Niclaes and H i s F a m i l y of L o v e , "  Transactions of the A m e r i c a n Philosophical S o c i e t y , 7 1 , part 8 (1981), p. 12; de l a Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, p. 229. 18 19 "70  21  De la F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , Quarendo, p. 229. De l a Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, p. 229; H a m i l t o n , p. 40; Moss A P S , p. 12. Leon Voet, The Golden Compasses (Amsterdam: Vangendt, 1969), I, 21 n . l . Max Rooses, Chrisophe P l a n t i n , Imprimeur Anversois (Antwerp: Buschman,  1897), pp. 59-76. 22 De l a F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , Quarendo, pp. 231-234; H a m i l t o n , p. 230. 23  H a m i l t o n , p. 41; de l a Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, p. 230.  - 94 -  24  Rooses, p. 68; de l a F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , Quarendo, p. 231; H a m i l t o n , p. 44. For a  dissenting v i e w , see C o l i n C l a i r , Christopher Plantin (London: C a s s e l l , 1960) pp. 2931. But see also H a r r y C a r t e r , " R e v i e w of C . C l a i r , Christopher P l a n t i n , " The L i b r a r y , 15 (1960), pp. 210-214, and C . C l a i r , " R e p l y to Harry C a r t e r ' s R e v i e w , " The L i b r a r y , 16 (1961), pp. 216-217. 2 5  Rooses, pp. 85-87.  26 H a m i l t o n , p. 45. 27 H a m i l t o n , pp. 46-47; de l a F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , Quarendo, p. 235; C l a i r , P l a n t i n , pp. 23-27, 38-39. 28 29  De l a F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , Quarendo, p. 239.  30  C l a i r , P l a n t i n , p. 32.  31  H a m i l t o n , p. 62; de l a F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , Quarendo, p. 241; Moss A P S , p. 13.  32  De la F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , Quarendo, pp. 241-243.  33  De la F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , Quarendo, p. 243.  34  H a m i l t o n , p. 73.  35  H a m i l t o n , pp. 70-74.  36  H a m i l t o n , p. 1. W. K i r s o p , "The F a m i l y of Love in F r a n c e , " Journal of Religious History, III  (1964-65), pp. 111-113. 37 H a m i l t o n , p. 76. 3 8  Bernard R e k e r s , Benito A r i a s Montano (Leiden: E . J . B r i l l , 1972), pp. 70-114.  3 9  H a m i l t o n , pp. 77-78.  ^  R e k e r s , p. 77; For a dissenting v i e w , see H a m i l t o n , p. 81.  41 De la F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , Quarendo, p. 229. 42  H a m i l t o n , p. 46.  -95-  43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52  H a m i l t o n , pp. 56-61, 88-89; Moss A P S , pp. 20-22. H a m i l t o n , p. 81. H a m i l t o n , pp. 6-12. F u l l e r , IV, 407. F u l l e r , IV, 409-410. F u l l e r , IV, 410. F u l l e r , IV, 410-411. F u l l e r , IV, 411. F u l l e r , IV, 412. John Strype, Annals of the Reformation (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 T r o e l t s c h , The Social Teaching of the C h r i s t i a n Churches, trans. Olive Wyon (London: George A l l e n and U n w i n , 1931); see also A . G . D i c k e n s , R e f o r m a t i o n 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  ^  T r o e l t s c h , II, 772.  6 5  T r o e l t s c h , II, 772.  6 6  T r o e l t s c h , II, 772.  6 7  Robert B a r c l a y , The Inner L i f e of the Religious Societies 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  B a r c l a y , p. 28. B a r c l a y , p. 28. B a r c l a y , p. 25. B a r c l a y , 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, " F a m i l i s t s . " Thomas, p. 26. Thomas, p. 1. Thomas, p. 31. Thomas, p. 34. Thomas, p. 15. Thomas, p. 22. Thomas, p. 37. B a x , p. 338.  -97 -  8 8  B a x , p. 366-367.  8 9  B a x , p. 343.  9 0  B a x , p. 383.  9 1  Ronald A . K n o x , E n t h u s i a s m - A Chapter in the History of Religion  (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950), Dedication to Evelyn Waugh. 9  2  K n o x , p. 590.  9  3  K n o x , p. 591.  n  K n o x , p. 140-141.  9 5  K n o x , p. 170-171.  9 6  K n o x , p. 172.  9  Champlin Burrage, The E a r l y English Dissenters (Cambridge University Press,  7  1912; rpt., New Y o r k : Russell and R u s s e l l , 1967), p. 209. 9  Burrage, p. 210.  8  99 Burrage, p. 212. 1 0 0  Burrage, pp. 214-215.  1 0 1  Ernest A . Payne, "The F a m i l i s t s , " The C h r o n i c l e , XIV (1953), pp. 28-33.  ^  Jones, pp. 31-32.  2  1 0 3  r . . H . Williams. The R a d i c a l R e f o r m a t i o n (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,  1962), pp. 778-789. De l a F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , " D e G e s c h r i f t e n van Hendrik N i c l a e s , " Het Boek, X X X V I (1942), pp. 161-221. 1 0 5  De l a F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , "Trois Heresiarques dans le Pays-Bas du XVIe S i e c l e , "  Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance, X V I (1954), pp. 312-330. 1 0 6  De l a F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , Quarendo, pp. 219-271.  1 0 7  De l a F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , Quarendo, p. 221.  - 98 -  1 0 8  De l a Fontaine-Verwey, Quarendo, pp. 221-222; B H R , pp. 312-313.  109 De l a F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , 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  Moss, Diss., pp. 53-70; A P S , pp. 28-30.  U  Moss, Diss., p. 53. Moss, Diss., p. 71. * ^ Moss, Diss., p. 75. 118 Moss, Diss., p. 81. 7  I ig  H a m i l t o n , The F a m i l y of L o v e . 1 2 0  H a m i l t o n , p. 119.  1 2 1  H a m i l t o n , p. 135.  1 2 2  Moss, Diss., pp. 104-106; A P S , pp. 35-52; 3.W. M a r t i n , "Elizabethan F a m i l i s t s  and English Separatism," Journal of B r i t i s h Studies, 20 (1980), pp. 59-62. 1 2 3  1 2  M a r t i n , J B S , pp. 65-66.  ^ J u l i a C . E b e l , "The F a m i l y of L o v e : Sources of Their History in England,"  Huntington L i b r a r y Q u a r t e r l y , X X X (1966-67), p. 338. 1 2 5  Jean D i e t z Moss, "The F a m i l y of Love and English C r i t i c s , " The Sixteenth  Century J o u r n a l , 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 f u l l text of the confession, see Moss, A P S , pp. 70-74.  2  Moss, A P S , p. 74.  3 Joseph W. M a r t i n , "English F a m i l i s t s and other Separatists in the G u i l d f o r d A r e a , " Bulletin of the Institute for H i s t o r i c a l R e s e a r c h , 51 (May 1978), p. 91. *5  Moss, A P S , p. 74.  6  Moss, A P S , p. 72.  7  Moss, A P S , p. 70.  8  Martin, BIHR.  9  M a r t i n , B I H R , p. 91.  10  H a m i l t o n , p. 118; John R o g e r s , Answere, f o l s . K 1 - K 2 .  11  H a m i l t o n , p. 119.  12  A c t s of the Privy C o u n c i l , v o l . 10, p. 332.  13  A P C , v o l . 10, p. 344.  14  A P C , v o l . 12, p. 231.  15  A P C , v o l . 12, p. 232.  16  A P C , v o l . 12, p. 269. J . H i t c h c o c k , A Confession of the F a m i l y of L o v e , " B I H R , 43 (1970), p. 85.  - 100 -  *  7  F e l i c i t y H e a l , "The F a m i l y of Love and the Diocese of E l y , " Studies in Church  History I X : Schism, Heresy, and Religious P r o t e s t , e d . Derek Baker (Cambridge: 1972), pp. 218-219; Moss, A P S , p. 28; H a m i l t o n , op. c i t . , p. 120. 1 8  Moss, A P S , p. 28.  1 9  Moss, A P S , p. 28.  20  H a m i l t o n , p. 120. 2 1  A P C , v o l . 8, p.338.  2 2  Moss, A P S , p. 75.  2 3  H e a l , p. 220.  24 Jean D i e t z Moss, "Variations on a Theme: The F a m i l y of Love in Renaissance England, Renaissance Q u a r t e r l y , 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  H a m i l t o n , pp. 123-124.  2 7  Moss, A P S , p. 80.  28 Grindal to Burghley, May 1, 1576, Remains of Edmund G r i n d a l (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Parker S o c i e t y , 1843), pp. 359-361. 29 Moss, A P S , p. 29; Moss, Diss., pp. 59-60; H a m i l t o n , pp. 128, 130-131. 30 From F e l l - S m i t h , D N B , and H a m i l t o n . 31 William Wilkinson, A Confutation of C e r t a i n A r t i c l e s delivered unto the F a m i l y of Love (London: 1579), preface, i i i i ; John Rogers, The Displaying of an horrible Secte . . . (London: 1578), f o l . E 3 . 32 John Rogers, Answere, f o l . F l . 33 Answere, f o l . K 3 . 34 35  Wilkinson, C o n f u t a t i o n , p r e f a c e , i i i i - A l . Wilkinson, C o n f u t a t i o n , f o l . A l .  - 101 -  36  3. Rogers, Displaying, f o l . E 3 .  37 Stephen B a t e m a n , The Golden Booke of the Leaden Goddes (London: 1577), f o l . 33. 38 3. Rogers, Displaying, f o l . E 3 ; Wilkinson, C o n f u t a t i o n , p r e f a c e , i i i i . 39 Displaying, f o l . E 3 . The S T C lists four of H.N.'s works as having been translated by V i t e l l , These are Evangelium R e g n i , The Prophetie of the Spirit of L o u e , Prouerbia H . N . , and A publishing of the peace upon e a r t h . The editions themselves do not state that V i t e l l was the translator.  However, V i t e l l never denies the charge and it therefore seems  l i k e l y that V i t e l l translated at least some of H.N.'s works. 41 supra p. 14. 42 Moss, A P S , p. 16. ^  H a m i l t o n , p. 125.  44 Henry A i n s w o r t h , A n Epistle Sent unto the Two Daughters of Warwick w i t h a R e f u t a t i o n of the Errors that are therein ( A m s t e r d a m : 1608). Unfortunately, I have not been able to obtain this l e t t e r in either f o r m . 45 H a m i l t o n , p. 125. ^  Quoted in H a m i l t o n , p. 125.  47 H a m i l t o n , p. 129. 48 H a m i l t o n , p. 129. 49 H a m i l t o n , p. 129. ^  A Brief Rehearsall of The G o o d - w i l l i n g in England, which are named the F a m i l y  of Love (London: 1656 [1575 ]?) 52  A Brief Rehearsall . . ., p. 9. A Brief Rehearsall . . , p. 9.  - 102 -  5 3  A n Apology for the Service of L o v e , and People that own i t , commonly c a l l e d  the F a m i l y of L o v e , quoted in H a m i l t o n , p. 123. ^  H a m i l t o n , p. 123.  5 5  A n Apology . . ., quoted in Moss, Diss., p. 64.  5 6  John Strype, v o l . 2, pt. 1, pp. 556-557.  5 7  H a m i l t o n , p. 122.  5 8  E l i d a d , A Good and f r u i t f u l Exhortation unto the F a m e l i e of Loue (n.p:  [1574?]), fol. A4. 5  9  F i d e l i t a s , A distinct declaration of the requiring of the Lorde ( n.p; [1575?]),  fol. C4. 60 Fidelitas, fols. C 5 - C 6 . 6 1  J u l i a E b e l , pp. 335-336.  6 2  A b i a Nazarenus, A Reproofe Spoken and G i v e n against a l l False Christians (n.p;  [1579), fols. A 3 - A 4 . 6  3  H a m i l t o n , p. 59.  6  4  Moss, A P S , p. 76.  6 5  This petition was published in 1606 w i t h hostile notes by a Protestant c r i t i c  under the t i t l e A Supplication of the F a m i l y of L o u e , and again by Samuel Rutherford in his Survey of the Spirituall A n t i c h r i s t (London: 1648) ^  Basilikon Doron, quoted in H a m i l t o n , p. 59.  6 7  Samuel R u t h e r f o r d . Survey of the Spirituall A n t i c h r i s t , (London: 1648), p. 344.  6  8  R u t h e r f o r d , p. 346.  6  9  R u t h e r f o r d , p. 346.  7  0  R u t h e r f o r d , p. 348.  7 1  R u t h e r f o r d , p. 350.  - 103 -  72  H a m i l t o n , op. c i t . , p. 132  73 H a m i l t o n , p. 112 7  ^  3. Lindeboom, Austin F r i a r s : A History of the Dutch R e f o r m e d C h u r c h in  London (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1950), C h . 1. 7  ^  Lindeboom, p. 8.  ^  Lindeboom, p. 8.  7(  7 7  W . A . J . A r c h b o l d , "John a L a s c o , " D N B , v o l . 11, pp. 599-601.  78 Lindeboom, p. 8. 79 H a m i l t o n , p. 36. 8 0  H a m i l t o n , p. 50.  81 Lindeboom, pp. 30-31. 8 2  H a m i l t o n , pp. 7 1 , 113.  8  3  H a m i l t o n , pp. 70-71, 85.  8  ^  H a m i l t o n , pp. 47-48, 113; de l a F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , Quarendo, p. 237.  85 8 6  8 7  Lindeboom, pp. 41-45. H a m i l t o n , p. 113. H a m i l t o n , pp. 112-113.  88 Lindeboom, p. 45. 89 H a m i l t o n , p. 51. 9  0  H a m i l t o n , p. 51; de la F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , Quarendo, p. 230.  91 H a m i l t o n , p. 54; L i n d e b o o m , p. 46. 9  2  Thompson C o o p e r , "Stephen Batman," D N B , v o l . 1, pp. 1334-1335.  9  3  Bateman, f o l . A 8 .  - 104 -  94  William F u l k e , A Defense of the sincere and true Translations of the holie  Scriptures into the English tong, against the manifold c a u i l l s , friuilous quarels, and impudent slaunders of Gregorie M a r t i n , one of the readers of Popish diuinitie in the trayterous Seminarie of Rhemes (London: 1583; rpt. Cambridge University press for the Parker S o c i e t y , 1843), p. 36. 9  "*  F u l k e , p. 37.  96 Thomas R o g e r s , C a t h o l i c Doctrine of the Church of England (London: 1585; rpt. Cambridge University Press for the Parker S o c i e t y , 1854), p. 52. 9 7  T. Rogers, p. 79.  98 T. Rogers, p. 320. 99 T. Rogers, p. 280; John R o g e r s , Displaying, f o l . H7. 100 William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture against the Papists, especially against Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans, and e d . W. F i t z g e r a l d (London: 1588; rpt. Cambridge University Press for the Parker Society, 1844), p. 298. 101  Edwin Sandys, Sermons, e d . 3. A y r e (Cambridge University Press for the Parker  S o c i e t y , 1842), p. 130. 1 0 2  H a m i l t o n , p. 135.  1 0 3  H a m i l t o n , p. 136; Moss, A P S , pp. 55-56. H a m i l t o n , p. 136; The sermon was e n t i t l e d "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  H a m i l t o n , p. 135.  1 1 1  H a m i l t o n , pp. 135-136.  1 1 2  Denison, pp. 33-34.  1 1 3  Moss, A P S , p. 56.  m  John Etherington. A brief discovery of the blasphemous doctrine of f a m i l i s m e  (London: 1645), quoted in H a m i l t o n , p. 137. 1 1 5  H a m i l t o n , p. 139.  1 1 6  H a m i l t o n , 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 . F r i e d r i c h s .  - 106 -  NOTES  Chapter  *  III  supra, p. 56.  2 F u l k e , p. 36; Knewstubb, C o n f u t a t i o n , Dedication to the R e a d e r , p. 3. 3  J . B . Mullinger, "John Knewstubb," D N B v o l . 11, p. 224; J . and J . A . Venn, A l u m n i  Cantabrigensis (Cambridge University Press, 1922). Knewstub, f o l . R 4 . ^  Knewstubb, f o l . 52.  ^  H a m i l t o n , p. 128.  7  H a m i l t o n , pp. 128-129. Joseph F o s t e r , Alumni Oxonienses 1500-1714 (Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus  Reprint L t d . , 1968), III, 1274. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  F o s t e r , 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 . E 5 . Displaying, f o l . A 6 . Displaying, f o l . B I . Displaying, f o l . C 8 . Displaying, f o l . B4. Displaying, f o l . F 5 .  - 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 . D 3 .  2  3  Displaying, f o l . D 3 .  2 / t  Displaying, f o l . D 3 .  25 Displaying, fols. E4 ff. 2  ^  Displaying, f o l . C 3 .  27 Displaying, f o l . C 3 . 28 Displaying, f o l . H 5 . 2  9  William Wilkinson, A Confutation of C e r t a i n A r t i c l e delivered unto the F a m i l y  of L o v e (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 32  Wilkinson, i n . Wilkinson, i n .  3 3  Wilkinson, f o l . 31.  3 / f  Wilkinson, f o l . X 2 .  3 5  P a t r i c k C o l l i n s o n , The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (Berkeley and Los  Angeles: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1967), pp. 11-15. 3  6  P a t r i c k C o l l i n s o n . Archibishop G r i n d a l 1519-1583 (London: Jonathan C a p e ,  1979), p. 171. 7  C o l l i n s o n , E P M , p. 71.  3 8  C o l l i n s o n , E P M , p. 70.  3 9  C o l l i n s o n , E P M , p. 76.  *°  C o l l i n s o n , E P M , p. 78.  3  - 108 -  *  1  Bullinger to Bishop H o r n , Zurich L e t t e r s , e d . H . Robinson (Cambridge  University Press for the Parker Society, 1842, 1845), I, 343. 4  2  C o l l i n s o n , E P M , pp. 84-91.  4 3  C o l l i n s o n , G r i n d a l , pp. 42-46.  ^  C o l l i n s o n , G r i n d a l , pp. 42-44.  4 5  J . B . Mullinger, The University of Cambridge (Cambridge University Press:  1873), II, 206. 4  6  H . C . P o r t e r , R e f o r m a t i o n and R e a c t i o n in Tudor Cambridge (Cambridge  University P r e s s : 1958), p. 190. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  C o l l i n s o n , E P M , pp. 126, 215. Knewstubb, C o n f u t a t i o n , dedication to the reader, i i . C o l l i n s o n , E P M , p. 232. C o l l i n s o n , E P M , pp. 218-219. J . B . M u l l i n g e r , "John Knewstubb," D N B , v o l . 11, p. 244. A c t s of the Privy C o u n c i l , v o l . 12, pp. 317-318. John R o g e r s , Displaying, f o l . F 7 . Displaying, f o l . C 2 . Displaying, f o l . H6. John Rogers, The Summe of C h r i s t i a n i t y , reduced unto eight propositions,  briefly and plainly confirmed out of the holy worde of God (London: 1578), pp. 1012. ^  Summe, pp. 19-23.  58 Summe, pp. 10-12. 59 Summe, p. 19. 6 0  E.I. C a r l y l e , " W i l l i a m Wilkinson," D N B , v o l . 21, p. 278; Venn and Venn, A l u m n i  Cantabrigensis, pt. 1, v o l . 4, p. 412.  - 109 -  6 1  C o n s t a n t s H o p f , M . r t i n Bucer and the English R e f o r m a t i o n (Oxford: B a s i l  B l a c k w e l l , 1946), p. 12. 6  2  Hastings E e l l s , M a r t i n Bucer (New H a v e n : Y a l e University Press, 1931), pp.  142, 217. 6  3  C o l l i n s o n , G r i n d a l , pp. 49-56.  6 t f  C o l l i n s o n , G r i n d a l , p. 49.  6  5  E e l l s , p. 394.  6  6  E e l l s , p. 394.  6  7  C o l l i n s o n , G r i n d a l , pp. 52-53.  6  8  C o l l i n s o n , G r i n d a l , p. 53.  6  9  E e l l s , pp. 54-64, 71.  7  0  E e l l s , pp. 238-240.  7  1  E e l l s , pp. 267-268.  7  2  E e l l s , p. 64.  7  3  P o r t e r , pp. 107-109. P o r t e r , pp. 163-164.  n  7  5  P o r t e r , p. 190  7  6  P o r t e r , p. 176.  77  see W.S. Hudson, The Cambridge Connection (Durham. N . C . : Duke University  Press, s, 1980), pp. 43-60; Mullinger, Mulli C a m b r i d g e , II, 53-64. 78  C o l l i n s o n , E P M , p. 129.  79 C o l l i n s o n , E P M , p. 129; Mark H . C u r t i s , Oxford and Cambridge in Transition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959), pp. 191-193. 80 C . E . M a l l e t , A History of the University of Oxford (London: Methuen and C o . , 1924), II, 115.  - 110 -  8 1  C o l l i n s o n , E P M , P. 129.  82 C l a i r e C r o s s , " C o n t i n e n t a l Students and the Protestant R e f o r m a t i o n in England in the Sixteenth C e n t u r y , " R e f o r m and R e f o r m a t i o n ; England and the Continent c . 1500-c. 1750, e d . Derek Baker (Oxford: Basil B l a c k w e l l for the E c c l e s i a s t i c a l History Society, 1979), pp. 44-45. g3 House of Commons Journals, I, 127, 128, 129, 130. 84 Sir J . E . N e a l e , E l i z a b e t h and her Parliaments (New Y o r k : St Martin's Press, 1958), I, 410. 85 M . M . Knappen, Tudor Puritanism (Chicago: University 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; C o l l i n s o n , E P M , p. 166. C o l l i n s o n , E P M , p. 258. Neale, I, 342. C o l l i n s o n , E P M , pp. 216-217; N e a l e , I, 252-253, 385-387. C o l l i n s o n , E P M , pp. 306-307. Mullinger, C a m b r i d g e , II, 180. P o r t e r , p. 177. Mullinger, C a m b r i d g e , II, 181-182. C o l l i n s o n , G r i n d a l , p. 287. C o l l i n s o n , E P M , pp. 154-155, 159-161. Neale, I, 369. Displaying, f o l . C 2 . Displaying, f o l . F 7 . I am grateful to Professor Murray Tolmie for this insight.  - Ill -  BIBLIOGRAPHY  PRIMARY SOURCES  A b i a Nazarenus. A Reproofe Spoken and Given against A l l False Christians,  n.p.,  1579. A c t s of the Privy C o u n c i l of England, e d . J . R . Dasent, 1890 ff. A n Apology for the Service of L o v e , and the People that own it, commonly c a l l e d , The F a m i l y of L o v e , n.p., (1575?). B a t e m a n , Stephen. The Golden Booke of the Leaden Goddes. London:  1577.  A Brief Rehearsall of the Good-willing in England, which are named the F a m i l y of L o v e , n.p., (1575?), London: G i l e s C a l v e r t , 1656. Denison, Stephen. The White Wolfe or, a sermon preached at Pauls Crosse. London:  1627.  E l i d a d . A Good and f r u i t f u l l Exhortation unto the F a m i l i e of L o u e . n.p., (1574?). Etherington, Stephen. A brief discovery of the blasphemous doctrine of f a m i l i s m . London:  1645.  F i d e l i t a s . A distinct declaration of the requiring of the Loorde. n.p., (1575?). F o s t e r , Joseph. A l u m n i Oxonienses 1500-1714. 2 vols. Nendeln, Liechtenstein:  Kraus Reprint L t d . , 1968.  F u l k e , W i l l i a m . A Defense of the sincere and true Translations of the holie Scriptures into the English tong, against the manifold c a u i l l s , friuilous quarels, and impudent slaunders of Gregorie M a r t i n , one of the readers of Popish diuinitie in the trayterous Seminarie of Rhemes. L o n d o n : 1583; rpt. Cambridge University Press for the Parker Society, 1843.  - 112 -  G r i n d a l , Edmund. R e m a i n s , e d . W. Nicholson. Cambridge University Press for the Parker S o c i e t y , 1843. H a l l y w e l l , Henry. A n Account of F a m i l i s m A s It Is Revived and Propogated by the Quakers. London: 1673. House of Commons Journals. Hughes, P . L . L a r k i n , J . F . Tudor R o y a l Proclamations.  2 vols. New H a v e n : Y a l e  University Press, 1969. Jessop, Edmund. A Discovery of the errors of English Anabaptists. London:  1623.  Knewstubb, John. A Confutation of Monstrous Heresies taught by H . N . London:  1579.  P o l l a r d , A . W . , Redgrave, G . R . A Short-Title Catalogue of Books printed in England, Scotland, and Ireland and of English Books printed abroad 1475-1640. London: The Bibliographical Society, 1926. R e t u r n . Members of P a r l i a m e n t .  Part I.  Parliaments of England, 1213-1702.  The  House of Commons, 1878. Rogers, John. A n Answers unto a wicked libel made by C h r i s t . V i t e l , one of the chief English elders of the pretended F a m i l y of L o v e . London:  1579.  . The Displaying of an horrible Secte of grosse and wicked heretiques, naming themselves the F a m i l y of L o v e . London:  1578.  . The Summe of C h r i s t i a n i t y , reduced unto eight propositions, briefly and plainly confirmed out of the holy worde of G o d . London:  1578.  Rogers, Thomas, C a t h o l i c Doctrine of the Church of England. London: 1585; rpt. Cambridge University Press for the Parker S o c i e t y , 1854. R u t h e r f o r d , Samuel. Survey of the Spirituall A n t i c h r i s t .  London:  1648.  Sandys, E d w i n . Sermons, e d . J . A y r e . Cambridge University for the Parker Society, 1842.  - 113 -  Tobias. M i r a b i l i a Opera D e i : C e r t a i n e wonderfull works of God which hapned to H . N , n.p., n.d. V e n n , 3. and 3.A. A l u m n i Cantabrigensis. Part 1, 4 vols. Cambridge University Press. 1922. Whitaker, W i l l i a m . A Disputation on Holy Scriptures against the Papists, especially Bellarmine and Stapleton. trans, and e d . W. F i t z g e r a l d . London: 1588; rpt. Cambridge University Press for Parker S o c i e t y , 1844. Wilkinson, W i l l i a m . A Confutation of C e r t a i n A r t i c l e s delivered unto the F a m i l y of L o v e . London: 1579. Wing, Donald. A Short-Title Catalogue of Books printed in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and B r i t i s h A m e r i c a and of English Books printed in Other Countries 1641-1700. 3 vols. New Y o r k : Modern Language A s s o c i a t i o n , 1972. Wood, Anthony. Athenae Oxonienses. 2 v o l s . London: 1691. The Zurich L e t t e r s . 2 vols. e d . H. Robinson. Cambridge University Press for the Parker S o c i e t y .  SECONDARY SOURCES  A r c h b o l d , W . A . J . "John a L a s c o . " D N B , v o l . 11, pp. 599-601. . "Edwin Sandys." D N B , v o l . 17, pp. 772-775. B a r c l a y , R o b e r t . The Inner L i f e of the Religious Societies of the C o m m o n w e a l t h . London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1879. B a x , E. B e l f o r t .  Rise and F a l l of the Anabaptists. London: George A l l e n and  U n w i n , 1903. B e r g m a n , C o r n e l i u s . " H e i n r i c h Bullinger." Mennonite E n c y c l o p e d i a , v o l . 1, pp. 467468.  -114 -  Burrage, C h a m p l i n . The Early English Dissenters. Cambridge University Press, 1912; rpt., New Y o r k , Russell and R u s s e l l , 1967. C a r l y l e , E.I. " W i l l i a m Wilkinson." D N B , vol.21, p. 278. C a r t e r , Harry. " R e v i e w of C . C l a i r , Christopher P l a n t i n . " The L i b r a r y , 15 (1960), pp. 210-214. C l a i r , C o l i n . Christopher P l a n t i n . London: C a s s e l l and C o . , 1960. . " R e p l y to Harry C a r t e r ' s R e v i e w . " The L i b r a r y , 16 (1961), pp. 216-217. C o l l i n s o n , P a t r i c k . Archbishop Grindal 1519-1583. London: Jonathan C a p e , 1979. . The E l i z a b e t h a n Puritan Movement.  Berkeley and L o s Angeles:  University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1967. Cooper, Thompson. "Stephen B a t m a n . " D N B , v o l . 1, pp. 1334-1335. C r e i g h t o n , M a n d e l l . "Edmund G r i n d a l . " D N B , v o l . 8, pp. 704-707. C r o s s , C l a i r e . " C o n t i n e n t a l Students and the Protestant R e f o r m a t i o n in England and in the Sixteenth C e n t u r y . "  R e f o r m and R e f o r m a t i o n : England and the  Continent c. 1500 - c . 1750. e d . Derek Baker. O x f o r d : Basil B l a c k w e l l for the E c c l e s i a s t i c a l History Society, 1979. C u r t i s , Mark H . Oxford and Cambridge in Transition. O x f o r d : Clarendon Press, 1959. Dickens, A . G . Reformation and Society in Sixteenth C e n t u r y Europe. London: Thames and Hudson, 1966. E b e l , J u l i a C . "The F a m i l y of L o v e : Sources of Their History in England." Huntington L i b r a r y Q u a r t e r l y , X X X (1966-67), pp. 341-343. E e l l s , Hastings. M a r t i n Bucer. New H a v e n : Y a l e University Press, 1931. E l t o n , G . R . "England and the continent in the sixteenth century."  R e f o r m and  R e f o r m a t i o n : England and the continent c. 1500 - c . 1750. e d . Derek Baker. O x f o r d : Basil B l a c k w e l l for The E c c l e s i a s t i c a l History S o c i e t y , 1979.  - 115 -  Fast* Heinhold. Heinrich Bullinger und die Taufer.  Mennonitischen  Geschichtsverein, 1959. F e l l - S m i t h , C h a r l o t t e . "Henry N i c l a s . " D N B v o l . 14, pp. 427-431. F o n t a i n e - V e r w e y , H . de l a . "Trois Heresiarques dans le Pays-Bas du XVIe S i e c l e . " Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance, X V I (1954), pp. 312-330. . -The F a m i l y of L o v e . " Quarendo, VI (1976), pp. 219-271. F u l l e r , Thomas. The Church History of B r i t a i n . 6 vols. e d . J . S . Brewer.  Oxford  University Press, 1845. H a m i l t o n , A l a s t a i r . The F a m i l y of L o v e . C a m b r i d g e : James C l a r k e & C o . , 1981. H e a l , F e l i c i t y . "The F a m i l y of Love and the Diocese of E l y . " Studies in Church History IX Schism, Heresy, and Religious Protest, e d . Derek Baker. Cambridge University Press, 1972. H i t c h c o c k , J . " A Confession of the F a m i l y of L o v e . " Bulletin of the Institute for H i s t o r i c a l R e s e a r c h , X L H I (1970), pp. 85-86. Hopf, C o n s t a n t i n . M a r t i n Bucer and the English R e f o r m a t i o n .  O x f o r d : Basil  B l a c k w e l l , 1946. Horst, Irvin B. The R a d i c a l Brethren. Anabaptism and the English Reformation to 1558. Nieuwkoop: B. de G r a a f , 1972. Jones, Rufus M . Studies in M y s t i c a l R e l i g i o n . London: M a c m i l l a n and C o . , 1909. K i r s o p , W a l l a c e . "The F a m i l y of Love in F r a n c e . " Journal of Religious History, III (1964-65, pp. 103-118. Knappen, M . M . Tudor P u r i t a n i s m . C h i c a g o : University of Chicago Press, 1939. Knappert, L. "Hendrik N i c l a e s . " Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek, v o l . 5, c o l s . , 367-370. K n o x , Ronald A . Enthusiasm: A Chapter in the History of R e l i g i o n . O x f o r d : Clarendon Press, 1950.  - 116 -  Lindeboom, J . Austin F r i a r s : A History of the Dutch R e f o r m e d Church in London. trans. D. de Iongh. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1950. L o o f s , F. " F a m i l i s t e n . " Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie, v o l . 5, pp. 750-755. M c N a i r , P . M . 3 . " P e t e r Martyr in England." In Peter Martyr V e r m i g l i . e d . Joseph C . M c L e l l a n d . Waterloo, Ontario: W i l f r i d L a u r i e r University Press, 1980. M a l l e t , C . E . A History of the University of O x f o r d . 3 vols. London: Methuen and C o . , 1924. M a r t i n , Joseph W. "Elizabethan F a m i l i s t s and English Separatism." Journal of B r i t i s h Studies, 20 (1980), pp. 53-73. . "English Familists and other Separatists in the Guildford A r e a . "  Bulletin  of the Institute for H i s t o r i c a l R e s e a r c h , 51 (1978). . "Christopher V i t e l : an Elizabethan Mechanik P r e a c h e r . "  Sixteenth  Century J o u r n a l , X (1979), pp. 15-22. Moss, Jean D i e t z . "The F a m i l y of Love in England." unpublished P h . D . Dissertation, West V i r g i n i a U n i v e r s i t y , 1969. . "'Godded w i t h G o d : Hendrik Niclaes and His F a m i l y of L o v e . " 1  Transactions of the A m e r i c a n Philosophical S o c i e t y , v o l . 71, part 8, 1981. . "The F a m i l y of Love and English C r i t i c s . " The Sixteenth Century Journal . VI (1975), pp. 35-52. . "Variations on a Theme: the F a m i l y of Love in Renaissance England." Renaissance Q u a r t e r l y , X X X I (1978), pp. 186-195. . " A d d i t i o n a l Light on the F a m i l y of L o v e . " Bulletin of the Institute for H i s t o r i c a l R e s e a r c h , X L V I I (1974), pp. 103-105. Mullinger, J . B . The University of C a m b r i d g e . 3 vols. Cambridge University Press, 1873.  - 117 -  . -John Knewstubb." D N B , v o l . 1 1 , p. 244. . " W i l l i a m Whitaker."  D N B , v o l . 21, pp. 212-213.  N e a l e , Sir J . E . E l i z a b e t h and her Parliaments. 2 vols. New Y o r k : St. Martin's Press, 1958. N e f f , C h r i s t i a n . " M a r t i n Bucer." Mennonite E n c y c l o p e d i a , v o l . 1, pp. 455-460. Nippold, F r i e d r i c h . " H e i n r i c h Niclaes und das Haus der L i e b e . " Z e i t s c h r i f t fur die historische Theologie, X X X I I (1862). Payne, Ernest A . "The F a m i l i s t s . " The C h r o n i c l e , X V I (1953), pp. 28-33. P o r t e r , H . C . Reformation and Reaction in Tudor C a m b r i d g e . Cambridge University Press, 1958. R e k e r s , Bernard. Benito A r i a s Montano (1527-1598).  L e i d e n : E . J . B r i l l , 1972.  Rooses, M a x . Christophe P l a n t i n , Imprimeur Anversois. A n t w e r p :  J . E . Buschman,  1897. Shaw, W . A . "Thomas Rogers." D N B , v o l . 19, pp. 142-143. Strype, John. Annals of the R e f o r m a t i o n .  O x f o r d : Clarendon Press, 1824.  Thomas, A l l e n C . "The F a m i l y of Love or the F a m i l i s t s . " Haverford College Studies, XII (1893). T r o e l t s c h , E r n s t . The Social Teaching of the C h r i s t i a n Churches. 2 vols, trans. Olive Wyon. London: George A l l e n and U n w i n , 1931. Van Dorsten, J . A . The R a d i c a l A r t s . L e i d e n : Leiden University Press, 1970. Voet, L e o n . The Golden Compasses. 2 vols. A m s t e r d a m : A . L . Vangendt and C o . , 1969. W i l l i a m s , G . H . The R a d i c a l R e f o r m a t i o n . 1962.  Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,  

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}]}"
                            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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095783/manifest

Comment

Related Items