The Zurich Connection

and Tudor Political Theology

Studies in the History
of Christian Traditions
Founded by
Heiko A. Oberman†

Edited by
Robert J. Bast
Knoxville, Tennessee

In cooperation with
Henry Chadwick, Cambridge
Scott H. Hendrix, Princeton, New Jersey
Paul C.H. Lim, Nashville, Tennessee
Eric Saak, Indianapolis, Indiana
Brian Tierney, Ithaca, New York
Arjo Vanderjagt, Groningen
John Van Engen, Notre Dame, Indiana

VOLUME 131
 The Zurich
Connection and Tudor
Political Theology
By
W.J. Torrance Kirby

LEIDEN • BOSTON
2007
Cover illustration: D: Petrus Martyr Florentinus, Teologus Tigurinus. Sixteenth-century
hand-coloured, copper-plate engraving of Peter Martyr Vermigli after a woodcut portrait by
Jos Murer. Collection of the Zentralbibliothek, Zurich.

Brill has made all reasonable efforts to trace all right holders to any copyrighted material used
in this work. In cases where these efforts have not been successful, the publisher welcomes
communications from copyright holders, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can be
made in future editions, and to settle other permission matters.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

ISSN: 1573-5664
ISBN: 978 90 04 15618 0

Copyright 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands

 CONTENTS

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Illustrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I. ‘Cura religionis’: the prophetical office and the civil magistrate . . 25

Text: Bullinger, Of the office of the Magistrate (1552) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
II. ‘The Godly Prince’: the union of civil and ecclesiastical
jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Text: Vermigli, Of ciuill and ecclesiasticall power (1561) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
III. ‘Synne and Sedition’: penitence and the duty of obedience . . . . 121
Text: Vermigli, A Sermon concernynge the tyme of rebellion (1549) . . . . 149
IV. ‘A holy Deborah for our times’: a panegyric to Elizabeth . . . . . . 181
Text: Vermigli, Epistle to the Princess Elizabeth (1558) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
V. ‘Relics of the Amorites’: the civil magistrate and religious
uniformity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Text: Bullinger, Concerning thapparel of ministers (1566) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
1. ‘Vermilius Absconditus’: the Zurich portrait . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
2. Text: Vermigli, An Epistle to the Duke of Somerset (1550) . . . . . . . . . 245

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
 ABBREVIATIONS

ARG Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte

CCCC Corpus Christi College, Cambridge
CICan Corpus juris canonici, ed. Emil Friedberg. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1879
CICiv Corpus juris civilis, ed. Krueger, Mommsen. 3 vols. Berlin, 1912–
1920
CP The Common Places of Peter Martyr Vermigli. “Translated and partly
gathered” by Anthony Marten. London, 1583
Decades Heinrich Bullinger, Sermonum decades, Fiftie godlie and learned sermons,
divided into fiue decades translated by H.I. London, 1577
Inst. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559), transl.
F.L. Battles and ed. John T. McNeill. Philadelphia, 1960
IUD Peter Martyr Vermigli, In Librum Judicum … Commentarii doctissimi
… Zurich, 1561
LC Peter Martyr Vermigli, Loci communes, ed. Robert Masson. 3 vols.
London, 1576
LCC Library of Christian Classics
LLS Peter Martyr Vermigli, Life, Letters, and Sermons, translated and
edited by John Patrick Donnelly. The Peter Martyr Library,
vol. 5. Kirksville, MO, 1999
ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford, 2004
OL Original Letters relative to the English Reformation, edited by Hastings
Robinson for the Parker Society. Cambridge, 1847
OS John Calvin, Opera Selecta, ed. P. Barth, W. Niesel, D. Scheuner. 5
vols., Munich, 1926–1952
PL Patrologiæ cursus completus: Series Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne. Paris, 1844–
1882
PMR The Peter Martyr Reader, ed. John Patrick Donnelly, S.J., Frank
A. James III, and Joseph C. McLelland. Kirksville, MO, 1999
PML The Peter Martyr Library
PS Parker Society editions of the works of the English Reformers, 56
volumes. Cambridge, 1840–1855
ROM Peter Martyr Vermigli, In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos …
Commentarii. Basel, 1558
STC A Short-Title Catalogue … 1475–1640, 2nd Edition (1976–1991)
TR Anthony Fletcher and Diarmaid MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions,
5th edition. Harlow, 2004
WW Works of John Whitgift, DD, Archbishop of Canterbury, edited by John
Ayre for the Parker Society. Cambridge, 1851
viii abbreviations

ZL 1 The Zurich Letters; or, the correspondence of several English bishops and
others, with some of the Helvetian reformers, during the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, 1558–1579, First Series, translated and edited Hastings
Robinson for the Parker Society. Cambridge, 1842
ZL 2 The Zurich Letters; or, the correspondence of several English bishops and
others, with some of the Helvetian reformers, during the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, 1558–1602, Second Series, translated and edited by
Hastings Robinson for the Parker Society. Cambridge, 1845
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study had its early gestation in a series of papers presented at

annual meetings of the Sixteenth Century Studies Conference. I am
deeply indebted to my colleagues in the Peter Martyr Society who fore-
gather annually at the SCSC and who have offered much valuable crit-
icism, encouragement, and convivial fellowship over the years. In par-
ticular I wish to thank Joseph McLelland, John Patrick Donnelly, Frank
James, William Klempa, and Gary Jenkins. I am also very grateful to
Emidio Campi, Director of the Institut für Schweizerisches Reforma-
tionsgeschichte, and other members of the Schola Tigurina who continue
their distinguished tradition of scholarship in the Theologische Facultät
at the University of Zurich. Twice in recent years I have enjoyed their
generous hospitality and the valuable opportunity of participating in
congresses hosted by the Schola Tigurina to mark the quincentenaries
of two of the principal figures of Zurich Reform, both of them closely
linked to the subject of this study: in 1999 a conference titled ‘Peter
Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562): Humanismus, Republikanismus, Refor-
mation’ held at Kappel am Albis where Heinrich Bullinger began his
career as a teacher in the Klosterschule; and in 2004 another congress
hosted in the precincts of the Großmunster at Zurich, ‘Der Nachfolger:
Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575): Leben–Denkung–Wirkung’. Both occa-
sions contributed decisive stimulus to the pursuit of the present inquiry.
I acknowledge with gratitude the funding of my research by the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada over the
past three years, both on my own behalf and on behalf of my two excel-
lent research assistants—Jason Zuidema and Nicholas Dion, both grad-
uate students in the Faculty of Religious Studies at McGill University—
who also received funded support under the SSHRC grant. I thank
Mr Zuidema in particular for his excellent bibliographical contribu-
tion to the present volume and Mr Dion for his work on the transla-
tion of the scholium ‘De Magistratu’ from Vermigli’s In librum Judicum
commentarii (1561) for the second chapter. Very warm thanks are also
extended to the Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Cam-
bridge for their kind and generous hospitality during my time there as
x acknowledgements

a Visiting Research Fellow in 2005. I owe special thanks to Christopher

de Hamel, Fellow Librarian of Corpus Christi, to Gill Cannell, Parker
Sub-Librarian, for all her kindness and patience in introducing me to
the astonishing riches of this unique collection of medieval and early-
modern manuscripts and printed books, and to Iwona Krasodomska-
Jones, Butler Sub-Librarian at Corpus Christi. Matthew Parker’s col-
lection of Medieval and Renaissance manuscripts in the Parker Library
of Corpus Christi is astonishingly rich and is rivalled in England only
by the British Library and the Bodleian Library, Oxford.1 In particu-
lar the collection of sixteenth-century manuscripts is a treasure-trove
for students of the English Reformation, and most especially for those
in pursuit of the influential contributions of the continental reform-
ers during the middle years of the sixteenth century.2 I also extend my
thanks to the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C. for a
Research Fellowship in 2002 which enabled me to launch this study in
the first place and express my appreciation to Laetitia Yeandle, Geor-
gianna Ziegler, and to all the friendly and accommodating staff of the
Folger Library.
Finally I would like to offer a wink of appreciation to Elizabeth
and Kate for maintaining their spirit of good humour throughout this
project, for their delightful company punting on the Cam and strolling
along the path to Grantchester, and to thank Margaret for her constant
patience and support, without which nothing.
Portions of this study have been published previously in various jour-
nals whose permission to reprint them here is gratefully acknowledged:
“The Civil Magistrate and the ‘cura religionis’: Heinrich Bullinger’s pro-
phetical office and the English Reformation,” pp. 935–950, in Heinrich
Bullinger (1504–1575): Leben, Denken, Wirkung. Internationaler Bullingerkongress
2004, ed. Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz. Zürcher Beiträge zur Refor-
mationsgeschichte, Bd. 24 (Zurich: Theologische Verlag Zurich, 2007);
“‘Relics of the Amorites’ or adiaphora? The authority of Peter Martyr
Vermigli in the Elizabethan Vestiarian Controversy of the 1560s,” Refor-
mation and Renaissance Review: Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies 6.3

1 See the catalogue published to accompany the marvellous exhibition of manu-

scripts at the Fitzwilliam Museum and the Cambridge University Library from 26 July
to 11 December 2005, The Cambridge illuminations: ten centuries of book production in the
medieval west, edited by Paul Binski and Stella Panayotova (London: Harvey Miller,
2005).
2 Montague Rhodes James, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of

Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912).
 acknowledgements xi

(December, 2004): 313–326; “‘The Charge of Religion belongeth unto

Princes:’ Peter Martyr Vermigli on the Unity of Civil and Ecclesiastical
Jurisdiction,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 94 (2003): 131–145; “Vermil-
ius Absconditus? The Iconography of Peter Martyr,” in Emidio Campi in
cooperation with Frank James III and Peter Opitz, eds., Petrus Martyr
Vermigli: Humanismus, Republikanismus, Reformation (Geneva: Droz, 2002)
295–303.

My transcription of the manuscript of Vermigli’s ‘Sermon concernynge

the tyme of rebellion’ appended to the third chapter is printed by
kind permission of the Master and Fellows of Corpus Christi College,
Cambridge.
 ILLUSTRATIONS

Cover D: Petrus Martyr Florentinus, Teologus Tigurinus

The cover reproduces a sixteenth-century hand-coloured, copper-plate

engraving of Peter Martyr Vermigli in the collection of the Zentral-
bibliothek, Zurich after a woodcut portrait by Jos Murer (1530–1580).
Murer’s likeness, itself modelled on an earlier oil portrait by Hans
Asper (1499–1572), was first published as the frontispiece to Josiah Sim-
ler, Oratio de vita et obitu clarissimi viri et præstantissimi theologi D. Petri Martyrys
Vermilii (Zurich: Christoph Froschauer, 1563). See Marianne Naegeli
and Urs Hobi, Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation: Hans Asper und seine Zeit:
Katalog zur Ausstellung im Helmhaus, Zürich (Zürich: Schweizerisches Insti-
tut für Kunstwissenschaft, 1981), nrs. 188, 170. The portrait is repro-
duced in Hans Ulrich Bächtold, ed., Schola Tigurina: Die Zürcher Hohe
Schule und ihre Gelehrten um 1550; Katalog zur Ausstellung vom 25. Mai bis 10.
Juli 1999 in der Zentralbibliothek Zürich, Institut für Schweizerische Refor-
mationsgeschichte (Zürich; Freiburg im Breisgau: Pano Verlag, 1999),
34, 54. See Appendix 1 below.

Fig. 1. Title page of The Common Places of Peter Martyr Vermigli

The Common Places of the most famous and renowned diuine Doctor Peter Mar-
tyr: diuided into foure principall parts: with a large addition of manie theologicall
and necessarie discourses, some neuer extant before. Translated and partlie gath-
ered by Anthonie Marten (London: Henrie Denham, Thomas Chard,
William Broome, and Andrew Maunsell, 1583). Note the use of the
Royal Arms with the device “ER”—Elizabetha Regina—and the Queen’s
motto “Semper Eadem” (Forever the same) underneath the Tudor rose in
the Incipit ‘A’.
 INTRODUCTION

Late in the year 1553, at the peak of a distinguished academic career,

Peter Martyr Vermigli departed hastily from England en route to Stras-
bourg and Zurich. The great Italian reformer had served for six years
as Regius professor of divinity in the University of Oxford at the per-
sonal invitation of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury. While
at Oxford, Vermigli had participated in a critical disputation on the
Eucharist, assisted Cranmer in the revision of the Book of Common Prayer
(1552), and served on a royal commission for the reform of the canon
law. Following the death of Edward VI, the course of the Reformation
in England was suddenly reversed. During the ensuing persecution of
Protestants under Queen Mary, numerous English scholars soon fol-
lowed Vermigli to Strasbourg and thence to Zurich where they contin-
ued to hear his lectures and to promote with him the cause of reli-
gious reform throughout Europe. Several of these Marian exiles in
Zurich were to become prominent players in the Elizabethan Settle-
ment; among them were no less than six future bishops, a clutch of
Privy Councillors, and some of the leading lights of humanist, classical
scholarship in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Of twenty-
three episcopal appointments made in the period 1559–1562, four-
teen were returned Marian exiles.1 Among Elizabeth’s newly appointed
bishops six had been Bullinger’s guests at Zurich: John Jewel of Salis-
bury, Richard Cox of Ely, John Parkhurst of Norwich, Edwin Sandys of
Worcester, James Pilkington of Durham, Robert Horne of Winchester.
In addition to these, two Edwardine bishops, John Ponet of Winchester
(died 1557) and John Hooper (martyred 1555) of Gloucester, were also
entertained by Bullinger in the Pfaarhaus located in the precincts of the
Großmunster during the latter part of the reign of Henry VIII. Among
the distinguished company of scholars and clerics treated to the famous

1 For an exact analysis of the composition of the Elizabethan bench of bishops, see

Scott Wenig, Straightening the Altars: The Ecclesiastical Vision and Pastoral Achievements of the
Progressive Bishops under Elizabeth I, 1559–1579 (New York: Peter Lang, 2000), 22 ff.
2 introduction

Tigurine hospitality were John Cheke,2 Thomas Smith,3 Richard Mori-

son,4 Thomas Becon,5 Laurence Humphrey,6 Thomas Sampson,7 and
Thomas Lever8 to name just a few of the great and the good who found
their way to Zurich and the company of Bullinger and Vermigli during
the mid-1550s. In the relatively brief period 1553 to 1558, and owing in
large part to the influence of Vermigli, strong links were forged between
these exiles and their Zurich hosts which would have a profound and
lasting influence on the subsequent course of the Reformation in Eng-
land; thus began in earnest the “Zurich Connection.”9
Following the accession of Elizabeth in 1558 and the return home
of the exiles, an extensive correspondence flourished between England
and Zurich which was to last for more than a generation. Although
invited to return to his former situation as Regius professor,10 Ver-
migli remained in Zurich for the final years of his life and continued
to correspond frequently with influential Elizabethan divines, includ-
ing Richard Cox, former Vice-Chancellor of Oxford and bishop of Ely,
John Jewel, newly appointed bishop of Sarum, and Thomas Sampson,

2 Regius Professor of Greek, Cambridge (1540–1551), royal tutor (1544–1549) and

Principal Secretary (1553).

3 Clerk of the Privy Council (1547), Secretary of State (1548–1549, 1572–1577) and

Ambassador to France (1562–1566).

4 Ambassador to Charles V (1550), Gentleman of the Privy Chamber (1539).
5 Poet, school-master, and prolific author.
6 President of Magdalen College, Oxford (1562–1589).
7 Dean of Christ Church, Oxford (1561–1565).
8 Master of St. John’s College, Cambridge (1551–1553).
9 See N.M. Sutherland, “The Marian exiles and the establishment of the Eliza-

bethan regime,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte [ARG] 78 (1987): 253–287; and Andrew
Pettegree, “The Marian exiles and the Elizabethan Settlement,” in his Marian Protes-
tantism: six studies (Aldershot, UK: Scolar, 1996), 129–150. Also, C.H. Garrett, The Marian
Exiles: A Study in the Origins of Elizabethan Puritanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1938; repr. 1966) and Joan Lockwood O’Donovan, Theology of Law and Authority in
the English Reformation (Atlanta, GA: Scolar’s Press, 1991), 91–127.
10 John Jewel to Peter Martyr Vermigli, 28 April 1559, ZL 1: 20. “The Queen both

speaks and thinks most honourably of you: she lately told Lord [Francis] Russell that
she was desirous of inviting you to England, a measure which is urged both by himself
and others, as far as they are able.” See also Sir Antony Cook’s effusive letter to
Vermigli of 12 February 1559, ZL 2: 13. Vermigli was formally invited to return to
his post as Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford in 1561, but excused himself for
reasons of health and his obligations to the Senate of Zurich. See Vermigli’s response
to Earl Russell, Divine Epistles, transl. Anthonie Marten (London: H. Denham, 1583),
fols. 164–165. See also his reply “to a verie honourable Prince in England,” Divine
Epistles, fols. 127–128.
 introduction 3

Dean of Christ Church, Vermigli’s former college.11 In the disputes

which arose as a consequence of the Settlement frequent appeals by
many of the principal figures of the Elizabethan establishment were
made to the judgement of both Vermigli and his host Heinrich Bullin-
ger, Zwingli’s successor as Antistes of Zurich.12 In 1570 Bullinger was
enlisted by Richard Cox to respond to Pius V’s bull Regnans in excelsis
excommunicating Elizabeth and absolving her subjects of their obedi-
ence.13 After Bullinger’s death in 1575 this correspondence continued
with his successor as Antistes, Rudolph Gualter. By the 1570s Vermigli’s
Loci Communes and Bullinger’s Decades had become the two standard
textbooks of theology in the English universities.14 Such was the influ-
ence of the “Zurich Connection” that Zwinglian ideas in general, and
Bullinger’s and Vermigli’s in particular, came to hold greater sway in
England than any other strand of Reformation thought throughout the
remainder of the sixteenth century. Indeed magisterial reformed Protes-
tantism was defined for the Elizabethan Church by these two eminent
Zurich theologians.
The influence of Zurich theology is particularly evident in the theory
underpinning the political institutions of the Elizabethan Settlement,
chief among them the Royal Supremacy, the lynchpin of the constitu-
tion. In his defence of the royal headship of the church in the 1570s
against the attacks of the disciplinarian puritans Thomas Cartwright
and Walter Travers, John Whitgift, then Master of Trinity College,
Cambridge, relied closely on the political writings of Vermigli, Bul-
linger, and two other prominent Zwinglians—Gualter and Wolfgang

11 See The Zurich Letters; or, the correspondence of several English bishops and others, with some

of the Helvetian reformers, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, 1558–1579, First and Second
Series, translated and edited Hastings Robinson (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1842,
1845). Cited hereafter as ZL 1 and ZL 2.
12 Diarmaid MacCulloch, “Bullinger and the English-speaking world,” in Emidio

Campi (ed.), Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575), Leben, Denken, Wirkung (Zurich: Theologische
Verlag, 2007).
13 Letter of Richard Cox to Heinrich Bullinger, ZL 1: 220–221. The bull is printed in

John Jewel, Works, ed. John Ayre for the Parker Society [PS] (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1850), vol. 4: 1131–1132. See David J. Keep, “Bullinger’s Defence of
Queen Elizabeth,” in Ulrich Gäbler und Erland Herkenrath, Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–
1575: gesammelte Aufsätze zum 400. Todestag (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975), 231–241.
14 All of the theological texts prescribed in the curriculum in Elizabethan Oxford

were drawn from continental Reformed authors. See James McConica, ed., The History
of the University of Oxford, vol. 3, ‘The Collegiate University’ (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1986), 327, 388–389. See also Christopher Dent, Protestant Reformers in Elizabethan
Oxford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983).
4 introduction

Musculus of Berne.15 Whitgift’s so-called “Erastian” conception of soci-

ety as a unified “corpus christianum,” where civil and religious authority
were understood to be coextensive, takes its name from the Zwinglian
theologian Thomas Lieber or Lüber, alias “Erastus” of Heidelberg.16
The controversy between Whitgift and promoters of the Genevan mod-
el of reform in England is in many respects a replay of the dispute on
the continent between Erastus and Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor
in Geneva.17 Richard Hooker’s celebrated defence of the Elizabethan
constitution published towards the end of the century is an elabora-
tion of this same Zwinglian-Erastian political theology.18 It is worthy
of note that Hooker’s patron while at Corpus Christi College in the
late 1560s and early ’70s was John Jewel, Vermigli’s disciple and secre-
tary who had earlier followed his master into exile at Zurich; Hooker’s
later patron while writing Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie was Whit-
gift, who became Archbishop of Canterbury during the latter half of
Elizabeth’s reign (1583–1604). This genealogy of influence lies behind a
further contention of the proposal, namely the existence of a continu-
ous and coherent tradition of political theology in England throughout
the latter half of the sixteenth century.

Interpreting the Zurich Connection

Should historians of the English Reformation be interested in the life

and thought of a feisty Swiss republican who for most of his career
hardly ever set foot outside his home canton of Zurich, and who never
came any closer to England than Cologne where he was an under-
graduate? And why throw a spotlight on a Florentine aristocrat who
spent just five years in England and who never mastered the English

15 Works of John Whitgift, DD, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. John Ayre for the Parker

Society, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1851), 3:295–325.

16 J. Wayne Baker, “Erastianism,” in Hans Hillerbrand, ed., Oxford Encyclopedia of

the Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), vol. 2, 59–61. Baker argues
that Zurich provides Erastus with his model for the relation of civil and ecclesiastical
authority. Erastus Evans, Erastianism: the Hulsean prize essay, 1931, in the University of
Cambridge (London: The Epworth Press, 1933), 11–45.
17 Ruth Wesel-Roth, Thomas Erastus: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der reformierten Kirche und

zur Lehre von der Staatssouveränität (Lahr / Baden: M. Schauenburg, 1954).

18 See O’Donovan, Theology of Law and Authority, 151–153. See also W J Torrance

Kirby, Richard Hooker’s doctrine of the Royal Supremacy (Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill,
1990), chap. 4. See also O’Donovan, Theology of Law and Authority, 151–153.
 introduction 5

tongue? It can be plausibly argued that Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli’s

successor as Antistes of the Church of Zurich, and Peter Martyr Ver-
migli, sometime scholar at Padua, Abbot of Spoleto, and Prior of the
Augustinian Canons at Lucca, were no less than chief architects of the
reformation of the Church of England as it came to be formed in the
reign of Edward VI and reached a more settled self-understanding in
the statutes of the Elizabethan religious settlement of 1559. In order
to make such a claim on behalf of Bullinger and Vermigli requires,
nonetheless, a reappraisal of certain primary assumptions governing
the interpretation of the English Reformation. Chief among them is
the long and widely held assumption of the “exceptional” or “peculiar”
character of the England’s experience of the Reformation which, for a
very long time, has constituted an axiom of English Reformation histo-
riography. Yet this assumption obscures the well deserved title of these
two continental figures to pivotal roles in the formation of the protes-
tant religious settlement under Edward VI and its consolidation under
Elizabeth.
Tied to this hermeneutic of English “exceptionalism” is the corollary
notion of the so-called via media of Anglicanism whereby the Reforma-
tion in England is understood to be a sort of half-way house between
Roman Catholicism and Reformed Protestantism. It is commonplace
to view the Church of England in the sixteenth century as the “cru-
cible for an emerging Anglicanism.”19 One scholar recently referred to
“recognition among some contemporaries that the English church rep-
resented a kind of Protestant tertium quid among established European
churches, whose character suggested the possibility of rapprochement
with Roman Catholic as well as fellow Protestant churches.”20 As pre-
eminent defender of the Elizabethan Settlement, Richard Hooker, for
example, is classically held up as a key proponent of this theological
and institutional middle way; and thus his theology is represented as
bearing the mark of a distinctively “Anglican” approach with respect
to both content and method. The other pre-eminent Edwardian and
Elizabethan divines—Thomas Cranmer, Matthew Parker, John Jewel,

19 See Speed Hill, gen. ed., The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker,

Vol. 6, Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie, Books I–VIII, Introductions and Commentary
by John E. Booty, Georges Edelen, Lee W. Gibbs, William P. Haugaard, and Arthur
Stephen McGrade, contributing editors; with the assistance of Egil Grislis (Cambridge:
Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press, Binghamton, New York: Medieval & Renais-
sance Texts & Studies, 1993) [cited hereafter as FLE] 6(1):2.
20 William Haugaard, ‘Introduction to Book I,’ FLE 6(1):6–7.
6 introduction

John Whitgift, et al—are frequently read in a proleptic light as already

at work in constructing this middle way formulated by Hooker with his
magisterial authority. The marks of this peculiarity of English theology
are frequently identified with the embrace of “neo-Thomistic” scholas-
ticism, hyper-rationalism, Erasmian humanism, or better still a mix of
all three. According to the “exceptionalist” model, the construction of
the Anglican middle way is ipso facto a rejection of the doctrinal norms
of the magisterial reformers, and therefore with fog in the Channel, the
continent is very effectively cut off.
In a recent book, Diarmaid MacCulloch encapsulates this com-
monly received interpretation by describing the English Reformation
of the 16th century as a “theological cuckoo in the nest.”21 This charm-
ing simile suggests that the “egg” of Protestant reform is laid in a
“Romish” nest. The “egg” of Reform is the affirmation of a cluster
of key Reformation doctrines, such as one finds, for example, in the
39 Articles of Religion—the authority of Scripture alone (sola scrip-
tura) is sufficient to reveal the way to salvation without the necessary
addition or mediation of ecclesiastical traditions (art. 6); justification by
faith alone (sola fide), that is the putting away of sin without any refer-
ence to the merit of good works (arts. 11–13); salvation by grace alone
(sola gratia) without reference to natural human capacity, or voluntary
obedience to the law; and by Christ alone (solus Christus), i.e. without
the mediation of the saints (art. 15). To continue with the other half
of MacCulloch’s simile, the “nest” adopted by the Protestant cuckoo
consists of the ancient structures of government and worship of the
Church—the hierarchy of bishops, the complex medieval constitutions
of the cathedral and collegiate foundations, the traditional liturgical
forms, the splendour of a sensuous worship, the retention of images,
candlesticks, stained glass, the ancient vestments, etc. etc. Much of the
outward institutional and liturgical forms of the English Church under
Edward and later under Elizabeth render a “pre-Reformation” appear-
ance as compared with some of the more radically iconoclastic expres-
sions of reform on the continent as, e.g., in Zurich or Geneva. This
comparison was duly noted by more radical Protestants in the sixteenth
century—called Puritans, or Separatists, or Disciplinarians, depend-
ing on the specific thrust of their criticism of the Settlement. These
more “radical” reformers came to be identified by later historians as

21 Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Later Reformation in England, 1547–1603, 2nd ed. (New

York: Palgrave Press, 2000), 29.

 introduction 7

representative of a main-stream continental Protestantism whereas, in

actuality, the 16th c. debate from the outset takes on quite a different,
indeed alien aspect. This is where Vermigli and Bullinger become par-
ticularly useful as “touchstones” of Reformed orthodoxy.
Indeed the vexed question of interpreting “what it is to be reformed”
in the context of sixteenth-century England is our chief pretext for
choosing to look more closely at the influence of these continental
divines on the self-understanding of the English Church in that period.
In general, the more one examines the thought and influence of Bullin-
ger and Vermigli as it bears upon the English Reformation, the more
difficult it becomes to sustain the “exceptionalist” claims of modern
historiography. As we shall see, Bullinger and Vermigli are regarded
by their contemporaries in England as leaders and determiners of
theological opinion on many of the crucial questions of the day.
While various aspects of both Bullinger’s and Vermigli’s political
thought and the phenomenon of the “Zurich Connection” have been
addressed by recent scholarship, there has been no thorough critical
exploration of the broader influence of this tradition on the politi-
cal theology underpinning the Elizabethan religious settlement. The
principles of Vermigli’s political theology have been set out by Robert
M. Kingdon in the introduction to his 1980 edition of a selection of the
Florentine’s political writings.22 Marvin Anderson addresses Vermigli’s
treatment of the claim of princes to religious authority in his article
“Royal Idolatry.”23 Diarmaid MacCulloch has dealt with the main his-
torical lines of the links between England and Switzerland during this
period in The Later Reformation in England and in his more recent vol-
ume Reformation: Europe’s House Divided.24 The influence on England of
a covenant theology emanating from Zurich is examined by Wayne
Baker.25 A collection of papers delivered at a conference held in Zurich

22 See the Introduction to Robert M. Kingdon, The Political Thought of Peter Martyr

Vermigli: Selected Texts and Commentary (Geneva: Droz, 1980) and also Kingdon’s “The
political thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli.” In Joseph C. McLelland, ed. Peter Martyr
Vermigli and Italian Reform (Waterloo, ON: Sir Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1980)
121–140.
23 Marvin Anderson, “Royal Idolatry: Peter Martyr and the Reformed Tradition,”

Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 69 (1978): 157–200.

24 Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided, 1490–1700 (London:

Allan Lane, 2003) and The Later Reformation in England, 1547–1603 (New York: Palgrave,
2001).
25 See the appendix to Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: the other Reformed Tradition

(Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1980).

8 introduction

in 1575 contains important essays by Robert Walton and David Keep

which address Bullinger’s relationship with reformers in England.26
Helmut Kressner explores the influence of the Zurich divines on the
thought of John Whitgift and Richard Hooker27 and there is a provoca-
tive discussion of Zwingli’s influence in England and Scotland by Got-
tfried Locher in his monograph study of Zwingli’s thought.28 In a more
recent study, Scott Wenig has examined the policies of the “progres-
sive,” mainly Zurich-trained bishops in the early decades of Elizabeth’s
reign.29 Wenig sees the Royal Supremacy as a roadblock in the way to
realisation in England of a genuinely Reformed church.30 This interpre-
tation highlights a question central to the present study: was the church
constituted by the Settlement of 1559 authentically “Reformed” by an
accepted continental measure? And, more particularly, was the royal
headship consistent with such reform of the Church of England? The
study of Bullinger’s and Vermigli’s contributions to the formulation of
a theology of the Royal Supremacy will provide a significant avenue of
approach in our attempt to answer these critical questions.
Although the subject of early-modern political theology has been
largely neglected by intellectual historians, renewed interest has recent-
ly been shown as evidenced by the publication of Oliver and Joan Lock-
wood O’Donovan’s compendium of sources in Christian political the-
ology From Irenaeus to Grotius.31 As the O’Donovans’ study shows, many

26 David J. Keep, “Bullinger’s Defence of Queen Elizabeth,” in Ulrich Gäbler and

Erland Herkenrath, eds., Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum 400. Todes-
tag im Auftrag des Instituts für Schweizeriche Reformationsgeschichte (Zurich: Theologischer
Verlag, 1975) 231–241, and Robert C. Walton, “Henry Bullinger’s Answer to John
Jewel’s call for help: Bullinger’s exposition of Matth. 16:18–19 (1571),” in Gäbler and
Herkenrath, Heinrich Bullinger, 245–256.
27 Helmut Kressner, Schweizer Ursprünge des anglikanischen Staatskirchentums (Güterloh:

C. Bertelsmann, 1953).
28 Zwingli’s thought: new perspectives (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981).
29 Scott Wenig, Straightening the Altars, 22 ff.
30 Wenig, Straightening the Altars, 9–10. “Among the initial company of Elizabethan

bishops, there was a progressive wing visibly determined to create a truly Reformed
church, independent of the Crown’s wishes … Forced by their own theologically-based
Erastianism to submit to Crown’s will, the bishops’ drive for an authentically Reformed
English church was undermined at the national level.”
31 Oliver O’Donovan and Joan Lockwood O’Donovan, editors, From Irenæus to Gro-

tius: a sourcebook in Christian political thought 100–1625 (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Cambridge:
William B. Eerdmans, 1999). On the question of hermeneutical approaches to texts
of political theology, see also the O’Donovans’ notable collection of essays Bonds of
imperfection: Christian politics, past and present (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Cambridge: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004).
 introduction 9

of the weightiest contributions to the political and constitutional dis-

course of the early-modern period are heavily laden with theological
themes and arguments. The present study seeks a substantive reap-
praisal of Vermigli’s and Bullinger’s contribution to sixteenth-century
political thought in England as much as possible in its own terms and in
its own preferred mode of discourse, namely the theological. Although
much neglected by historians and political theorists after 1600 (and only
recently having become a subject of keen scholarly interest), Vermigli
and Bullinger were both regarded by their contemporaries in Edwar-
dine and Elizabethan England as pre-eminent leaders of international
Reform throughout their careers, while their auctoritas among members
of the Elizabethan establishment was unmatched by other continen-
tal reformers, Calvin included. In the dedication of his 1583 edition of
Vermigli’s Commonplaces to Queen Elizabeth, Anthony Marten—sewer
in the Queen’s chamber—observes as follows: “I cannot but call to
mind with ioie and reuerence, that this our natiue countrie did first
of all kingdoms in the world, faithfullie receiue, and publikelie professe
the religion of Christ. And it reioiseth me much more, that after so
long and so foule a fall of the house of God, this of all other king-
doms did first openlie indeuour to repaire the ruines thereof: a prin-
cipall labourer in which worke was D. Peter Martyr, who long susteined
upon his owne, and almost onlie shoulders the greatest weight of this
burthen …”32
Bullinger’s and Vermigli’s decisive contributions to the formation of
the Elizabethan religious and constitutional settlement have yet to be
given due acknowledgement by modern historiography of the English
Reformation. By demonstrating the depth of Bullinger’s and Vermigli’s
influence, and that of other Zurich divines on English political theol-
ogy during the mid-Tudor period, i.e. from the accession of Edward VI
in 1547 to the period of consolidation of the Elizabethan Settlement
in the early 1570s, our chief endeavour is to open up a fresh perspec-
tive on some of the principal arguments and theories of the religious
authority of the civil magistrate, and to demonstrate that they them-
selves understood the task of articulating the principles and aims of the

32 See The Commonplaces of the most famous and renowmed Diuine doctor Peter Martyr, divided

into foure principall parts, translated and partlie gathered by Anthonie Marten, one of the
Sewers of hir Maiesties most Honourable Chamber (London: H. Denham, 1583) fol.
Aiii verso-Aiv recto; cited hereafter as CP. On Bullinger’s auctoritas see the beginning of
chapter one below.
10 introduction

religious settlement of 1559 as intrinsically theological in scope. The

traditional interpretation of the settlement is that political exigency and
pragmatic compromise rather than any clear embrace of Reformed theo-
logical principle dictated the terms, that this was a merely political set-
tlement of religion but not truly a religious settlement. Such a reading
becomes increasingly difficult to sustain the more closely the writings of
these two pre-eminent theorists of the Settlement are addressed. Patrick
Collinson observed that “the accession of the Protestant Elizabeth at
once revived deeply rooted notions of the Church as a great public
corporation, one with the commonwealth and presided over by royal
governors.”33 Was this “Constantinianism” or Erastian impulse recon-
cilable with the Church of England’s claim to adhere to the essential
tenets of Reformed Protestant orthodoxy? Were the doctrine and the
institutions established in the Settlement of 1559 at some fundamen-
tal level in mutual contradiction? Was the Settlement tantamount to a
“theological cuckoo in the nest”, that is to say, an embrace of evangeli-
cal teaching within a conservative institutional setting at heart inconsis-
tent with the first principles proclaimed?34 This was certainly the view
taken by the Puritan critics of the Settlement. It is proposed here that
an examination of the responses of Peter Martyr Vermigli and Heinrich
Bullinger to this nagging question will contribute towards a clarification
of the theological self-understanding of Elizabethan Protestantism. For
Vermigli and Bullinger stood in the unique position of being acknowl-
edged as arbiters of Reformed orthodoxy in their day by both the archi-
tects of the 1559 Settlement and by some of the Settlement’s most vocif-
erous critics.
The aim of our interpretation of the primary texts included in this
volume is to explore in depth the alien mentalité of sixteenth-century
politico-religious discourse and to seek to avoid as far as possible the
anachronism of imposing the categories of Enlightenment or post-
Enlightenment methodological presuppositions on this early modern
mode of discourse. It is not our intent to summon these early-modern
authors to the bar of some supposedly higher standard of critical judge-
ment, and to insist that they give their reasons for their arguments
and judgements in terms and categories acceptable to a late- or post-
modern sensibility. The governing intent of this study is to explore these

33 Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement (London: Cape Press, 1967), 24.
34 Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Later Reformation in England, 1547–1603, 2nd ed. (New
York: Palgrave Press, 2000), 29.
 introduction 11

examples of mid-sixteenth-century political theology as much as pos-

sible within the context of their own preferred theological grammar,
and the success or failure of the undertaking must rest squarely on this
methodological approach of a conscious and deliberate sympathy. The
suspension of interfering modern critical assumptions and presupposi-
tions will by no means be an easy task. Our aim, therefore, is to read
and interpret a selection of primary texts of Bullinger’s and Vermigli’s
political theology with a view to disclosing so far as possible their own
deep presuppositions and distinctive modes of argument, on their own
terms and critical criteria, and thus with the highest degree of respect
for their alien character. Consequently we will be faced with such ques-
tions as “what force do scriptural, Trinitarian, Christological, soterio-
logical, and ecclesiological considerations bring to bear on the determi-
nation of intrinsically political and constitutional questions?” Undoubt-
edly for Vermigli, Bullinger and the others, the force of such consider-
ations was considerable, indeed altogether decisive. Writing an account
of such an early-modern political theology encounters the determined
tendency of several centuries of critical presuppositions which predis-
pose us to separate the subject matters of theological and political dis-
course from the very outset. Any such impulse must be resisted if there
is to be any hope of penetrating the alien mentalité which confronts the
reader of these writings. The present study will thus seek to establish a
new footing for interpretation by means of a close and sympathetic a
reading of these sixteenth-century texts. It is chiefly on account of this
methodological approach that a selection of the principal primary texts
has been appended to the five thematic interpretative essays. One very
important element of the undertaking is to invite the reader to enter
into this strange world of “theologico-political” discourse.
Another central aim of focussing on Bullinger and Vermigli, the two
preeminent figures of the ‘Schola Tigurina’ during the middle years of
the sixteenth century, is to highlight the decisive importance of con-
tinental influence—both politically and theologically—on the formu-
lation, enactment, and consolidation of the Elizabethan religious set-
tlement, an influence which has yet to receive due recognition in the
historiography of the English Reformation. In order to address the
highly distinctive quality of their discourse and mentalité, and to pur-
sue these methodological goals, this volume will alternate original texts
and interpretation in more or less equal measure. It is hoped that
the encounter with these texts—all of them originally composed in
Latin, the accepted lingua franca of sixteenth-century scholarship, and
12 introduction

reproduced here in sixteenth-century English translations with all their

peculiarities of spelling, grammar, and diction—will provide the reader
with a good opportunity to address both formally and substantively the
strangeness of the theologico-political discourse of this decisive early
phase of England’s modernity.

From Florence to Zurich via Oxford: Vermigli’s international career

While Heinrich Bullinger is thoroughly well-known and a much stud-

ied Reformation figure, considerably less attention has been paid to
his onetime colleague, Peter Martyr. According to his contemporary
and biographer, Josiah Simler, Peter Martyr Vermigli “was no vulgar
Diuine or of the common number of learned men, but he was of
so great wit, of so excellent learning, and therewithall of such god-
linesse, modestie, and courteous behauiour, that both he was accept-
able, beloued and reuerenced among them with whom he liued, and
was euen of the aduersaries also reckoned among the excellent men,
and was had of them in great admiration.”35 Vermigli was born in
1499 into the senatorial aristocracy of Florence and was named for
Saint Peter Martyr of Verona who, according to legend, was killed by
Manichean heretics for his defence of the orthodox faith in 1252.36 His
school chums were young Florentines bearing such names of the nobil-
ity as de Medici, Ricci, and Stuphas. At the age of 16 he was sent a
short distance up the hill from his home in Florence to the Augus-
tinian canons of Fiesole where he read litterae humaniores. From thence
he went to the University of Padua where, for eight years, he was
immersed in liberal studies, and chiefly Aristotle. Here he must have
acquired his thorough grasp of Aristotelian method and logic which
was to become the acknowledged hallmark of his mature writing. By
the age of 26 he had mastered Greek and offered lectures on Homer.
Around 1525 he was appointed Deputy Prior of his order in Bologna
and, being required to preach on the scriptures of both Testaments,
he applied himself to the study of Hebrew with the aid of a private

35 Josiah Simler, An Oration of the life and death of that worthie man and excellent Divuine

d. Peter Martyr Vermillius, professor of Diuinitie in the Schoole of Zuricke, in Another Collection
of certeine Diuine matters and doctrines of the same M.D. Peter Martyr, translated and partlie
gathered by Anthonie Marten (London: John Day, 1583), Pp. ij recto. See also the
excellent biography of Vermigli by Mark Taplin in ODNB (2004).
36 Born at Verona, 1206; died near Milan, 6 April, 1252.
 introduction 13

tutor, a Jewish physician known to us only by the name of Isaac. This

was a decisive event, for Vermigli—like both Luther and Calvin—came
to devote the bulk of his scholarly energy to commentary on the Old
Testament. Moving swiftly up the ladder of preferment, he went on to
become Abbot of Spoleto for three years, and then Prior of the Col-
lege of S. Pietro ad Aram in Naples where he met the great Spanish
mystic Juan de Valdes, leader of the spiritual reform movement known
as the “alumbrados” or “spirituali”.37 Here Vermigli first met Bernardino
Ochino who was to become his close associate in both his migra-
tion to Protestantism and his eventual flight from Italy. In the com-
pany of the spirituali Vermigli was introduced to the writings of Mar-
tin Bucer and Huldrych Zwingli. Building upon this new theological
bearing he offered lectures debunking the traditional doctrine of Pur-
gatory.
On the path of his preferment he had already acquired numerous
powerful friends in Rome: Ercole Cardinal Gonzaga, Bishop of Man-
tua, Gasparo Cardinal Contarini, Peter Bembo, Secretary to Leo X,
and Henry VIII’s cousin Reginald Pole who went on to become Cardi-
nal and Archbishop of Canterbury under Queen Mary and Vermigli’s
nemesis. Meanwhile Vermigli was promoted General Visitor of the
entire Order of Augustinian Canons, elevated to the Priory and bish-
opric of San Frediano in Lucca, and was by now clearly marked as
on the path to becoming a prince of the Church. At Lucca he set up
a trilingual College (Hebrew, Greek, and Latin) based upon the Eras-
mian principles of Christian humanist education which had recently
inspired the foundations of St John’s College, Cambridge and Corpus
Christi College, Oxford. While at Lucca Vermigli entertained both the
Emperor Charles V and Pope Paul III; he conferred daily with Con-
tarini on matters theological, and had even begun to persuade this
powerful Cardinal of the validity of Martin Luther’s objections to the
Church’s teaching on purgatory, indulgences, and the doctrine of grace
in general. At Rome, theological disputation had reached a crisis in
1542, the year in which the Inquisition was established, and decisive
moves were made to call a General Council of the Church. Accusa-
tions of heresy were levelled directly against Vermigli. As his protector
Cardinal Contarini lay dying in Rome, Vermigli’s situation had become

37 See Philip McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy: an anatomy of apostasy (Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1967). José de Nieto, Juan de Valdés and the origins of the Spanish and Italian reformation
(Genève: Droz, 1970).
14 introduction

so untenable that he fled to Zurich. Eighteen of his former students at

Lucca followed him, and he thus contributed to the establishment of an
enduring community of Italian Protestants in exile, which included such
distinguished reformers as Ochino, Emmanuel Tremellius, and Jerome
Zanchius.38 Heinrich Bullinger received Martyr warmly on his arrival
in Zurich, but there was no post for him then in the Schola Tigurina.
Shortly thereafter Martin Bucer invited him to become professor of
Hebrew at Strasbourg, and it was here that his reputation as a biblical
commentator was well and truly launched. At Strasbourg he outshone
even his distinguished host with his “exact method” and his “pure and
plain stile.” Vermigli had the ability much admired in the Renaissance
to instruct and to delight in equal measure: “he pleased the mindes of
his hearers, no onely for the grauitie of the things themselues, but also
for the sweetnesse and elegancie of his stile: And moreouer euen in
the lectures themselues he with a singular grauitie sometime exhorted
to godly life, sometime by a sharp rebuking he stirred vp to repen-
tance, so that his lectures, being as it were sauced with all these thinges,
and shewing an excellent doctrine and eloquence, ioyned with singular
pietie, procured him great glorie in the iudgement of all men.”39
Following Bucer’s and Luther’s example, Vermigli took the position
that marriage was an honourable estate for a clerk, and proceeded to
marry Katherine Dampmartin. Since he spoke no German and she
very little Italian, we are left to conjecture that domestic conversation
was conducted in Latin. After five years as professor at Strasbourg,
Vermigli’s reputation as a leader of Protestant Reform had grown to
such an extent that both he and his host Bucer were jointly invited by
King Edward VI through the offices of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer
to take up senior positions at Oxford and Cambridge respectively. Both
were appointed to the prestigious Regius chairs in Divinity.
Once installed at Oxford Vermigli began to lecture on Paul’s first
epistle to the Corinthians and very swiftly became embroiled in a bitter
dispute over the doctrine of the Eucharist.40 His initial opponent was
the conservative Richard Smith, who had just been sacked from the
Regius chair to make way for Vermigli. Smith, however, fled to Lou-

38 Mark Taplin, The Italian reformers and the Zurich church, c. 1540–1620 (Burlington, VT:

Ashgate, 2003).
39 Simler, Oration, Pp vj verso. Horace, Ars poetica, v. 333, “prodesse et delectare.”
40 Jennifer Loach, “Reformation Controversies,” in The History of the University of

Oxford, vol. 3, The Collegiate University, ed. James McConica (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1986), 368–375.
 introduction 15

vain to join other Catholics in exile before the disputation was fully
underway.41 The ensuing formal debate became an event of national
significance. Richard Cox, Chancellor of Oxford, presided along with
Henry Holbeach, bishop of Lincoln, and the great humanist scholar
and Gentleman of the Privy Chamber, Sir Richard Morison. (Later,
during the Marian exile, both Cox and Morison would visit Vermigli
in Zurich as guests in the house of Heinrich Bullinger. Such were the
vagaries of fortune in the mid-sixteenth century.) In this debate Ver-
migli formulated what came to be recognized as both his single most
significant contribution to Reformation thought and also, though less
well known, his lasting theological influence upon the liturgy of the Book
of Common Prayer.42 Vermigli’s account of the doctrine of the eucharist
was praised by John Calvin as the clearest, best formulated orthodox
statement of the Reformed position. Known technically as “instrumen-
tal realism,” this doctrine seeks to reconcile the conflicting positions of
Zwingli’s anti-realist Sacramentarian memorialism and Luther’s hyper-
realist consubstantiation, the conflict which caused the deep and lasting
rift between the two main Protestant camps, i.e. the Lutherans and the
Reformed. Vermigli’s eucharistic position is set out in his Tractatio de
sacramento Eucharistiæ published in 1549.43 This formulation became the
touchstone of the great liturgical revision which resulted in the second
Prayer Book of Edward VI of 1552. Of special significance for the mea-
sure of Vermigli’s influence on the English Church is the fact that the
1552 Prayer Book sets the standard for all subsequent authorised revi-
sions of the liturgy, including the two most important revisions of the
Elizabethan Settlement (1559) and the Restoration Settlement (1662).

41 Andreas Loewe, Richard Smyth and the language of orthodoxy: re-imagining Tudor Catholic

polemicism (Leiden; Boston: E.J. Brill, 2003).

42 For a discussion of Vermigli’s influence on Cranmer’s revision of the Prayer-Book

liturgy, see McLelland’s “The Second Book of Common Prayer,” in The Visible Words
of God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of Peter Martyr Vermigli, Edinburgh 1957,
28–40.
43 Tractatio de sacramento Eucharistiæ (London: R. Wolfe, 1549). See also A discourse or

traictise of Petur Martyr Vermilla Flore[n]tine, the publyque reader of diuinitee in the Vniuersitee of
Oxford: wherein he openly declared his whole and determinate iudgemente concernynge the sacrament
of the Lordes supper in the sayde Vniuersitee (London: Robert Stoughton at the signe of the
Bysshoppes Miter, 1550). For annotated modern English translation of the Tractatio, see
Peter Martyr Vermigli, The Oxford Treatise and Disputation on the Eucharist 1549, transl. and
ed. Joseph C. McLelland, PML vol. 7 (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press,
2000).
16 introduction

Shortly after the Oxford Disputation on the Eucharist, there was

an uprising of the Commons in Devonshire and Cornwall focussed on
resistance to the recent imposition of the vernacular liturgy at Pente-
cost in 1549.44 Although the object of this conservative popular protest
was the liturgy of the First Edwardine Prayer Book, of which both
Vermigli and Bucer were critical as being insufficiently Reformed in
its theological assumptions, Simler relates that Vermgli was nonethe-
less singled out by the rebels as among those responsible for the 1549
book and was the subject of death threats.45 During the Western Rising,
sometimes referred to as the “Prayer Book Rebellion”, Vermigli was
forced to remove himself from Oxford. He was conducted safely by his
friends to London, was received en route by the King at Richmond,
and resided for a time with Cranmer at Lambeth. On his return to
Oxford, Vermigli was formally installed as a Canon of Christ Church
and created a Doctor of Divinity of the University. In July of 1549, at
the height of the Prayer-Book Rebellion, Vermigli composed “A Ser-
mon concernynge the tyme of rebellion” in which he addressed the
grievances of the rebels, and offered a measured defence of the govern-
ment’s proceeding against the insurrection.46 Both the autograph Latin
text and the contemporary English translation of this sermon of Peter
Martyr’s is in the Matthew Parker collection of MSS at Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge.47 The evidence points strongly to this sermon hav-
ing been preached by Thomas Cranmer at St. Paul’s Cathedral on a
solemn public occasion at the height of the insurrection in July 1549.48
During this unsettled period Vermigli was appointed by the King
to a committee charged with the revision of the Canon Law of Eng-
land. Initially the committee consisted of 24 members, but it was later
reduced to a working group of just four members, which included
Cranmer, Vermigli, Walter Haddon, then Regius Professor of Civil Law
at Cambridge, and Rowland Taylor, Chancellor to Bishop Nicholas
Ridley and, according to John Foxe, one of the first of the Marian

44 For a succinct description of the 1549 rebellion, see Anthony Fletcher and Diar-

maid MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions (Harlow: Longmans, 2004). See also Francis Rose-
Troup, The Western Rebellion of 1549: an account of the insurrections in Devonshire and Cornwall
against religious innovations in the reign of Edward VI (London: Smith, Elder, 1913).
45 See Simler, Oration, Qq ij, verso.
46 CCCC MS 102, no. 29.
47 “Sermo Petri Martir manu propria scripta in seditionem Devonensium,” CCCC

MS 340, no. 4.
48 See chapter 3 below.
 introduction 17

martyrs, probably owing to his open support of Lady Jane Grey.49 Ver-
migli contributed extensive emendations to the 1552 text of the Refor-
matio legum ecclesiasticarum, a thorough reformation of the Canon Law
which was brought to completion just prior to the death of Edward VI;
although printed in 1571 by John Foxe, it was abandoned after the
accession of Elizabeth.50 At the death of Edward, Vermigli was in an
awkward position. Both Cranmer and Taylor were soon to be exe-
cuted, and there were certainly many old adversaries at Oxford who
would doubtless have been happy to see the Florentine consigned to
the flames as well. Before receiving permission to depart the realm,
Vermigli courageously consented to join Cranmer and other Protes-
tant divines in a public disputation with representatives of the new
Catholic establishment in defence of “doctrine and order of religion
appointed” by Edward VI.51 Cranmer, however, was imprisoned and
nothing came of the proposed disputation. Vermigli was allowed a pass-
port, and departed for Strasbourg where he was reinstalled in his for-
mer chair.52 Concerning his safe conduct Simler observes, “his friendes
scarcelie beleeued, that although he had received the Queens Letters,
that he could depart away safe. For his aduersaries said, that so great
an enemie of the Popes Religion should not be suffered to scape out of
their hands, but should be plucked euen out of the ship to prison and
punishment.”53 At Strasbourg Vermigli wrote his most important work
of political theology in the form of a Commentary on the book of Judges,54

49 James C. Spalding, ed., Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum: The Reformation of the Eccle-

siastical Laws of England, 1552, Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, Vol. 19 (Kirksville,
Mo: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1992). Spalding’s text includes Vermigli’s
emendations to text of the Reformatio Legum.
50 Gerald Bray, ed., Tudor church reform: the Henrician Canons of 1535 and the Reformatio

Legum Ecclesiasticarum, (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2000). According to Bray, John

Foxe’s text was based on a lost final version of the Reformatio of 1552 so that it represents
the conclusions of Cranmer, Vermigli and their colleagues rather than a later revision
supposedly supervised by Matthew Parker.
51 Simler, Oration, Qq iij recto.
52 For Vermigli’s description of his flight from England after the death of Edward VI,

see his letter to Heinrich Bullinger dated 3 November 1553 at Strasbourg, LLS 126;
Epistolæ Tigurinæ, 332.
53 Oration, Qq.iij. recto.
54 The commentary on Judges was first published in a Latin edition at Zurich under

the title In librum Iudicum D. Petri Martyris Vermilij Florentini … commentarij doctissimi (Zurich:
Christopher Froschauer, 1561) and three years later in English translation by John Day,
Most fruitfull [and] learned co[m]mentaries of Doctor Peter Martir Vermil Florentine, professor of
deuinitie, in the Vniuersitye of Tygure: with a very profitable tract of the matter and places (London:
John Day, 1564).
18 introduction

and began a Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics which was pub-

lished only last year (2006) for the first time in English translation.55 He
also wrote a lengthy reply on Cranmer’s behalf to Stephen Gardiner’s
attack on the Archbishop’s Treatise on the Lord’s Supper.56 This alone is
indicative of Cranmer’s great trust in Vermigli’s theological judgement.
After a short second stint at Strasbourg, Vermigli became embroiled
in further eucharistic controversy between the Lutheran establishment
and the minority of those who adhered to his own Reformed posi-
tion. Owing, however, to the recent death of Conrad Pellikan, bibli-
cal scholar and exegete of the Schola Tigurina, Vermigli finally realised
his homecoming by being appointed to succeed in Pellikan’s place as
Professor of Hebrew in 1556.
Vermigli was soon followed to the continent by his disciple and
amanuensis, John Jewel. At the accession of Mary, Jewel was charged
not only with having preached heretical doctrine, but also with having
been a diligent hearer of Vermigli’s lectures and of refusing to attend
mass. He was expelled from Corpus Christi College, and after serving
as notary to Cranmer and Ridley during their public disputation in
1554, fled to Frankfurt where he joined Richard Cox, the exiled Dean of
Christ Church, Vermigli’s former College, and thence to Strasbourg at
Vermigli’s invitation. Jewel assisted Vermigli as his secretary, and both
he and Cox eventually accompanied Vermigli to Zurich.
Vermigli’s great stature as a reformer is indicated by some of the
events in the final years of his career at Zurich before his death in
1562. While Professor of Hebrew he was invited by Calvin to take
up an appointment at the Geneva Academy, and after the death of
Mary was invited most cordially by Elizabeth to return to his Regius
Chair at Oxford. In April of 1559 John Jewel, lately appointed Bishop
of Salisbury, had written to Vermigli in Zurich to convey that “The
Queen both speaks and thinks most honourably of you: she lately
told Lord [Francis] Russell that she was desirous of inviting you to
England, a measure which is urged both by himself and others, as

55 In Primum, Secundum, et Initium Tertii Libri Ethicorum Aristotelii ad Nichomachum (Zurich:

C. Froschauer, 1563). See also the modern annotated English translation Commentary
on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, PML vol. 9, ed. Joseph McLelland and Emidio Campi
(Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2006).
56 Vermigli, Defensio doctrinæ ueteris et apostolicæ de sacro sancto Eucharistiæ sacramento …

In quatuor distincta partes aduersus Stephani Gardineri … librum … sub titulo … Confutatio
cavillationum (Zurich: Froschauer, 1559).
 introduction 19

far as they are able.”57 Vermigli was not formally invited to return to
his post as Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford until 1561, when
he excused himself for reasons of health and his obligations to the
Senate of Zurich. In a letter to the Earl of Bedford responding to the
invitation he replied “Truelie if I might haue mine owne will I woulde
no lesse serue the church of Englande than before time I haue doone:
howbeit neither mine age nor the strength of my body wil any longer
indure the same, being not able to indure a viage so long, so diuers
and not altogether easie … it seemeth better for me that I remaine
where I am [i.e. in Zurich].”58 At the news of Elizabeth’s accession
Vermigli penned an effusive panegyric to the young Queen containing
both fulsome praise and some fairly pointed advice.59 In an almost
hyperbolic invocation of the Song of Zechariah from the Gospel of Luke,
Vermigli evokes a striking comparison of Elizabeth’s accession to the
scriptural trope of redemptive kingship. By means of an appeal to a host
of Old-Testament and early-Church examples of kingship he goes on to
advise Elizabeth on her duty of religious reform in England. Vermigli
extends the metaphor of anointed kingship to the point of identifying
England as an “elect nation,” a conceit which was destined to become
a commonplace of Reformation historiography. As God’s anointed it is
Elizabeth’s divinely appointed task to “redeem” the nation through the
restoration and establishment of her “godly rule.”
With respect to Vermigli’s international stature perhaps most telling
of all is his appointment by the Senate of Zurich as principal repre-
sentative of the Church of Zurich, along side Theodore Beza, Calvin’s
successor at Geneva, at the Colloquy of Poissy convoked by Cather-

57 Jewel to Vermigli, 28 April 1559, ZL 1: 20.

58 See also Sir Antony Cook’s effusive letter to Vermigli of 12 February 1559, ZL
2: 13. See “Letter to the Right honourable the Duke [sic] of Bedford,” Divine Epistles,
transl. Anthonie Marten (London: H. Denham, 1583), fols. 164–165: See also his reply
“to a verie honourable Prince in England,” Divine Epistles, fols. 127–128: “it standeth
thus with mee, that I am appointed to the citie and Church of Tigure, and therefore I
am not at my owne libertie.”
59 Peter Martyr Vermigli, “To the Most Renowned Princess Elizabeth, by the grace

of God Queene of England, France and Ireland,” published in Martyr’s Divine Epistles,
an appendix to the English edition of Common Places, transl. Anthony Marten (London:
Henry Denham and Henry Middleton, 1583), part V, 58–61. For the original Latin
version of the letter, see Martyris Epistolæ Theologicæ, appended to Loci communes, ed.
Robert Masson (London: Thomas Vautrollerius, 1583), 1121–1124; first edition (London:
John Kingston, 1576). For an excellent modern English translation, see Peter Martyr
Vermigli, Life, Letters, and Sermons, vol. 5 of the Peter Martyr Library, translated and edited
by John Patrick Donnelly (Kirksville, MO: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1999).
20 introduction

ine de Medici, mother of King Charles IX and regent of France.

Attended by Charles of Guise, Cardinal of Lorraine leading a contin-
gent of several dozen Cardinals and bishops representing the French
Church, the conference was a desperate bid to bring about recon-
ciliation between Catholic and Protestant factions; but it foundered
on the critical question of the manner of the “real presence” in the
Eucharist.60 Vermigli was able to address the Queen as a fellow Floren-
tine, and she is recorded as having asked him frequently and cordially
what counsel he could give for bringing about a peaceful resolution to
the religious differences which were soon to engulf France in a bloody
conflict that would last into the next century. Here we see Vermigli
as an international religious leader, courted by and giving advice to
princes. In the key disputation of the Colloquy, once again concerning
the Eucharist, Vermigli took the lead among the Protestant represen-
tatives. After the failure of Poissy, Vermigli returned to Zurich where,
within a few months, he died. His portrait, painted by Hans Asper as
one of a series of the leading figures of the Schola Tigurina, now hangs in
the National Portrait Gallery in London.61
Throughout the Elizabethan era Vermigli’s influence can only be
said to have grown exponentially. Several of his biblical commentaries
were translated from Latin into English and published by John Day,
the Queen’s Printer. The title pages are festooned with royal iconog-
raphy—lions and unicorns, dragons and phoenixes, Tudor roses and
crowns, and always the knotted letters ER—all give evidence of Estab-
lishment approval.62 The scholia from these commentaries were col-
lected and published in a four-volume folio edition by John Kingston
in 1576, and later in English translation, under the title of The Common-
places of Peter Martyr by Henry Denham.63 The Commonplaces were organ-

60 Donald Nugent, Ecumenism in the age of the Reformation: the Colloquy of Poissy (Cam-

bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974).

61 Roy Strong, Tudor and Jacobean Portraits (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office,

1969), NPG 195 (Pl. 635), 319, 320. See Appendix 1 below.
62 See, e.g., the title pages of his ‘Commentary on the Book of Judges’, Most fruitfull

[and] learned co[m]mentaries of Doctor Peter Martir Vermil Florentine, professor of deuinitie, in
the Vniuersitye of Tygure: (London: Iohn Day, 1564); and of the Most learned and fruitfull
commentaries of D. Peter Martir Vermilius Florentine, professor of diuinitie in the schole of Tigure,
vpon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes (London: Iohn Daye, cum gratia & priuilegio
Regiæ Maiestatis per decennium, 1568).
63 Loci communes: Ex variis ipsius aucthoris & libris in unum volumen collecti, & quatour

classes distribute, ed. Robert Masson, 3 vols. (London: John Kingston, 1576) and The
Commonplaces of the most famous and renowmed Diuine doctor Peter Martyr, divided into foure
 introduction 21

ised into four parts corresponding to the principal divisions of Calvin’s

Institution of the Christian Religion (1559). Over the next fifty years the com-
mentaries and the Commonplaces went through multiple editions in
both Latin and English and the latter, together with Bullinger’s equally
famous Sermonum Decades, became a standard theological textbook in
both universities. Vermigli’s theology was arguably more influential in
both Oxford and Cambridge than Calvin’s prior to the 1590s. Cer-
tainly in the major disputes in the earlier part of Elizabeth’s reign—in
the Vestiarian Controversy of the mid-1560s and the Admonition Con-
troversy of the 1570s—Vermigli’s authority was constantly invoked.

Summary of chapters

Each of the five chapters following takes up one of the central themes
of Tudor political theology as addressed by either Heinrich Bullinger
or Peter Martyr Vermigli, and in one case, namely the Vestiarian con-
troversy treated in chapter five, by them both. Each theme is accom-
panied by a relevant, annotated text. The first chapter looks at the
office of the Civil Magistrate from the angle of the so-called “cura
religionis”, the care or charge of religion. With the promulgation of
the Act of Supremacy in 1534 Henry VIII assumed the title of head-
ship of the Church of England.64 The royal assumption of supreme
ecclesiastical jurisdiction necessitated a new definition of the relation-
ship between ministers of the Church and the magistrate. According
to Heinrich Bullinger, the relationship between the Church of Zurich
and the City Council hinged upon what he termed the “prophet-
icall office” of the church’s ministers. The aim of the first chapter
is to investigate the peculiarly political, even constitutional empha-
sis of Bullinger’s “prophetical office” with respect to England, and to
explore the close ecclesiological and constitutional similarities linking
mid-sixteenth-century Zurich and England. Bullinger’s extensive writ-
ing on the relationship between magisterial and ministerial functions
received considerable attention in England with the publication of his
influential Sermonum decades.65

principall parts, translated and partlie gathered by Anthonie Marten, one of the Sewers
of hir Maiesties most Honourable Chamber (London: H. Denham, 1583).
64 26 Henry VIII, cap. 1.
65 Sermonum decades quinque, de potissimis Christianæ religionis capitibus, in tres tomas diges-
22 introduction

The second chapter seeks to unfold further the theme of the mag-
istrate’s exercise of ecclesiastical power introduced in the first. Peter
Martyr Vermigli constructs a sophisticated theological analysis of the
‘hypostatic’ union of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the person
of the godly Prince. Vermigli’s method is noticably more scholastic
and complex than Bullinger’s. The Florentine displays in particular a
remarkable grasp of the medieval canon law, and proceeds to engage
polemically the political theology of the late thirteenth-century canon
lawyers pope Boniface VIII and Giles of Rome. The text accompany-
ing this essay is Vermigli’s scholium ‘De Magistratu’ initially published in
his Commentary on the Book of Judges, and later republished in the fourth
part of his Loci Communes.66
Vermigli’s career in England was remarkable for the depth of his
involvement in public affairs virtually from the moment of his arrival
late in 1547. Shortly after his arrival at Oxford he delivered lectures
on Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. His interpretation of Pauline
Eucharistic teaching caused a considerable stir, and drew him into
a vortex of theological controversy. This debate coincided with the
promulgation in 1549 of the new vernacular liturgy of the Book of
Common Prayer. Popular resistance in parts of England to the new liturgy
and to evangelical teaching in general launched a rebellion of almost
unprecedented ferocity that same year. Vermigli fled Oxford for a
period at the height of the insurrection and resided with Thomas
Cranmer at Lambeth Palace where he wrote an important discourse
analysing the causes and most likely remedies for the violent sedition
then racking the kingdom.67 The piece was subsequently translated
into English and was preached by Cranmer at St Paul’s Cathedral
on 21 July 1549 at the height of the rebellion. Aside from providing
a unique window for viewing Vermigli in his special role as theological
mentor to the English Archbishop, the sermon constructs what might
be described as a “political theodicy” of the rebellion.
The fourth essay examines Vermigli’s panegyric to Elizabeth I on the
news of her accession to the throne in November 1558.68 Having fled

tae, authore Henrycho Bullingero ecclesiae Tigurinae ministro (Zurich: Christopher Froschauer,
1552).
66 The scholium appears at the conclusion of Vermigli’s commentary on the Book of

Judges, chapter 19, IUD, fols. 255 rº–267 rº, and CP fols. 245–270.
67 CCCC MS 340, 4, fols. 73–95.
68 Martyris Epistolæ Theologicæ, ed. Robert Masson (London: Thomas Vautrollerius,

1583), fols. 1121–1124.

 introduction 23

England after the death of Edward VI and by this time settled into his
post as Professor in the Schola Tigurina, Vermigli composed an effusively
royalist tribute to the young Queen. The jubilant tone of the address
borders on the ecstatic, and Elizabeth’s role as monarch is portrayed as
quasi-messianic. It is no doubt remarkable that such praise could issue
from the pen of a Florentine dwelling in a Swiss republic. Nonethe-
less, the epistle encapsulates some important connections between the
doctrines of Providence and sacral kingship.
In the last chapter the question of religious uniformity and the
authority of the magistrate is addressed in terms of Vermigli’s and
Bullinger’s decisive contributions to the Vestiarian Controversy during
the years immediately following the Elizabethan religious settlement.
Both Zurichers were held in extremely high regard both by the Eliza-
bethan bench of bishops, many of whom had been guests in Bullinger’s
house in the period of the Marian exile, and by the non-conforming
opposition, some of whom had also visited Zurich in the previous
decade. Consequently letters written by Vermigli and Bullinger on the
subject of the magistrate’s authority in matters concerning the out-
wards forms of worship and ecclesiastical attire carried weighty author-
ity among their English brethren. The text attached to this chapter
is Heinrich Bullinger’s letter to Bishops Robert Horne of Winchester,
Edmund Grindal of London, and John Parkhurst of Norwich.69 Bullin-
ger’s and Vermigli’s common staunch defence of vestiarian conformity
is grounded in a coherent ecclesiology and theology of the authority of
the magistrate shared to a remarkable extent by the Churches of Eng-
land and Zurich. From this perspective the Church of England under
Elizabeth can be seen as a flowering of the “other Reformed tradi-
tion”.70
Finally, there is an account of the iconography associated with Peter
Martyr Vemigli in an appendix. Hans Asper’s portrait of Vermigli,
painted at Zurich as one of a series of portraits of the divines of the
Schola Tigurina, now hangs in the National Portrait Gallery in London.
In addition, an appendix to chapter three reproduces with annotations

69 Whether it be mortall sinne to transgresse civil lawes which be the commaundementes of civill

magistrates. The judgement of Philip Melancton in his Epitome of morall Philosophie. The resolution of
D. Henry Bullinger, and D. Rod[olph] Gualter, of D. Martin Bucer, and D. Peter Martyr, concerning
thapparel of Ministers, and other indifferent things (London: Richard Jugge, Printer to the
Queenes Maiestie, 1566).
70 Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: the other Reformed Tradition (Athens,

OH: Ohio University Press, 1980).

24 introduction

a consolatory letter written by Vermigli to Edward Seymour, Duke of

Somerset, in 1550 after the latter’s fall from power. While there is evi-
dence to suggest that Vermigli had a cordial relationship with the Lord
Protector, his “Sermon concernynge the tyme of Rebellion” nonethe-
less contains some rather sharp, though veiled criticism of Somerset’s
policy of clemency towards the rebels.
 chapter one

‘CURA RELIGIONIS’: THE PROPHETICAL

OFFICE AND THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE

John Jewel, Bishop of Sarum, once referred to Heinrich Bullinger as the

“oracle of the churches.”1 While Jewel’s remark conveys a pithy assess-
ment of the Zuricher’s pre-eminent role on the stage of international
Reform, it is particularly applicable to the case of England. Through-
out his lengthy career as Antistes of the Church of Zurich (1531–1575),
Bullinger exercised a unique influence on the Church of England both
as theologian and, on a practical level, as counsellor to both princes
and bishops. Given the scope of this influence and its remarkable con-
sistency over a considerable period of time (almost forty years), it is
now almost commonplace to include Bullinger among the first rank of
reformers of the English Church, although this is by no means univer-
sally accepted.2 Indeed it is even arguable that no other divine exercised
a comparable degree of continuous influence over all of the principal
stages of the English Reformation—from the Henrician and Edwar-
dine reforms, through the crucible of the Marian exile, to the eventual
implementation and consolidation of the Elizabethan religious settle-
ment. At every stage Bullinger was engaged as a significant player, and
in later years was frequently appealed to as an arbiter of internal dis-
putes and even as a public apologist of the Church of England on the

1 John Jewel styled Bullinger “oraculum ecclesiarum.” See Zurich Letters, ed. Hastings

Robinson for the Parker Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1842), first
series [ZL 1], 156. Theodore Beza spoke of Bullinger as “the common shepherd of all
Christian churches,” in Icones, id est veræ imagines virorum doctrina simul et pietate illustrium,
additis eorundem vitæ e operæ descriptionibus, quibus adiectæ sunt nonnullæ picturæ, quas emblemata
vocant (Geneva: Jean de Laon, 1580). Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 8
‘The Swiss Reformation’ (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1892), 3rd edn. rev., 207.
2 One recent and otherwise very usefual and informative study of the early Eliza-

bethan church completely ignores the central role played by Bullinger in the theological
definition of the Settlement. See, e.g., Scott Wenig, Straightening the Altars: The Ecclesiasti-
cal Vision and Pastoral Achievements of the Progressive Bishops under Elizabeth I, 1559–1579 (New
York: Peter Lang, 2000) where Bullinger receives no mention whatever, in spite of his
having acted as mentor to almost half the bench of bishops!
26 chapter one

international stage.3 One might even go so far as to say that Bullinger

lays a fair claim to being the theologian par excellence of the reformed
Church of England.4
To employ one of his own categories, Bullinger’s distinctive role with
respect to the reformation of the Church of England is best described as
“prophetical.” While there is nothing out of the ordinary in the claim
that the Zuricher saw his general ministerial function in such a light,
our present aim is to investigate more closely the peculiarly political,
even constitutional emphasis of Bullinger’s “prophetical office” with
respect to England. Concerning his prophetical role Bullinger held that
there is a reciprocal obligation of magistrates and ministers of religion.
In the context of Zurich, the chief public function of the ministers of
the Church with respect to the community at large was to proclaim the
Word of God freely and uncompromisingly to all, and, in particular,
to the magistrates through the formal address known as the Fürträge:
“To the magistrate is commanded [by God] that he hear the servants
of the church. On the other hand, the servant of the church should
follow the magistrate in all those things which the law commands.”5 As
I hope to show, Bullinger in a remarkable way extended the exercise
of his prophetical office to include the realm of England. He repeatedly
undertook to address England’s rulers in the service of true religion and
for the welfare of the Church militant. Throughout the forty-odd years
of his support of the cause of religious reform in England, one recurrent
theme of his discourse stands out among the rest, and that concerns the
very pre-eminence of the civil magistrate’s authority in what Bullinger
refers to as “the care of religion” (cura religionis). In short, the proposal
put forward is that Heinrich Bullinger’s distinctive contribution to the

3 Bullinger’s judgement proved critical in both the Edwardine and Elizabethan

vestiarian controversies. See Walter Phillips, “Heinrich Bullinger and the Elizabethan
Vestiarian Controversy: an Analysis of Influence,” Journal of Religious History 11.3 (June,
1981): 363–384.
4 David J. Keep did in fact go this far when he observed that “there is no theologian

who so accurately mirrors the Anglican settlement” as Heinrich Bullinger. See his
article “Theology as a basis for policy in the Elizabethan Church,” in L.D.G. Baker
(ed.), Studies in Church History, vol. 2 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell for the Ecclesiastical
History Society, 1975), 265.
5 The decades of Henry Bullinger, edited for the Parker Society by Thomas Harding,

4 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849–1852), vol. II (1849), 323, cited
hereafter as Decades, followed by volume and page number. For a full account and
selected text of Bullinger’s Fürträge see Hans Ulrich Bächtold, Heinrich Bullinger vor dem
Rat: zur Gestaltung und Verwaltung des Zürcher Staatswesens in den Jahren 1531–1575 (Bern: Peter
Lang, 1982).
 the prophetical office and the civil magistrate 27

English Reformation is pre-eminently to be a prophet of the Royal

Supremacy.
The institution of the Royal Supremacy provides what is arguably
the most conspicuous focal point for testing the function of Bullin-
ger’s understanding of his prophetical office. Bullinger’s promotion of
a ‘high’ view of the civil magistrate’s ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the
Church of England can be traced back to the 1530s. In his dedication
to Henry VIII of a treatise of 1538 on the authority of sacred scripture,6
Bullinger presents one of his earliest attempts to formulate his under-
standing of the royal exercise of the cura religionis. “First and above all it
belongs to the ruler to look after religion and faith,”7 Bullinger exhorts,
and by way of example he encourages Henry to imitate the ancient
monarchies of Israel and Judah in taking up the sword and defend-
ing the faith. (Henry, it should be remembered, had been granted the
title ‘Fidei Defensor’ by Pope Leo X in recognition of his treatise Assertio
septem sacramentorum, written with the assistance of Thomas More, and
in which he had vigorously defended the papal supremacy!) By virtue
of his sacred office as the ‘living law,’ the Prince animates the entirety
of his realm, both civil and ecclesiastical. As the very ‘soul’ of the body
politic the godly prince is charged with the duty of leading his subjects
into the way of true religion and virtue and guarding them against the
false.8 Nicholas Eliot, closely connected with the circle of Archbishop
Thomas Cranmer and with whom Bullinger had been cultivating links
as early as 1536, wrote to the latter after the publication of his treatise
on the authority of Scripture:
… this one thing you must know as a most certain truth, that your
books are wonderfully well received, not only by our king, but equally
so by the lord Crumwell, who is keeper of the king’s privy seal, and

6 De Scripturæ sanctæ authoritate, certitudine, firmitate et absoluta perfectione, de[que] episcoporum

… institutione & functione, contra superstitionis tyrannidis[que] Romanæ antistites, ad Sereniss:

Angliæ Regem Heinrychum VIII … libri duo (Zurich: Froschauer, 1538). See Pamela Biel,
Doorkeepers at the house of righteousness: Heinrich Bullinger and the Zurich clergy 1535–1575 (Bern
and New York: P. Lang, 1991), 34–37.
7 “Nam primum et potissimum quod ad Regnum curam pertinet est Religio ac

Fides.” De scripturæ sanctæ, dedication [unfoliated]. See Biel, 34.

8 In sermon II.7 of the Decades, 1:339, Bullinger defines the magistrate as the

“lex animata,” the living law. “For laws undoubtedly are the strongest sinews of the
commonweal, and life of the magistrates: so that neither the magistrates can without
the laws conveniently live and rule the weal public, nor the laws without the magistrates
shew forth their strength and lively force … By executing and applying the law, the law
is made to live and speak.”
28 chapter one

vicar general of the church of England … your writings have obtained

for you a reputation and honour among the English, so say nothing of
other nations, beyond what could possibly be believed. Wherefore I pray
Almighty God long to preserve you in safety, and not to suffer you to lack
that spirit, by which you may persevere in writing more, not only for the
use and benefit of the English alone, but of his whole church.9
It is also noteworthy that appended to this treatise in defence of the
perfection of scripture is a second argument justifying the office and
function of episcopacy. In the title of this second discourse, appended to
his treatment of the authority of scripture, Bullinger quite intriguingly
identifies the Bishop of Rome with the title “Romanae Antistes,” since he
himself bore the title of “Antistes” in his office as chief pastor of the
Church of Zurich.10 In the course of justifying the final juridical separa-
tion England had made from Rome through the Act of Supremacy of
1534, Bullinger lends full prophetical support to the preservation of the
Henrician episcopal hierarchy subject to the Crown. In his peroration
Bullinger asserts that “although the monarch certainly has the ultimate
responsibility for the state of the church in his land, the bishops carry
some of this weight by virtue of their advisory capacity.”11 The bish-
ops propose while the king, exercising supreme ecclesiastical jurisdic-
tion, disposes. The bishops, in short, exercise a “prophetical office” of
spiritual jurisdiction whereas it is the monarch’s task to promulgate the
necessary laws upon which the continued true worship of God depends.
In his Dedication of a treatise on the authority of sacred scripture
to “a godly prince”, that is to Henry VIII, we discern an early, but
nonetheless definitive instance of Heinrich Bullinger’s exercise of his
prophetical office with respect to the reform of the Church of England.
In imitation of the more formalised institution of the Fürträge addressed
to the Council by the Antistes in republican Zurich, Bullinger here ini-
tiates, mutatis mutandis, what was to become his life-long role of advis-
ing and exhorting England’s chief magistrate in the interest of pro-
moting true religion after the pattern of the Old Testament prophets

9 Eliot’s letter to Bullinger is dated 21 August 1538, Original Letters relative to the English

Reformation, ed. Hastings Robinson (Cambridge: Parker Society, 1847), 618, cited here-
after as OL. For an account of the reception of Bullinger’s book by Henry, Chancellor
Cromwell, and Archbishop Cranmer, see also the letter of Nicholas Partridge to Bullin-
ger dated at Frankfort, 17 September 1538, OL 610–612. Cf. Bruce Gordon, The Swiss
Reformation (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2002), 300.
10 “Antistes” is derived from the Greek verb anhistemi, “to stand before or over

against,” i.e. “to preside.”

11 Biel, Doorkeepers, 36.
 the prophetical office and the civil magistrate 29

admonishing the kings of ancient Israel. From the standpoint of the

unitary character of the Covenant the magisterial function of monarch
(or Council, as in the case of Zurich) was for Bullinger really a contin-
uation of the role of these ancient kings, just as the ministerial office of
the clergy extended into the present the function of the prophet as the
mediator of God’s voice to the rulers.12

Royal Fürträge in Sermonum Decades

Without doubt the most influential of Bullinger’s writings in England

were his famous Sermonum Decades quinque. Initially published in 1552,
the fifty sermons gained quasi-canonical status in the two universities
after the accession of Elizabeth. A full English translation was issued in
1577 bound together with Bullinger’s explosive contribution to the Ves-
tiarian controversy of the 1560s.13 The full extent of Bullinger’s influ-
ence on the self-understanding of the Elizabethan church is difficult
to gauge. It is noteworthy that at the Convocation of the Province
of Canterbury held in 1586 Archbishop Whitgift required that “every
minister having cure, and being under the degrees of master of arts,
and batchelors of law, and not licensed to be a public preacher, shall
before the second day of February next provide a Bible, and Bullinger’s
Decads [sic], in Latin or English, and a paper book, … and shall every
weeke read over one Sermon in the said Decads, and note likewise the
chief matters therein contained in the said paper …”14 Bullinger’s royal
Fürträge appear in the Decades most explicitly in the form of two dedi-
catory epistles addressed to the new Josiah, King Edward VI, and in

12 On the relevance of Bullinger’s doctrine of the covenant, see Wayne Baker, Hein-

rich Bullinger and the Covenant: the other Reformed Tradition (Athens, OH: Ohio University
Press, 1980), 119.
13 Sermonum Decades quinque, de potissimis Christiane religionis capitibus, in tres tomas digestæ,

authore Henrycho Bullingero ecclesiæ Tigurinæ ministro (Tiguri: Christoph. Froschauer, 1552).
The first English translation was published in 1577 entitled Fiftie godlie and learned sermons,
divided into fiue decades, tr. by H.I. (London: Ralph Newberie, cum gratia & privilegio
Regiæ Maiestatis, 1577); repr. The Decades of Heinrich Bullinger, ed. Thomas Harding,
PS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849); the latter edition is cited in these
notes.
14 Synodalia: a collection of articles of religion, canons, and proceedings of convocations in the

Province of Canterbury, from the year 1547 to the year 1717, ed. Edward Cardwell (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1842), 2:562. Bullinger’s Catechism was required reading at
Oxford “ad informandum in vera religione juventutem.” Anthony à Wood, Historia et
antiquitates universitatis Oxoniensis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1674), 1:296.
30 chapter one

a sequence of sermons in the second decade on “the sixth precept of

the ten commandments.”15 Building upon Hollweg’s argument that the
Decades were composed for a largely clerical audience, Pamela Biel has
claimed that Bullinger employed these epistles with a view to supply-
ing his clerical readers “a practical model for the prophetic role of the
minister. He addressed the ruler, told him what he needed to know, and
sought to win him to the cause.”16 In Biel’s estimation, however, the
dedication serves merely as a literary convention and reflects “the con-
ditions and business practices of sixteenth-century publishing.”17 Never-
theless, without the Prince himself and his Council as intended recip-
ients of simultaneously ‘covenantal’ and ‘constitutional’ instruction in
these epistles, it is difficult to imagine how the prophetical office as
Bullinger explains it could otherwise hope to receive the magisterial
hearing necessary to its success on his own prophetical terms.
The actual action taken by Prince and Council to reform religion
may or may not be taken as a measure of magisterial response to
prophetical monition. Be that as it may, the substance of Bullinger’s
discourse can leave no theoretical doubt concerning the ultimate repos-
itory of religious authority. The thesis of the dedicatory epistle is cate-
gorical:
those kings shall flourish and be in happy case, which wholly give and
submit themselves and their kingdoms to Jesus Christ, the only-begotten
Son of God, being King of kings, and Lord of lords; acknowledging him
to be the mightiest prince and monarch of all, and themselves his vassals,
subjects, and servants: which, finally, do not follow in all their affairs
their own mind and judgment, the laws of men that are contrary to
God’s commandments, or the good intents of moral men; but do both
themselves follow the laws of the mightiest king and monarch, and also
cause them to be followed throughout their kingdom, reforming both

15 The first dedication is prefixed to the third decade, Sermonum decas tertia: de rebus

quarum elenchum in fine libri inuenies / authore Heinrycho Bullingero; accesserunt huic decadi tertiæ
ex quarta decade sermones duo, De Euangelio & De poenitentia; reliqui eius decadis sermones octo,
propediem, uolente Deo, seorsim & peculiari libro edentur; tomus secundus (Zurich: C. Froschauer,
1550). For the English translation, see Decades (1849) 2: 3–16. Consisting of just two
sermons, the fourth decade was initially incomplete. The second royal dedication is
prefixed to the third sermon of the fourth decade in fulfilment of Bullinger’s promise
in his first epistle to Edward, viz. to “add the other eight sermons of the fourth decade
which are behind.” See vol. 2:16.
16 Walter Hollweg, Heinrich Bullingers Hausbuch: eine Untersuchung über die Anfänge der

reformierten Predigtliteratur (Neukirchen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehunsverein,

1965), 42–48. Biel, Doorkeepers, 39.
17 Biel, Doorkeepers, 38.
 the prophetical office and the civil magistrate 31

themselves and all theirs at and by the rule of God’s holy word. For in
so doing the kingdom shall flourish in peace and tranquillity and the
kings thereof shall be most wealthy, victorious, long-lived, and happy …
the prosperity of kings and kingdoms consisteth in true faith, diligent
hearing, and faithful obeying the word or law of God: whereas their
calamity and utter overthrow doth follow the contrary.18

In short, the ministerial or prophetical office is to interpret the law of

God; the magisterial or ruling function is to act upon the interpretation.
There follows on this a potted history of the kings of ancient Israel and
Judah to illustrate the central thesis concerning the cura religionis. The
happiness of Saul, David, Solomon and the rest, and of their kingdom,
are all shown to rest on the self-same prophetical formula. King Uzziah
enjoyed “singular felicity and most happy life, so long as he gainsaid not
the mouth of God; but when he would usurp and take upon him that
office, which God had properly appointed to the Levites alone, directly
opposing himself against the word of the Lord, he was stricken with
leprosy.”19 (Doubtless the lesson to be drawn here is to avoid the mixing
of ministerial and magisterial functions after the manner of the Roman
Antistes or the Consistory of Geneva!)
Bullinger dwells conspicuously upon the example of Josiah since “of
all the kings of Juda he was the flower and especial crown.” For “neither
stayed he to look for the minds and reformations of other kings and
kingdoms; but, quickly forecasting the best for his people, he began to
reform the corrupted religion, which he did especially in the eighteenth
year of his age. [Edward himself was fifteen at the time.] And in that
reformation he had a regard always to follow the meaning of the Holy
Scripture alone, to the prescribed order of long continuance, nor to
the common voices of the greatest multitude. For he assembled his
people together, before whom he laid open the book of God’s law,
and appointed all things to be ordained according to the rule of his
written word.”20 Bullinger draws his epistle to a close by referring
back to his dedication in 1538 to Edward’s father of his treatises De
Scripturæ sanctæ authoritate and De episcoporum institutione & functione. He
admonishes Edward to take note of the providential efficacy of kings’
adherence to such sound prophetical advice. The example is King
Henry VIII himself: “now by experience know, that that labour of mine

18 Decades, 2:4, 5.
19 Decades, 2:8.
20 Decades, 2:10.
32 chapter one

brought forth no small fruit within the realm of England,”21—the fruit,

of course, is Edward’s own zeal for evangelical reform. The overall
conclusion is that the prophet has a definitively ‘public’ office, and that
the ruler who wishes to secure his position and bring felicity both to
himself and to his people cannot afford to ignore the prophetical word.
Moreover, as the scriptural history is supposed to demonstrate, true
religion is ordinarily brought about conjointly by spiritual and political
means—first and foremost by the conversion of the magistrate through
the ministerial agency of the prophetical office. Thus, on the basis of his
reading of the sacred political history and “to further the cause of true
religion, which now beginneth to bud in England, to the great rejoicing
of all good people” Bullinger concludes that he is compelled to address
himself to the Prince.22
In the seventh sermon of the Second Decade, in a more discursive
(and less hortatory) fashion, Bullinger explores the extent to which the
cura religionis pertains to the office of the Magistrate, and “whether he
may make laws and ordinances in cases of Religion.”23 Bullinger leads
off the discussion by referring to the mysterious figure of Melchizedek, a
priest-king interpreted typologically as a messianic precursor of Christ.
Once again the history of ancient Israel is rehearsed, although with
an added twist illustrative of Bullinger’s distinctive theology of the
over-arching unity of the Covenant: “Those ancient princes of God’s
people, Josue, David, and the rest, were Christians verily and indeed
… the examples which are derived from them and applied to Christian
princes, both are and ought to be of force and effect among us at this
day … even now also kings have in the church at this day the same
office that those ancient kings had in that congregation which they call
the Jewish church.”24 For Bullinger, a single covenant links the world
before the Decalogue with the world of Israel’s kings, the world of the
Constantinian Christian emperors, and the world of the godly princes
of the Reformation. Just as the covenant is one and continuous, so is the
balancing of the prophetical and magisterial offices viewed as subject to
a continuous pattern. Referring to the Old Testament account of King
Uzziah’s leprosy, suffered owing to his presumption to perform the

21 Decades, 2:15.
22 Decades, 2:15.
23 Decades, 1:323.
24 Decades, 1:326.
 the prophetical office and the civil magistrate 33

exclusively Levitical act of making an offering at the altar of incense,25

Bullinger responds to the counter argument of Tridentine polemics that
kings, consequent on Uzziah’s example, presume to exercise the cura
religionis at their peril. For Bullinger, the magistrate’s cura religionis is
not the mixing of magisterial and ministerial functions, but rather the
means of securing the distinction of these offices:
Our disputation tendeth not to the confounding of the offices and duties
of the magistrate and ministers of the church, as that we would have
the king to preach, to baptize, and to minister the Lord’s supper; or the
priest, on the other side, to sit in the judgment-seat, and give judgment
against the murderer, or by pronouncing sentence to take up matters in
strife. The church of Christ hath, and retaineth, several and distinguished
offices (officia distincta); and God is the God of order, and not of confusion.
Hereunto tendeth our discourse, by demonstration to prove to all men,
that the magistrate of duty ought to have a care of religion (cura religionis),
either in ruin to restore it, or in soundness to preserve it … The politic
magistrate is commanded to give ear to the ecclesiastical ruler, and the
ecclesiastical minister must obey the politic governor in all things which
the law commandeth. So then the magistrate is not made subject by
God to the priests as to lords, but as to the ministers of the Lord: the
subjection and duty which they owe is to the Lord himself and to his law,
to which the priests themselves also ought to be obedient, as well as the
princes.26
As in the dedicatory epistle, Bullinger seeks to clarify the distinction
between ministerial and magisterial functions, and consequently to
avoid the perils posed by both Rome and Geneva. The magisterial cura
religionis is itself the very means to secure this distinction of function,
and thus to prevent the clerical presumption of magisterial jurisdiction
implied by the papal pretension to the “plenitudo potestatis”27 or, for that
matter, comparable consistorial claims to juridical autonomy asserted
by some adherents of Reform.

25 2 Chron. 16:18, 19. Decades, 1:328.

26 Decades, 1:329.
27 For an example of this claim, see the opening sentence of Pius V’s Bull Regnans

in excelsis: “Regnans in excelsis, cui data est omnis in coelo et in terra potestas, unum
sanctam Catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam, extra quam nulla est salus, uni soli in
terris, videlicet apostolorum principi Petro, Petrique successori Romano pontifici, in
potestatis plenitudine tradidit gubernandam.” Transl: “He that reigneth on high, to whom
is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed one holy Catholic and apostolic
Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to
Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter’s successor, the pope of Rome, to be by him
governed in fullness of power.” See note 38 below.
34 chapter one

In addition to the example of the ancient kings of Israel and Judah

Bullinger cites also the ecclesiastical supremacy exercised by the Chris-
tian emperors of the early church: Arcadius and Honorius, Gratian,
Valentinian, and Theodosius by whose example “we gather that the
proper office of the priests is to determine of religion by proofs out
of the word of God, and that the Princes’ duty is to aid the priests
in advancement and defence of true religion.”28 Here Bullinger quotes
extensively the Codex Theodosianus and Justinian’s Novellis Constitutiones so
that scriptural authority is shown to be reinforced by early-church prac-
tice and backed by imperial authority.29
The prophetical tone of the royal Fürträge becomes more pronounced
in the second Dedicatory Epistle prefixed to the third sermon of the
Fourth Decade where Bullinger takes up once again the authority of
civil magistrates to reform churches.30 Is an individual prince or mag-
istrate justified in presuming to undertake the reformation of religion
within his own territory? Or does the calling of a general council trump
the magistrate’s care of religion within the boundary of his realm?
What are the claims of the unity of Christendom as against those of
the unity of the Covenant? Inevitably, Bullinger’s prophetical theology
of the magistracy must address the matter of the division of Christen-
dom.31 On this question the primacy of the authority of scripture, and
thus of the unity of the Covenant, is altogether decisive for Bullinger.
“The authority of the prophets and evangelists giveth counsel, fully to
absolve and perfectly to end the reformation of religion once begun
with the fear of God, out of or by the word of God; and not to look
for or stay upon councils which are directed, not by the word of God,

28 Decades, 1:331.
29 Decades, 1:331. Bullinger quotes: Codex Theodosianus, ‘de religione,’ XVI.1.2: “We
desire that all the people under the rule of our clemency should live by that religion
which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the Romans, and which it is
evident that Pope Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity,
followed; that is that we should believe in the one deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
with equal majesty and in the Holy Trinity according to the apostolic teaching and
the authority of the gospel. Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius Augusti.” And also
Justinian, Novellis 3, writing to Epiphanius, archbishop of Constantinople: “We have,
most reverend patriarch, assigned to your holiness the disposition of all things that are
honest, seemly, and agreeable to the rule of holy scriptures, touching the appointment
and ordering of sacred bishops and reverend clerks.”
30 Decades, 2:115–122.
31 See Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided, 1490–1700 (London:

Allan Lane, 2003).

 the prophetical office and the civil magistrate 35

but by the affections and motions of men.”32 The prophetical office

has come to focus sharply on a specific matter of foreign policy. What
should the protestant princes look for in the Council of Trent? For Bul-
linger the path is clear. Since the corruption of “the Roman See of the
last four hundred years” is perceptible “more clearly than the sun,” the
prophet continues the royal Fürträge in the most confident terms; he
urges the young King Edward to take decisive action “without staying
for man’s [i.e. the Pope’s or Emperor’s] authority”:
Thou shalt, most holy king, do wisely and religiously, if, without looking
for the determination of a general council, thou shalt proceed to reform
the churches in thy kingdom according to the rule of the books of both
Testaments, which we do rightly believe, being written by the inspiration
of the Holy Ghost, to be the very word of God. By now, that it is law-
ful for every Christian church, much more for every notable Christian
kingdom, without the advice of the Church of Rome and the members
thereof, in matters of religion depraved by them, wholly to make refor-
mation according to the rule of God’s most holy word, it is thereby man-
ifest, because Christians are the congregation, the church, or subjects of
their king, Christ, to whom they owe by all means most absolute and per-
fect obedience. Now the Lord gave his church a charge of reformation:
he commended unto it the sound doctrine of the gospel, together with
the lawful use of his holy sacraments … Therefore Christians, obeying
the laws and commandments of their prince, do utterly remove or take
away all superstition, and do restore, establish, and preserve true reli-
gion, according to the manner that Christ their prince appointed them
… Proceed, therefore, proceed, most holy king, to imitate the most godly
princes, and the infallible rule of the holy scripture: proceed, I say, with-
out staying for man’s authority, by the most true and absolute instrument
of truth, the book of God’s most holy word, to reform the church of
Christ in [thy most happy] England.33

The cura religionis—the magistrate’s authority to reform religion and

worship—is a power derived immediately from heaven. This power
is authenticated by the sacred history of God’s revealed word in the
Scriptures (more particularly by the sacred political history of the kings
of Israel and Judah), and is interpreted by the prophetical word of
God’s ministers including Bullinger himself in the royal Fürträge of his
dedicatory epistle.

32 Decades, Second Epistle Dedicatory, 2:116.

33 Decades, 2:119–121.
36 chapter one

Bullinger’s Prophetical Office and the Elizabethan Church

In a letter written towards the end of his life to Edwin Sandys, then
Bishop of London,34 Bullinger recapitulates the leitmotiv of his “prophet-
ical office” respecting the Church of England. He mounts a vigorous
defence of the Queen’s jurisdiction over matters of religion or, put more
precisely in the terms of the Elizabethan Settlement, the royal title to
supreme governance of the Church.35 The context of the letter, dated
at Zurich on the 10th of March 1574, is the heated controversy then
building up over the publication of the anonymous tract An Admoni-
tion to the Parliament (1572), probably the work of two young presbyte-
rian radicals, Thomas Wilcox and John Field.36 The Admonition rejected
the institutions of the Elizabethan settlement to the core and sought to
achieve a “further reformation” of the English Church after the pat-
tern of Geneva. The liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer was casti-
gated as “an unperfecte booke, culled and picked out of that popishe
dunghill, the Masse booke, full of all abhominations” and “against the
word of God;” the jurisdiction of bishops as “strange and unheard of in

34 Sandys was one of the most influential figures of the Elizabethan establishment.

Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University in 1553, he fled to the continent during the

period of the Marian exile in the mid-1550s. He visited Strasbourg and Frankfurt,
and enjoyed Bullinger’s personal hospitality while resident in Zurich. Under Elizabeth
Sandys was appointed successively Bishop of Worcester (1559), London (1571) and
Archbishop of York (1577).
35 In a letter to Bullinger, John Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich, Marian exile and

formerly a guest in Bullinger’s house, wrote to advise that “the Queen is not willing
to be called the head of the Church of England, although this title has been offered
her; but she willingly accepts the title governor, which amounts to the same thing. The
pope is again driven from England …” Parkhurst to Bullinger, dated at London, 21
May 1559, ZL I.29. The original Act of Supremacy passed by Parliament in 1534
designated Henry VIII “supreme head of the Church in England.” After an only
partially successful attempt under Queen Mary to dismantle the royal headship, a
new Act of Supremacy was passed in 1559 with a change of the title “Supreme
Head” to “Supreme Governor,” 1 Eliz. I. c. 1. See Claire Cross, The Royal Supremacy
in the Elizabethan Church (London: Allen and Unwin, 1969), 128–129. In the Thirty-Nine
Articles of Religion, approved by Convocation in 1562 and by Parliament not until 1571,
the thirty-seventh reads “The Queen’s Majesty hath the chief power in the Realm of
England, and over her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of
this realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is
not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction.”
36 (Imprinted we know where, and whan [sic], judge you the place and you can

[Hemel Hempstead?]: printed by J.S. [J. Stroud?], 1572); reprinted in Walter H. Frere
and C.E. Douglas, Puritan Manifestoes: A Study of the Origin of the Puritan Revolt (London:
SPCK, 1954).
 the prophetical office and the civil magistrate 37

Chrystes church, nay playnely in Gods word forbidden;” and the royal
supremacy as a two-headed “monstrositie” which challenged Christ’s
sole headship of the Church. The Archbishops’ and Commissary courts
robbed “Christes church of lawfull pastors, of watchfull Seniors and
Elders, and carefull Deacons.”37 A key plank in the Admonition platform
was to replace the existing system of ecclesiastical courts with a pres-
byterian discipline. In his letter to Sandys, Bullinger expresses marked
disapproval of this platform for “further reformation” of the Church of
England along lines inspired by the ecclesiastical disciplina of Geneva,
a platform which maintained, according to Bullinger’s summary, that
“the Civil Magistrate can have no authority in ecclesiastical matters
and, moreover, that the Church will admit no other government than
that of presbyters and presbyteries.” Such claims advanced by the Dis-
ciplinarians, according to Bullinger, rested upon an understanding of
the relation between the spheres of magisterial and ministerial jurisdic-
tion “held in common with the papists, who also displace the magistrate
from the government of the Church, and who substitute themselves [i.e.
the papacy and the church hierarchy] in his place. Whose opinion I
have confuted in my refutation of the pope’s bull, and in my defence of
the Queen of England and her noble realm, &c., which I sent you two
years since.”38
The Admonition Controversy, with its focus upon the institutions
of ecclesiastical discipline and the jurisdiction of both magistrate and
bishops, was in many respects a replay in England of the disagree-
ment over excommunication which erupted in the Palatinate in the late
1560s. Caspar Olevianus, Court preacher in Heidelberg, had sought a
“purer” church with powers of discipline independent of the Magis-
trate;39 he was opposed by Thomas Erastus who defended the magis-

37 Puritan Manifestoes, 11, 21–23, 33.

38 See Bullinger to Sandys, 10 March 1574, ZL 1, 242. Bullinger refers here to
his refutation of the papal bull issued by Pope Pius V, Regnans in excelsis (1570). Bullæ
papisticæ ante biennium contra sereniss. Angliæ, Franciæ & Hyberniæ Reginam Elizabetham, &
contra inclytum Angliæ regnum promulgatæ, refutatio, orthodoxæq[ue] Reginæ, & vniuersi regni Angliæ
defensio (London: John Day, 1571). See the discussion immediately below.
39 For an account of the differences between Zurich and Geneva on ecclesiasti-

cal discipline, see Robert C. Walton, “The Institutionalisation of the Reformation in

Zurich,” Zwingliana XIII, 497–515. In an article published in the proceedings of the
previous Bullinger Kongress, Wayne Baker investigates the circumstances of Bullin-
ger’s composition of the unpublished “Tractatus de excommunicatione,” Gäbler und
Herkenrath, 141–159. On the Heidelberg controversy, see Wesel-Roth, Thomas Erastus,
43–81 and for Bullinger’s role, see also Hollweg, Bullinger’s Hausbuch, 260–278.
38 chapter one

terial supremacy. This exchange concerning the disciplinary power of

excommunication escalated into a full-scale dispute over the first prin-
ciples of ecclesiology and the fundamental nature of the authority of
scripture. Bullinger interceded with the Elector Friedrich III in support
of his erstwhile pupil Erastus and set out reasons for his opposition
to the conduct of church discipline by presbyters independently of the
civil magistrate, a position shortly reiterated with reference to events
across the channel.40 The Heidelberg dispute highlights the difference
between the Zurich and Geneva “brands” of Reform on the ques-
tion of both the distinction and the interconnection between ministerial
and magisterial jurisdiction. The result was something of a compro-
mise between the two principal exemplars of a Reformed ecclesiology;
by 1570 a presbytery had been established in Heidelberg, although its
power to excommunicate was subject to the consent of the magistrate.41
Bullinger’s reaction with respect to the English proponents of the disci-
plina—such as Field and Wilcox, as well as Walter Travers and Thomas
Cartwright—is to view their challenge to the Elizabethan establishment
largely in terms of this continental dispute, and to assure Bishop Sandys
of his solid support of the status quo. England had become yet another
battleground between two competing visions of Reformed ecclesiastical
polity with the Queen and her Zurich-trained bench of bishops ranged
in support of the Tigurine model now openly challenged by disciplinar-
ian critics of the 1559 Settlement, all sympathisers of the example of
Geneva. Bullinger’s 1574 response to Sandys in support of the Eliza-
bethan establishment may be taken as emblematic of the prophetical
role he exercised towards England throughout his career.
Meanwhile, on the other major front in the jurisidictional wars,
and just two years prior to his correspondence with Sandys, Bullin-
ger had argued publicly at considerable length in support of the Royal
Supremacy in his refutation of Pius V’s bull Regnans in excelsis.42 The

40 28 October 1568. Autograph: Zurich StA, E ii 341, 3615–3619; cited by Baker,

“In defense of Magisterial Discipline: Bullinger’s ‘Tractatus de excommunicatione’ of 1568,”

Gäbler und Herkenrath, 143.
41 Thomas Erastus, Explicatio Gravissimæ questionis vtrum excommunicatio … (Pesclavii [i.e.

London: J. Wolfe], 1589). Although the controversy transpired in 1568, Erastus’s tract
was not published until after his death. Theodore Beza responded to the Explicatio in
the year after its publication with De vera excommunicatione et Christiano presbyterio (Geneva:
Jean Le Preux, 1590).
42 Bullæ papisticæ ante biennium contra sereniss. Angliæ, Franciæ & Hyberniæ Reginam Eliza-

betham, & contra inclytum Angliæ regnum promulgatæ, refutatio, orthodoxæq[ue] Reginæ, & vniuersi
regni Angliæ defensio (London: John Day, 1571), [HBB I.562]; hereafter referred to as the
 the prophetical office and the civil magistrate 39

bull excommunicates Elizabeth and absolves her subjects of their obedi-

ence on the ground that the “pretended Queen of England” has “mon-
strously usurped” the supreme ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction
and has thereby reduced her kingdom to “miserable ruin.”43 In his refu-
tation of Regnans in excelsis in the Defensio, Bullinger makes an extensive
(and, it must be said, somewhat repetitive) argument for the view that
the Queen “hath done nothing but that the Lord God himselfe hath
commaunded her to do, and which all good Princes among the peo-
ple of God have done before her. For … by Gods ordinaunce [empha-
sis added] it is lawfull for kinges and Magistrates to take upon them
the care and ordering both of cases and of persons Ecclesiasticall.”44
For, according to Bullinger, Elizabeth’s binding her subjects by an oath
of Supremacy “to abiure the authoritie and obedience of the Romish
Byshop” is nothing more than “that she ought to do by virtue of her
[divinely sanctioned] office.”45

“Defensio.” See also the English translation, A confutation of the Popes bull which was pub-
lished more then two yeres agoe against Elizabeth the most gracious Queene of England, Fraunce, and
Ireland, and against the noble realme of England: together with a defence of the sayd true Christian
Queene, and of the whole realme of England (London: John Day, cum priuilegio Regiæ Maies-
tatis per decennium, 1572). The Defensio was written at the invitation of Richard Cox,
bishop of Ely, another of Bullinger’s close associates among the ranks of the Elizabethan
episcopate. For a full discussion of the circumstances of Bullinger’s authorship of the
Defensio, see David J. Keep, “Bullinger’s Defence of Queen Elizabeth,” in Ulrich Gäbler
und Erland Herkenrath, Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575: gesammelte Aufsätze zum 400. Todestag
(Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975), 231–241; see also Robert C. Walton, “Henry Bul-
linger’s Answer to John Jewel’s call for help: Bullinger’s exposition of Matthew 16:18–19
(1571),” Gäbler und Herkenrath, 245–256. For a translation of the bull itself, see Philip
Hughes, The Reformation in England, 3 vols. (London: Hollis and Carter, 1954), 3:418–420.
For Richard Cox’s letter to Bullinger of 10 July 1570, see Zurich Letters, ed. Hastings
Robinson for the Parker Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1842), first
series [ZL 1], 220–221.
43 S.D.N. Pii Papæ V sententia declaratoria contra Elizabetham prætensam angliæ regem, et ei

adharentes hæreticos (1570). In John Jewel, A viewe of a seditious bul sent into Englande, from
Pius Quintus Bishop of Rome, anno. 1569. Taken by the reuerende Father in God, Iohn Iewel,
late Bishop of Salisburie (London: R. Newberie & H. Bynneman, 1582). “Sed impiorum
numerus tantum potentia invaluit, ut nullus iam in orbe locus sit relictus, quem illi
pessimis doctrinis corrumpere non tentarint; adnitente inter cæteros, flagitiorum serva
Elizabetha prætensa Angliæ regina, ad quam veluti ad asylum omnium infestissimi
profugium invenerunt. Hæc eadem, regno occupato, supremi ecclesiæ capitis locum
in omni Anglia, eiusque præcipuam authoritatem atque iurisdictionem monstrose sibi
usurpans, regnum ipsum iam tum ad fidem Catholicam, et bonam frugem reductum,
rursus in miserum exitium revocavit.”
44 This passage could be interpreted as alluding to Bullinger’s doctrine of the unity

of the covenant in The Olde Fayth (London: W. Hill, 1547).

45 Confutation of the Popes bull, 54 recto.
40 chapter one

Without any doubt, Bullinger’s identification of the presbyterian as-

sault on the authority of the magistrate with papal claims to the “plen-
itude of power” displays a sharp polemical edge within the Reformed
camp, an approach which resonates closely with John Whitgift’s offi-
cially sanctioned responses to the Admonition and to Thomas Cart-
wright’s Replie.46 The conflict between Whitgift and Cartwright corre-
sponds closely to that between Erastus and Olevianus; and both are
writ large in the competing ecclesiological paradigms of Zurich and
Geneva. Viewed in this light, Bullinger’s prophetical role is plainly to
promote consolidation of the Elizabethan Settlement with its reformed
confession and ecclesiastical discipline secured under the authority of
the civil magistrate, consistently with the Zurich model. With an invo-
cation of the Augustinian political theology of the “two cities,” Bullin-
ger goes on to counsel Sandys “I wish there were no lust of dominion
[libido dominandi] in the originators of this presbytery!” To the theolog-
ically trained eye, Bullinger’s reference to the libido dominandi implies
that by seeking to exclude the Magistrate from the “cura religionis” Eng-
land’s disciplinarian radicals in effect had succeeded in confusing the
spiritual aims of the civitas Dei with the external ends of the civitas ter-
rena. That is to say, the presbyterian Disciplina obscured the proper dis-
tinction between the spheres of ministerial and magisterial authority,
and in such a way as to resurrect the jurisdictional pretensions of the
papacy.47 Bullinger concludes his letter to Sandys by urging the great-
est caution in preserving the “supreme power” in the hand of the civil
magistrate. What is particularly revealing in the letter to Sandys is the
theological weight Bullinger attaches to his arguments in support of the
Royal Supremacy.
The heart and substance of Bullinger’s prophetical office with respect
to England was to defend, to interpret, and to promote the Civil Mag-
istrate’s pivotal role as the supreme governing power in the ordering of
religion in the realm: the royal ‘cura religionis.’ Strange though it may
appear, the institution of the Royal Supremacy with its hypostatic con-
junction of supreme civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Prince,

46 For a full historical account see Peter Lake, Anglicans and Puritans? Presbyterian and

English Conformist Thought from Whitgift to Hooker (London: Unwin Hyman, 1988). For a
theological account of this exchange see W J Torrance Kirby, Richard Hooker’s Doctrine of
the Royal Supremacy (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1990), ch. 3.
47 According to Augustine, the two cities—the civitas Dei and the civitas terrena—are

constituted by two modes of love, viz. amor Dei and libido dominandi. See de civitate Dei,
XIV.1.
 the prophetical office and the civil magistrate 41

constitutes for Bullinger a vivid exemplar of the unitary character of

Christian polity, and also of the distinction and cooperation of magiste-
rial and ministerial power. From the standpoint of Bullinger’s unique
covenantal interpretation of history, it is certainly arguable that the
Old Testament exemplar is more completely realised under England’s
monarchical constitution than under the republican conditions of Bul-
linger’s own city and canton of Zurich. In this sense the institution of
the Royal Supremacy in the reformed Church of England provided
Bullinger throughout his career with an invaluable testing ground for
the principles of his distinctive hermeneutic of salvation history.
 text

HEINRICH BULLINGER

Of the Office of the Magistrate, whether the care of

religion apperteine to him or no: and whether hee may
make lawes and ordinaunces in cases of Religion1

The first and greatest thing that chieflie ought to be in a magistrate,

is easilie perceiued by the declaration of his office and duetie. In my
yesterdayes sermon2 I shewed you what the magistrate is, how many
kindes of magistrates there are, of whome the magistrate had his begin-
ning, for what causes hee was ordeined, the maner and order how to
choose peeres, and what kinde of men should be called to be magis-
trates. To this let us now adde what the office and duetie of a magistrate
properlie is.

The Magistrates offices

The whole office of a magistrate seemeth to consist in these 3. points.

To Order, to Iudge, and to Punish. Of euerie one whereof, I meane to
speake seuerallie in order as they lye. The ordinaunce of the magistrate
is a decree made by him for mainteyning of religion, honestie, iustice,
and publique peace: and it consisteth on ij. points, in ordering rightly
matters of religion, and making good lawes for the preservation of hon-
estie, iustice, and common peace. But before I come to the determining
and ordering of religion, I will brieflie and in few words, handle their
question, which demande, whether the care of religion do apperteine

1 Fiftie godlie and learned sermons, divided into fiue decades, transl. by H.I. [perhaps Hugh

Jones, Bishop of Llandaff?] (London: Ralph Newberie, cum gratia & privilegio Regiæ
Maiestatis, 1577), 177–191; a translation of Sermonum decades quinque, de potissimis Christianæ
religionis capitibus, in tres tomas digestæ, authore Henrycho Bullingero ecclesiæ Tigurinæ ministro
(Zurich: Christopher Froschauer, 1552) the second Decade, the seventh Sermon. New
edition by Thomas Harding, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, Minister of the Church of Zurich,
4 vols., PS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849) 2: 323–344.
2 The sixth sermon of the Second Decade.
44 chapter one

to the magistrate, as part of his office or no? For I see many that are
of opinion, that the care and ordering of religion doth belong to Bish-
ops alone, and that kings, princes, and senatours ought not to medle
therewith.3

Whether the care of religion belong to the Magistrate

But the catholique veritie teacheth that the care of religion doth espe-
ciallie belong to the magistrate, and that it is not in his power onely, but
his office and duetie also to dispose and aduaunce religion. For among
them of old, their kinges were priestes, I meane maisters and ouerseers
of religion. Melchisedech that holie and wise Prince of the Chananitish
people, who bare the type or figure of Christe our Lord, is wonderful-
lie commended in holie Scriptures: Now he was both king and priest
together.4 Moreouer in the booke of Numbers, to Iosue newlie ordeined
and lately consecrated, are the lawes belonging to religion giuen up and
delivered.5 The kings of Iuda also, and the electe people of God, haue
for the wel ordering of religion (as I will by examples anon declare unto
you) obteyned verie great praise: and againe as many as were slacke in
looking to religion, are noted with the mark of perpetuall reproch. Who
is ignoraunt that the magistrates especiall care ought to bee to keepe
the common weale in safegard and prosperitie? Which undoubtedlie he
cannot do, unless he prouide to haue the word of God preached to his

3 For Bullinger’s views on episcopal jurisdiction, see his tractate addressed to King

Henry VIII, De episcoporum, qui verbi Dei ministri sunt, institutione & functione, contra super-
stitionis tyrannidisq[ue] Romanæ antistites, ad Sereniss. Angliæ Regem Heinrychum VIII (Zurich:
Christopher Froschauer, 1538). For the papalist defence of episcopal title to the ‘cura
religionis’ see Reginald Pole, Ad Henricum Octavum Britanniæ regem, pro ecclesiasticæ unitatis
defensione, libri quatuor … Excussum (Romæ: Apud Antonium Bladum Asulanum, 1536)
and Albertus Pighius, Hierarchiæ ecclesiasticæ assertio (Cologne: Melchior Neuss, 1538). For
a later formulation of this doctrine in the reign of Elizabeth, see Nicholas Sanders,
The rocke of the Churche wherein the primacy of s. Peter and of his successours the bishops of Rome
in proued out of Gods worde (Louvaine, 1567). The heading for the sixteenth chapter of
Sanders’s book conveys the key objections: “good Christian Emperors and Princes did
never think themselves to be the supreme heads of the Church in spiritual causes; but
gave that honour to Bishops and Priests, and most specially to the see of Rome, for S
Peter’s sake, as well before as after the time of Phocas.” See also Thomas Dorman’s
reply to John Jewel’s famous ‘Challenge Sermon’ preached at Paul’s Cross on 30 March
1560: A Proufe of Certayne Articles in Religion, Denied by M. Juell (Antwerp: John Latius,
1564), B4 verso et seq.
4 Gen. 14:17–24.
5 Numbers 27:18–23.
 text: bullinger, office of the magistrate 45

people, and cause them to be taught the true worship of God, by that
meanes making himself as it were the minister of true religion. In Leuiti-
cus6 and Deuteronomie7 the Lord doth largelie set downe the good pre-
pared for men that are religious, and zealous in deede, and reckoneth
uppe on the other side, the euil appointed for the contemners of true
religion. But the good magistrate is commaunded to reteine and keepe
prosperitie among his people, and to repel al kinde of aduersitie. Let
us heare also what the wise man Salomon saith in his Prouerbes: Godlines
and trueth preserue the king, and in godlines his seate is holden vp. When the iust are
multiplied, the people reioyce, and when the wicked ruleth, the people lamenteth. The
king by iudgement stablisheth his dominion, but a tyrant oruerthroweth it. When
the wicked increase, iniquitie is multiplied, [179] and the iust shall see their decay.
Where the word of God is not preached the people decay, but happie is hee that
keepeth the lawe.8 Whereby we gather that they, which would not haue
the care of religion to apperteine to princes, doe seeke and bring in the
confusion of al things, the dissolution of princes, and their people, and
lastlie the neglecting and oppression of the poore.
Furthermore the Lord commaundeth the magistrate to make triall of
doctrines, and to kill those that do stubbornelie teach against the scrip-
tures and draw the people from the true God. The place is to be seene
in the 13. of Deut.9 God also forbad the magistrate to plant groaues
or erect images: as is to be seene in the 17. of Deut.10 And by those
particularities he did insinuate things general, forbiding to ordeine, to
nourish, and set forth superstition or idolatrie, wherefore he commaun-
ded to aduaunce true religion: and so consequently it foloweth that
the care of religion belongeth to the magistrate. What may be thought
of that moreouer, that the most excellent princes and friends of God,
among Gods people, did challeng to themselues the care of religion as
belonging to themselues, in so much that they exercised and toke the
charge therof, euen as if they had beene ministers of the holie things?
Iosue in the mount Hebal caused an altar to be builded, and fulfilled all
the worship of God, as it was commaunded of God by the mouth of
Moses.11 Dauid in bringing in and bestowing the arke of God in his
place, and in ordering the worship of God, was so diligent, that it is

6 Lev 26.
7 Deut 28.
8 Prov 20:28; 29:2, 4, 16, 18.
9 Deut 13:7–11.
10 In AV, Deut 16:21–22.
11 Joshua 8:30–35.
46 chapter one

wonder to tel.12 So likewise was Salomon Dauids sonne. Neither doe I

thinke that any man knoweth not how much Abia,13 Iosaphat, Ezechias,
and Iosias, laboured in the reformation of religion, which in their times
was corrupted and utterlie defaced.
The verie heathen kings and princes are praised, because when they
knew the trueth, they gaue out edicts for the confirmation of true
religion against blasphemous mouthes. Nabuchodonosor the Chaldean, the
most mightie Monarch of all the world, than who I doubt whether
any more greate and mightie did reigne in the world, publisheth a
decree that he should be torne in pieces, and his house made a iakes,
whosoeuer spake reprochfullie against the true God which made both
heauen and earth.14 The place is extant in the third Chapiter of Daniels
prophecie. Darius Medus the sonne of Assuerus king Cyrus his uncle, saith:
I haue decreed that all men in the whole dominion of my kingdome doe fear the
God of Daniel.15 Cyrus king of Persia looseth the Iewes from bondage,
and giueth them in charge to repaire the temple, and restore their holie
rites againe.16 Darius Persa the sonne of Hystaspes saith: I haue decreed for
euerie man which chaungeth any thing of my determination touching the reparation of
the temple, and the restoring of the worship of god, that a beame be taken out of his
house, and set vp, and he hanged theron, and his house to be made a iakes.17 The
verie same Darius again who was also called Artaxerxes18 saith: Whosoeuer
wil not doe the lawe of thy God (Esdras) and the law of the king, let iudgement
straight way passe vpon him, either to death, or to vtter [180] rooting out, or to
confiscation of his goods, or imprisonment.19 All this we find in the booke of
Esdras.

An answer to an obiection

The men, which are persuaded that the care and ordering of religion
doth belong to bishopps alone, do make an obiection, and say, that
these examples which I haue alledged, do nothing apperteine to us

12 2 Sam 6.
13 ‘Asa’ in the Latin edn. of Sermonum Decades.
14 Dan 3:95–100.
15 Dan 6:25–27.
16 Ezra 1:1–4.
17 Ezra 6:11.
18 Also called Artaxerxes Longimanus.
19 Ezra 7:26.
 text: bullinger, office of the magistrate 47

which are Christians: because they are examples of the Iewish people.20
To whom mine aunsweare is: The men of this opinion ought to proue
that the Lord Jesus and his Apostles, did translate the care of religion
from the magistrate unto bishops alone: which they shal neuer be able
to doe: But wee on the other side will briefly shew that these auncient
princes of Gods people, Iosue, Dauid, and the rest were Christians
verilie and in deede, and that therefore the examples, which are deriued
from them and applied to Christian princes, both are and ought to bee
of force and effect among us at this day. I wil in the end adde also
the prophecie of the Prophet Esai, wherby it may appere that euen
now also kings haue in the Church at this day the same office, that
those ancient kings had in that Congregation which they call the Iewish
Church.21 There is no doubt but that they ought to be accepted true
Christians, which being annoynted with the spirite of Christ, do belieue
in Christ, and are in the Sacramentes made partakers of Christ. For
Christ (if ye interprete the verie word) is as much to say, as annointed.
Christians therefore according to the Etymologie of their name are
annoynted. That annointing according to the Apostles interpretation is
the spirite of God, or the gift of the holie ghoste.22 But S. Peter testifieth
that the spirit of Christ was in the kinges and Prophets.23 And Paul
affirmeth flatly that wee haue the verie same spirite of faith, that they
of old had.24 And doth moreouer communicate our sacraments with
them, where hee saith that they were baptised under the cloud, and
that they all dranke of the spirituall rocke that followed them, which
rock was Christe.25
Since then the case is so, the examples truyly which are deriued from
the words and workes of those auncient kinges for the confirmation
of faith and charitie, both are and ought to be of force with us. And
yet I know that euerie thing doth not consequently folow uppon the
gathering of examples. But here wee haue for the making good of
our argument, an euident prophecie of Esai, who fortelleth that kinges

20 See The seditious and blasphemous oration of Cardinal Pole both against god [and] his

cou[n]try which he directid to themperour in his booke intytuled the defence of the eclesiastical vnitye,
mouing the emperour therin to seke the destruction of England and all those whiche had professid the
gospele translated into englysh by Fabyane Wythers (London: Owen Rogers, 1560), with the
epigraph “Reede all and than Judge.” (STC 20087).
21 Isaiah 49.
22 1 John 2:20, 27.
23 1 Peter 1:11.
24 2 Corinth 4:13.
25 1 Corinth 10:2–4.
48 chapter one

and princes after the times of Christ, and the reuealing of the Gospell,
should haue a diligent care of the Church, and should by that meanes
become the feeders and nourices of the faithfull.
Now it is euident what it is to feede and to nourish: for it is all one as
if he shold haue said, that they should be the fathers and mothers of the
Church. But hee could not haue said that rightly, if the care of religion
did not belong to Princes, but to Bishops alone. The words of Esaie are
these: Behold I wil stretch out my hand vnto the Gentiles, and set vp my token to
the people, and they shal bring thee thy sonnes in their lappes, and thy daughters
on their shoulders. And kinges shalbe thy nourcing fathers, and Queenes thy nurcing
mothers, they shal fal before thee with their faces flatte vppon the earth, and licke vp
the duste of thy feete &c.26 Shal not wee say, that all this is fulie performed
in some Christian princes?
Among whom the first was the holie Emperour Constantine, who by
calling a general counsell [181] did determine to establish true and
sincere doctrine in the Church of Christe, with a settled purpose utterly
to roote out all false and hereticall phantasies and opinions.27 And when
the bishopps did not go rightly to worke by the true rule and touchstone
of the gospel and of charitie, hee blamed them, upbrayding them with
tyrannical crueltie, and declaring therwithal what peace the Lord had
graunted by his meanes to the Churches. Adding moreouer that it were
a detestable thing, if the bishopps forgetting to thancke God for his
gift of peace, should goe on amonge themselues to baite one another
with mutuall reproches and taunting libells, thereby giuing occasion
of delight and laughter to wicked idolatrers: when as of dutie they
ought rather to handle and treat of matters of religion. For (sayth hee)
the bookes of the Euangelistes, Apostles, and Oracles of the auncient
Prophetes, are they which must instruct us to the understanding of
Gods holie lawe.28 Let us expell therefore this quarelling strife, and
thincke uppon the questions proposed to resolue them by the woordes
of Scripture inspired from above.

26 Isaiah 49:22–23.
27 The Council of Nicæa, called by the Emperor Constantine in AD 325.
28 Ecclesiasticæ historiæ autores Eusebij Pamphili Cæsariæ Palæstinæ episcopi historiæ Ecclesias-

tic[a]e lib. x Vuolfgango Musculo interprete … Theodoriti Episcopi Cyri, Ioachimo Camerario inter-
prete libri v (Basle: Froben, 1549), Bk. 1, cap. 7. Note that this edition of the Ecclesiastical
Histories is published with the commentary of Wolfgang Musculus, professor of theol-
ogy, leader of the Reformed Church of Berne, and a close ally of Bullinger’s in the
ecclesiastical politics of the Swiss cantons. Bullinger may also have consulted the Greek
edition published by Robert Stephanus, Ekklesiastikes historias Eusebiou tou Pamphilou …
(Paris: Stephanus, 1544).
 text: bullinger, office of the magistrate 49

After him againe, the holie emperours Gratian, Valentinian and

Theodosius, make a decree, and giue out the edicte in these verie
woords: Wee will and commaund all people that are subiecte to our gratious
Empire, to be of that religion, which the verie religion taught and conueighed from
Peter till now doth declare, that the holie Apostle Peter did teach to the romanes.29
And so forward. By this (derely beloved) ye perceiue how kings and
Princes, amonge the people of the new Testament, haue been the foster
fathers and nourices of the Church being persuaded that the care of
religion, did first of all and especially belong to themselues.

The seuerall offices of the Magistrates

and the ministers must no be confounded

The second obiection that they make is the leprosie of Osias king
of Iuda, which hee gatt by challenging to himselfe the office of the
Priest, while hee presumed to burne incense on the incense altar.30
They obiect the Lords commaundement, who hadd Iosue stand before
Eleazar the Prieste, and gaue the king in charge to receiue the booke of
the law at the Leuites hands.31 But our disputation tendeth not to the
confounding of the offices and duties of the magistrate, and ministers
of the Church, as that wee would haue the king to preach, to baptize,
and to minister the Lords supper: or the priest on the other side to sit
in the iudgment seate, and giue iudgement against a murderer, or by
pronouncing sentence to take uppe matters in strife. The Church of
Christ hath, and reteyneth seuerall and distinguished offices, and God
is the God of order, and not of confusion.32
Hereunto tendeth our discourse by demonstration to proue to all
men that the magistrate of duetie ought to haue care of religion, either
in ruine to restore it, or in soundnesse to preserue it, and still to see
that it proceede according to the rule of the woord of the Lord. For
to that end was the law of God giuen into the kinges hands by the

29 Bullinger quotes the title “on Religion” from the Theodosian Code. See Codicis

Theodosiani libri XVI: Qiubus [sic] sunt ipsorum principum autoritate adiectæ novellæ. Theodosij.
Valentiniani. Martiani. Maioriani. Seueri. Caij Institutionum lib. II … (Basle: Henricus Petruus,
1528), Cod. Th. XVI.1.2. For a modern English translation see Henry Bettenson, ed.,
Documents of the Christian Church (London: Oxford University Press, 1943), 31.
30 2 Chron 26:18. 19.
31 Numb 27:22; Deut 17:18.
32 1 Corinth 14:33.
50 chapter one

priestes, that hee should not be ignoraunt of Gods will touching matters
Ecclesiasticall and politicall, by which lawe hee had to gouerne the
whole estate of all his realme. Iosue the Capitaine of Gods peoople is
set before Eleazar in deede, but yet hee hath authoritie to commaunde
the priestes, and being a politique gouernour is ioyned as it were
in one bodie with the ecclesiasticall [182] ministers.33 The politique
magistrate is commaunded to giue eare to the ecclesiastical ruler, and
the ecclesiastical minister must obey the politique gouernour in all
thinges which the law commaundeth. So then the magistrate is not
made suiect by God to the priestes as to Lords, but as to the ministers
of the Lord, the subiection and duetie which they owe, is to the lord
himself and to his law, to which the priestes themselues also ought to
be obedient, as well as the Princes. If the lipps of the priest erre from
the truth and speake not the word of God, there is no cause why any of
the common sort, much lesse the Prince, should either hearken unto, or
in one tit[t]le reuerence the priest. The lippes of the priest (sayth Malachie)
keepe knowedge, and they seeke the Lawe at his mouth: because he is the messinger
of the lord of hoastes.34 To refuse to hear such priestes, is to repell God
himself. Such priestes as these the godly princes of Israell did alwayes
ayde and assist, false priestes they did disgrade, those which neglected
their offices they rebuked sharpelie, and made decrees for the executing
and right administring of euerie office.

Princes haue done and dealt in religion

Of Salomon wee read, that hee put Abiathar beside the priesthoode of
the Lord (that hee might fulfil the word of the Lord which he spake
of Heli in Silo) and made Zadok priest in Abiathars steede.35 In the
second booke of Chronicles, it is said: And Salomon set the sorts of priests
to their offices as Dauid his father had ordered them, and the Leuites in their
watches, for to praise and minister before the priestes day by day, as their course
did require.36 In the same booke againe Ioiada the priest doth in deede
annointe Ioas king,37 but neuerthelesse the king doth call the priest, and

33 Numb 27:15–23.
34 Malachi 2:7.
35 1 Kings 2:27.
36 2 Chron 8:14.
37 2 Chron 23:11 “Then they brought out the king’s son, and put upon him the
 text: bullinger, office of the magistrate 51

giue him a commaundement to gather money to repaire the temple.38

Moreouer that religious and excellent Prince Ezechias, called the priestes
and Leuites, and said unto them: Bee ye sanctified and sanctifie ye the house
of the Lord our God, and suffer no vncleannesse to remaine in the sanctuarie.
My sonnes be not slacke now, because the Lord hath chosen you to minister vnto
himselfe.39 Hee did also appoint singars in the house of the Lord, and
those that should play on musicall instruments in the Lords temple.
Furthermore king Ezechias ordeyned sondrie companies of priestes and
Leuites, according to their sondrie offices, euerie one according to his
owne minsterie.40
What may be sayd of that too, that euen hee did diuide to the
priestes their portions and stipends throughtout the priesthoode? The
same king gaue charge to all the people, to keepe holie the feast of
Passeouer, writing to them all such letters as priestes are wont to write,
to put them in mind of religion and repentaunce.41 And after all this,
there is added: And the king wrought that which was good, right, and iust before
the Lord his God.42 When Princes therefor doe order religion according to
the woord of God, they do the thing that pleaseth the Lord. This and
the like is spoken againe by the godly Prince Iosias.43 Who therefore will
hereafter say, that the care of religion belongeth unto bishops alone?

Princes have appointed orders for religion

The Christian Emperours following the example of the auncient kings

as of their fathers, did with greate care prouide for the state of true reli-
gion in the Church of Christe. Arcadius and Honorius did determine, that
so often as matters of religion were [183] called in question, the bish-
opps should be sommoned to assemble a counsell.44 And before them
againe, the emperours Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, established a

crown, and [gave him] the testimony, and made him king. And Jehoiada and his sons
anointed him, and said, ‘God save the king’.”
38 2 Chron 24:4, 5.
39 2 Chron 29:5, 11.
40 2 Chron 31:11–20.
41 2 Chron 30:1–21.
42 2 Chron 31:20.
43 For Josiah’s Passover, see 2 Chron 35.
44 Codicis Theodosiani, XVI.11.1, ‘De religione’: “Impp. Arcad. et Honor. aa. Apol-

lodoro proconsuli Africæ. quoties de religione agitur, episcopos convenit agitare; ceteras
vero causas, quæ ad ordinarios cognitores vel ad usum publici iuris pertinent, legibus
52 chapter one

lawe wherein they declared to the world, what faith and religion they
would haue all men to receiue and reteine, to witte the faith and doc-
trine of S. Peter. In which edicte also they proclaimed all them to be
heretiques, which thought or taught the contrarie: allowing them alone
to be called catholiques, which did perseuere in S. Peters faith.45 By
this we gather that the proper office of the priests, is to determine of
religion by proofes out of the word of God, and that the princes dutie
is to aide the priestes, in aduauncement and defence of true religion.
But if it happen at any time, that the priests be slack in doing their
duetie, then is it the princes office by compulsion, to inforce the priestes
to liue orderlie according to their profession, and to determine in reli-
gion according to the woord of God. The Emperour Iustinian, in Nouel-
lis Constitut. 3. writing to Epiphanius Archbishop of Constantinople, saith:
Wee haue (most reuerend Patriarch) assigned to your holinesse the disposition of
all things that are honest, seemelie, and agreeable to the rule of the holie scrip-
tures, touching the apointing and ordering of sacred bishops and reverend clearkes.46
And in the 7. Constitution hee saith: Wee giue charge and commaundement
that no bishop haue license to sell, or make away any immoueables, whether it be

oportet audiri. dat. xiii. kal. sept. patavio, theodoro v. c. cos. hæc lex interpretatione
non indiget.”
45 Codicis Theodosiani, XVI.1.2: “Impp. Gratianus, Valentinianus et Theodosius aaa.

edictum ad populum urbis constantinopolitanæ. cunctos populos, quos clementiæ nos-

træ regit temperamentum, in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum Petrum
apostolum tradidisse romanis religio usque ad nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat quamque
pontificem damasum sequi claret et petrum alexandriæ episcopum virum apostolicæ
sanctitatis, hoc est, ut secundum apostolicam disciplinam evangelicamque doctrinam
patris et filii et spiritus sancti unam deitatem sub parili maiestate et sub pia trinitate
credamus. (380 febr. 27).” We desire that all the people under the rule of our clemency
should live by that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the
Romans, and which it is evident that Pope Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria,
a man of apostolic sanctity, followed; that is that we should believe in the one deity of
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with equal majesty and in the Holy Trinity according to
the apostolic teaching and the authority of the gospel.
46 Bullinger quotes from the fourth portion of the Corpus Iuris Civilis, viz. Novellæ

constitutiones, authenticum collatio 1, Tit. 3, Novell. 3. See Ius civile manuscriptorum librorum
ope, summa diligentia et integerrima fide infinitis locis emendatum, et perpetuis notis illustratum
(Antwerp: Christopher Plantin, 1567). Under the direction of the eminent Roman jurist
Tribonianus, the Corpus Iurus Civilis was issued in three parts between 529 and 533 CE
at the order of the Emperor Justinian: the ‘Codex’ which compiled all extant imperial
constitutiones since Hadrian; the ‘Digest’ or ‘Pandects’ which comprised the opinions
of great Roman jurists such as Gaius, Ulpian, Papinian, et al; and the ‘Institutes’ which
were intended to provide a legal textbook and contained key extracts from the Codex
and Digest. When Justinian issued new laws they were added to the Corpus under a
fourth division, the ‘Novellæ’, quoted here by Bullinger.
 text: bullinger, office of the magistrate 53

in houses or landes belonging to the Churches.47 Againe in the 57. Constitu-

tion, hee forbiddeth to celebrate the holie mysteries in priuate houses.
Hee addeth the penaltie and saith: For the houses wherein it is done shalbe
confiscate and sold for money, which shalbe brought into the Emperours Exche-
quer.48 In the 67 Constitution, hee chargeth al bishops not to be absent
from their churches: but if they be absent, he willeth that they should
receiue no commoditie or stipend of the prouinciall stuards, but that
their reuenue should be imployed on the Churches necessities.49 In the
123. constitution the lieutenauntes of euerie prouince are commaunded
to assemble a counsell for the use and defence of ecclesiasticall lawes,
if the bishops bee slacke to looke thereunto.50 And immediatelie after
hee saith: Wee do vtterly forbid all bishoppes, prelates and clearkes, of what degree
soeuer, to play at tables, to keepe companie with diceplayers, to bee lookers on vpon
gamesters, or to runne to gaze vppon Maygames or pageants.51 I do not alledge
all this as Canonical Scriptures, but as proofes to declare that Princes in
the primatiue church had power, officiall authoritie, and a usuall cus-
tome, graunted by God (as Esai did prophecie) and deriued from the
examples of auncient kinges to commaund bishops, and to determine
of Religion in the Church of Christ.

Ecclesiasticall priuileges

As for them which obiect the churches priuilege, let them knowe that it
is not permitted to any prince, nor any mortal man, to graunt priuileges
contrarie to the expresse commaundements and verie truth of gods
word. S. Paul affirmed that he had power giuen him to edifie but not to
destroy. I am the briefer, because I wil not stand to proue that they are
unworthie of indifferent (æquis) priuileges which are not such as priestes
and Christ his ministers should be, but are souldiers rather and wicked
knaues, full of all kind of mischiefe. Amonge other thinges in the Canon
Lawe Distinct. 40 wee finde [184] this written. See to your selues, bretherne,
how ye sitte uppon the seate: for the seat maketh not the priest, but the priest the
seate: the place sanctifieth not the man, but the man the place. Euerie priest is not

47 Novellæ constitutiones, auth. coll. 2, Tit. 1, Novell. 7, cap. 1.

48 Novellae constitutiones, auth. coll. 5, Tit. 12, Novell. 58 [sic].
49 Novellæ constitutiones, auth. coll. 5, Tit. 22, Novell. 67, cap. 3.
50 Novellæ constitutiones, auth. coll. 9, Tit. 6, Novell. 123, cap. 44.
51 Novellæ constitutiones, auth. coll. 9, Tit. 6, Novell. 123, cap. 10.
54 chapter one

a holie man, but euery holie man is a priest. Hee that sitteth wel uppon the seate,
receiueth the honour of the seate: but he that sitteth ill uppon the seate, doth iniurie
unto the seate. Therefore an euil priest getteth blame by his priesthoode, and not any
dignitie.52 And thus much thus farre touching this matter. Since now that
I haue declared unto you (derely beloued) that the care of religion doth
belong to the magistrate too, and not to the bishopps alone, and that
the magistrate may make lawes also in cases of religion, it is requisite
that I inquire what kinde of lawes those are that the magistrates may
make in matters of religion.

What lawes the magistrate ought to appoint concerning religion

There is no cause whie the king or magistrate should suppose that

power is giuen to him to make newe lawes touching God, the worship
of God, or his holie mysteries: or to appoint a new kind of true iustice
and goodnesse. For as euery magistrate is ordeyned of God, and is Gods
minister, so must hee be ruled by God, and be obedient to Gods holie
word and commaundement, hauing euermore an eye unto that, and
depending stil uppon that alone. The scripture which is the word of
God, doth abundauntly enough set downe al that which is proper to
true religion: yea the Lord doth flatly forbidde to adde too, or take
any thing from his holy word. The magistrate therefore maketh no
newe lawes touching God, and the honour to be giuen to God, but
doth religiously receiue and keepe, doth put in use and publish those
auncient lawes in that kingdome which God hath allotted him unto.
For hereunto apperteineth the giuing of the booke of gods law unto
the kinges of Israell, that they might learn therby the way to do the
things which they of duetie ought to see done.53 To Iosue the Lord doth
say: See that thou doest obserue and doe according to all that Moses my servaunt
commaunded thee. Thou shalt not tourne from it, either to the righte hand or to the
left. Neither shall the booke of this lawe depart out of thy mouth, but occupie thy
minde therein day and night, that thou maist obserue and doe according to all that is
written therin. For then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt do
wiselie.54

52 CICan, Decreti, ‘Multi sacerdotes’, 1.40.12, ed. Friedberg, vol. 1, col. 147–148.
53 Deut. 17:18, 19; 2 Kings 11:12.
54 Joshua 1:7, 8.
 text: bullinger, office of the magistrate 55

Devout and holie Princes therefore did doe their faithfull and diligent
indeuour to cause the word of God to be preached to the people,
to reteine and preserue among the people the lawes, ceremonies and
statutes of god, yea they did their best to spread it to al men as farre as
they could, and as place and time required, to applie it holilie to the
states and persons: on the other side they were not slack to banish
and driue away false doctrine, prophane worshipings of God, and
blasphemies of his name, but settled themselues utterlie to ouerthrow
and roote it out for euer. In this sort (I say) godly magistrates, did make
and ordeine deuoute lawes for the maintenaunce of religion. In this sort
they bore a godlie and deuout care for matters of religion.
The cities which the Leuites had to possesse, were of old their scholes
of Israel. Now Iosue did appoint those cities for studies sake, and the
cause of godlines.55 King Ezechias was no lesse carefull for the sure pai-
ment and reuenue of the ministers stipends, than [185] he was for the
restoring and renuing of euerie office.56 For honour and aduauncement
maketh learning to flourish: when neede and necessitie is driuen to
seeke out sondrie shiftes: beggarie setteth religion to sale, much more
the inuented lyes of mens owne mouthes. Iosaphat sendeth Senatours
and other officers with the priestes and teachers through al his king-
dome. For his desire was by all meanes possible to haue Gods word
preached with authoritie and a certaine maiestie, and being preached
to haue it defended and put in ure to the bringing forth of good
workes.57 King Iosias doth together with idolatrie and prophane wor-
shippinges of God, destroy the false priestes that were to be found: set-
ting uppe in their steeds the true teachers of Gods word, and restoring
againe sincere religion:58 euen as also king Ioas (hauing rebuked the
Leuites) did repaire the decayed buildings of the holie temple.59 I am
not able to runne through all the Scriptures, and rehearce al the exam-
ples in them expressed: let the Godly Prince or magistrate learne by
these fewe what and how hee ought to determine touching lawes for
religion.

55 Joshua 21.
56 2 Chron 31.
57 2 Chron 17:7–9.
58 2 Kings 23.
59 2 Kings 12.
56 chapter one

Devisers of new fanged worshippes are cursed of God

On the other side Ahia the Silonite saith to Ieroboam. Thus saith the Lord:
Thou shalt reigne according to all that thy soule desireth, and shalt be king ouer
Israel. And if thou hearken vnto all that I commaunde thee, and wilt walke in
my wayes, and doe that is right in my sight, that thou keepe my statutes and my
commaundements, as Dauid my seruaunt did, then will I be with thee, and build thee
a sure house.60 But the wretch despised those large promises, and reiecting
Gods word, his temple at Ierusalem, and his awfull worship, refusing
also the Leuites, hee made him priestes of the dregges and rascall sort
of people, he built himself new temples, which hee decked, nay rather
disgraced with images and idolls, ordeyning and offering sacrifices not
taught in Gods woord, by that meanes inuenting a certain new kind
of worshipping god and a new maner of religion. And although his
desire was to seeme to be willing to worshippe God, yet is he by
God condemned for a wicked man. Hearken I pray, the sentence of
the Lord, which hee denounceth against him: Thou hast done euil (saith
Ahia as the Lord had taught him) aboue all that were before thee. For thou
hast gone and made the other Gods, and moulten images, to prouoke mee, and
hast cast mee behinde thy backe. Therefore I will bring euill vppon the house
of Ieroboam, and wil roote out from Ieroboam euen him that pisseth against the
wall, and him that is in prisonn and forsaken in Israel, and will take away the
remnaunte of the house of Ieroboam, as one carieth away dunge till all be gone.61
And al these thinges were fulfilled according to the saying of the Lord
as the Scripture witnesseth in these words: When Baasa was king, he
smote all the house of Ieroboam, and left nothing that breathed, of that that was
Ieroboams.62 But the very same king being nothing the better or wiser by
an others mishap, and miserable example of his predecessour, sticketh
not to continue, to teach the people, to publish and defend the straung
and forreine religion, contrarie to the woord of God, which Ieroboam
had begunne. But what followed thereuppon? Forsothe the Lord by the
preaching of Hanani the Prophete doth say unto him: Forasmuch as I
exalted the[e] out of the dust, [186] and made thee prince ouer my people Israell,
and thou hast walked in the way of Ieroboam, and hast made my people Israell
to sinne, to anger mee with their sinnes, behold I will roote out the posteritie of
Baasa, and the posteritie of his house, and wil make thy house like the house

60 1 Kings 11:38.
61 1 Kings 14:9–10.
62 1 Kings 15:29.
 text: bullinger, office of the magistrate 57

of Ieroboam.63 Which was perfourmed (as the scripture saith) by Simri

capitaine of the hoaste of Israel. For he destroyed king Hela the sonne
of Baasa when he was drunken, and all his posteritie. Amri succeeded in
the kingdome who was the father of Achab that mischefous cutthroate,
whom the Syrians slue in fighting a battaile.64 After him reigned his
sonnes Ochosias and Ioram. But when they left the religion taught in
the woord of God, to follow the new tradition of king Ieroboam, and had
thereunto added the worshipping of the shamefull idole Baal, they were
utterly (at last) destroyed by the meanes of Iehu a very iust, although a
rigorous prince.65 The offspring of Amri reigned about the space of 40.
yeares, not without the sheading of much innocent bloud, but it was
at last destroyed, when the measure of iniquitie was fulfilled, and was
utterly plucked up at the rootes by the iust iudgment of Almightie God.
Let all princes and magistrates therfore learne by these wonderfull
and terrible examples, to take heede to themselues how they deuise any
new religion, or alter the lawful and auncient maner of worshipping,
which God himselfe hath ordeined alreadie. Our faithfull Lord is our
good God, who hath fullie, simplie, and absolutely set downe in his
word his true religion and lawfull kind of worshippe, which hee hath
taught all men to keepe alone for euermore: Let all men therefore
cleaue fast unto it, and let them die in defence thereof that meane
to liue eternallie. They are punished from abouve whosoeuer doe adde
too or take away any thing from the religion and kind of worshippe
first ordeined and appointed of God. Marcke this ye great men and
Princes of authoritie. For the keeping or not keeping of true religion,
is the roote from whence aboundant fruite of felicitie, or else utter
unhappinesse doth spring and bud out. Hee therefore that hath eares
to heare let him heare. Let no man suffer himsefe to bee seduced and
carried away, with any coloured intent, how goodly to the eye soeuer it
bee, which is in deede a meere vanitie and detestable iniquitie. To God
obedience is much more acceptable than sacrifices are. Neither doe the
decrees of the highest need any whit at al our fond additions.66

63 1 Kings 16:2, 3, 9–13.

64 1 Kings 22:34.
65 2 Kings 9 and 10.
66 This concludes the first part of II.7, sermon seven of the second Decade. The

second part moves on from the question of the “cura religionis” to address the magis-
trate’s duty of “making good lawes for the preseruation of honesty, iustice, and publique
peace.”
 chapter two

‘THE GODLY PRINCE’: THE UNION OF CIVIL

AND ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION

In various scholia respecting the office and authority of the civil mag-
istrate scattered through several of his biblical commentaries, Peter
Martyr Vermigli mounts a sustained Augustinian critique of medieval
scholastic as well as Tridentine assumptions concerning the relation
between civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Vermigli affirms in particu-
lar the need for uniting civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the person
of the supreme magistrate. The argument of this Protestant scholastic
is remarkable for its simultaneous adherence to an Aristotelian concep-
tion of the unifying, architectonic function of the sovereign authority,
and to a thoroughly Augustinian understanding of the clear distinction
between the realms of operation of coercive and spiritual power. In
his Commentary on the Two Books of Samuel, Peter Martyr Vermigli stakes
out his claim with the confident assertion that “the charge of Religion
belongeth unto Princes.”1 He appeals initially to the authority of Aristo-
tle for whom political association (koinonia politike) is the highest form of
community (teleia koinonia) on the ground that it aims at the highest hap-
piness and the highest good; the ultimate goal (telos) of the polis is “to
provide that the people may live well and vertuously.” Vermigli con-
cludes, “no greater vertue there is, than Religion.” Vermigli gives no
precise reference, but very likely is referring to the opening discussion
in the Politics where Aristotle argues that the polis is the perfect form
of community (teleia koinonia) on the ground that it aims to realise hap-
piness (eudaimonia) in the highest degree through the practice of virtue.
“If all communities aim at some good, the state or political commu-
nity, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims

1 This is the title given to his scholium on I Samuel 28.3. See In Duos Libros Samuelis

Prophetæ … Commentarii (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1564); for an English translation see The
common places of the most famous and renowmed diuine Doctor Peter Martyr: diuided into foure
principall parts: with a large addition of manie theologicall and necessarie discourses, some neuer extant
before, Bk. 4.14.2. Translated and partlie gathered by Anthonie Marten (London: Henrie
Denham, Thomas Chard, William Broome, and Andrew Maunsell, 1583), 246; cited
hereafter as CP.
60 chapter two

at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.”2
Through this identification of the Christian commonwealth with Aris-
totle’s community of virtue, Vermigli attributes the care of religion to
the sovereign power (to kurion) which directs the life of the state towards
its appointed end. He appeals moreover to Aristotle’s claim that gov-
ernment, that is the exercise of sovereign power, is the principal and
architectonic art of all practical activity.3 There is indeed a hierarchy of
practical “Arts” where the art of government stands pre-eminent:
Wherefore seeing the office of a Magistrate is the chiefe and principall
science, he ought to rule all the partes of a commonweale. In deed
he himself exerciseth not those [particular] Arts, but yet ought he to
see that none doe corrupt and counterfeit them. If a Phisitian cure not
according to the prescript of Galen or Hypocrates, or if an Apothecarie
sell naughtie and corrupt drugges, the Magistrate ought to correct them
both. And if he may doe this in other artes, I see no cause why he may
not doe it in Religion.4

Vermigli follows up this Aristotelian analysis of the magistrate’s office

with a list of Old Testament kings and Roman emperors who “shewed
verie well that religion belonged unto their charge.”5 In a letter to
Queen Elizabeth on her accession to the throne of England in 1558
Vermigli urges her to take command in the reform of the Church
since it is the duty of a godly Prince to defend both tables of the “law
divine.”6 He interprets the two tables of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy
as representing the ordering respectively of religion and matters of civil

2 Aristotle, Politics, 1.1 (1252a3–6) See also Politics 3.6 (1278b15–24) where “well-

being” (eu zein) is defined as the “chief end both of individuals and the state.”
3 Aristotle, Ethics I.2 (1094a17–1094b10) According to Aristotle, the art (techne) which

aims at the highest good “is most truly the architectonic art. And politics appears to be
of this nature; for it is this that ordains which of the sciences should be studied in a state,
and which each class of citizens should learn and up to what point they should learn
them … now, since politics uses the rest of the sciences, and since, again, it legislates
as to what we are to do and what we are to abstain from, the end of this science must
include those of the others, so that this end must be the good for man … though it is
worth while to attain the end merely for one man, it is fine and more godlike to attain
it for a nation or for commonwealths (poleis).”
4 CP 4.14.2, 247. See also Vermigli’s Introduction to In Primum, Secundum, et Initium

Tertii Libri Ethicorum Aristotelii ad Nichomachum (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1563), fols. 1–10;
cited hereafter as NE. See CP 1.1.5–11 and Joseph C. McLelland, Philosophical Works of
Peter Martyr: on the Relation of Philosophy to Theology, PML vol. 4 (Kirksville: Truman State
University Press, 1996), 12, 13.
5 CP 4.14.2, 247.
6 Divine Epistles, CP, vol. 5, 61. See Marvin Anderson, “Royal Idolatry: Peter Martyr

and the Reformed Tradition,” ARG, Jahrgang 69 (1978): 186, 187.

 the union of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction 61

obligation; both are committed to the power of the godly magistrate.

Furthermore, in a paraphrase of Romans 13 Vermigli maintains that
the magistrate is God’s own Vicar or representative and for this reason
“everie soule ought to be subject unto the higher power.”7
In his Commentary on Romans chapter 13 Vermigli commences the
discussion with a formal and thoroughly Aristotelian definition of the
subject matter in hand:8
A magistrate is a person elected by God so that laws and peace may be
protected, evil may be repressed by means of penalties and the sword,
and virtue maybe promoted by every means. In this the efficient cause9
is God; the final cause or purpose is the protection of the laws and
peace from the troubles associated with vice and corruption as well as
the increase of virtues. The formal cause is the order constituted in
human affairs by divine providence. The material cause is a man, an
individual person, since whoever is chosen to be a magistrate is selected
from among men.10
This twofold goal of the magistrate’s power is well articulated by Thom-
as Cranmer in the intercessory prayer in the Communion Order of the
second Book of Common Prayer (1552) of King Edward VI: “We beseche
thee also to saue and defende all Christian Kynges, Princes, and Gov-
ernoures, and speciallye thy servaunt, Edward our Kyng, that under
hym we maye bee godlye and quietly governed: and graunt unto hys
whole counsayle, and to all that be putte in aucthoritie under hym, that
they may truely and indifferently minister justice, to the punishement
of wickednes and vice, and to the mayntenaunce of God’s true religion

7 The magistrate stands “in the stead and place of God.” CP 4.14.2, 247.
8 In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli Ad Romanos D. Petri Martyris Vermilij Florentini, Professoris
diuniaru[m] in schola Tigurini, com[m]entarij doctissimi, cum tractatione perutili rerum & locorum,
qui ad eam epistolam pertinent (Basle: Petrus Perna, 1558; repr. Perna 1560, 1568), fol. 640;
cited hereafter as ROM. The translation here is mine; see “The Civil Magistrate: Peter
Martyr Vermigli’s Commentary on Romans 13” in J.P. Donnelly, Frank James III,
and J.C. McLelland, eds., The Peter Martyr Reader (Kirksville, MO: Truman State
University Press, 1999), 223; cited hereafter as PMR.
9 In this formal definition Vermigli employs Aristotle’s teaching concerning

the “four causes.” See, e.g., Physics 2.1 (192b8–193b22) and Metaphysics 5. 2 (1013a24–
1013b28).
10 See also the scholium “De Magistratu” which appears at the conclusion of his

commentary on Judges 19, based on lectures given at Strasbourg 1553–1556. In librum

Iudicum D. Petri Martyris Vermilij Florentini … commentarij doctissimi: cum tractatione perutili
rerum & locorum (Zurich: Christopher Froschauer, 1561), fols. 897–911; cited hereafter as
IUD.
62 chapter two

and vertue.”11 Emphasis on the divine provenance of the magistrate’s

authority is the keynote of this political segment of the commentary.12
According to Vermigli “those who condemn the magistrate are against
God to their own considerable harm.”13 While there are manifold con-
stitutional forms—and here he cites the Aristotelian six-fold classifica-
tion of monarchy, aristocracy, and polity along with their corrupt ana-
logues tyranny, oligarchy and democracy14—all are divinely sanctioned,
for as the Apostle asserts, “there is no power but of God.” Regardless of
the manner of the magistrate’s selection, whether “done by consent of
the Senate, by the voyces of the people, or by the will of the souldiers,
or else by succession of inheritance” these human forms of political
process are all “mere instruments” whereas in fact “the proper cause of
magistrates is God himself.”15 Like the sun and the moon, the office
of the magistrate is ordained by God’s providential cosmic design.16
The magistrate is to be acknowledged as the supreme vicegerent of
God on earth since “the Prince is appointed to be in God’s place,
between GOD and men.”17 This function of the magistrate as mediator
of divinely ordained governance constitutes a key axiom in Vermigli’s
subsequent account of the complex relation between civil and ecclesi-
astical power. While the magistrate’s power is defined as deriving from
an infinite divine sanction, the proper sphere of its exercise is nonethe-
less very carefully circumscribed. It is restricted specifically to “lawes
touching outward discipline” as distinct from those which more directly

11 The First and Second Prayer Books of King Edward VI (London: J. Dent, 1913; repr.

1999), 382. For a full discussion of Vermigli’s influence on Cranmer’s revision of

the English liturgy see J.C. McLelland, “The Second Book of Common Prayer,” in
The Visible Words of God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of Peter Martyr Vermigli,
(Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957), 28–40.
12 See also CP 4.13, fols. 226–235. A sixteenth-century translation of these scholia

by Anthony Marten in Common places is reprinted together with the original Latin
text in Robert M. Kingdon, The Political Thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli: Selected Texts
and Commentary (Geneva: Droz, 1980), 26–61. A magistrate is “a person chosen by the
institution of God to keep the laws as touching outward discipline, in punishing of
transgressors with punishment of the bodie, and to defend and make much of the
good.”
13 PMR, 224.
14 Aristotle, Politics, 3.7 (1279a22–1279b10). See PMR, 226; see also Kingdon, Political

Thought, 3: “And although the latter three kinds are extremely corrupt and defective, yet
God is the author even of them. For there is in them a force and power to govern and
to coerce men which certainly could by no means come to be unless by God.”
15 IUD, fol. 898; Kingdon, Political Thought, 28.
16 IUD, fol. 899; Kingdon, Political Thought, 30.
17 ROM, fol. 646; Kingdon, Political Thought, 12.
 the union of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction 63

concern “the inwarde motions of the minde.”18 By virtue of this thor-

oughly Augustinian distinction between spiritual and external spheres
of power, Vermigli links his treatment of the authority of the magis-
trate to his basic soteriological assumptions regarding the right relation
between the orders of nature and grace. While there are other kinds
of offices depending upon the direct institution of God, they need not
conflict with the appointed function of the magistrate to rule in the
forum externum.
It is the office of ministers through the Word of God to pearse even to the
inward motions of the minde: because the Holy Ghost joineth his power, both
to the right preaching of his word, and also to the sacraments which are
ministered in the Church. The magistrate only exerciseth outward discipline
and punishment upon transgressors. The minister in the name of God,
bindeth the guilty and unpenitent, and in his name excludeth them from
the kingdome of heaven, as long as they shall so remaine. The Magistrate
punisheth with outwarde punishments, and when need requireth, useth
the sword. Both of them nourish the godly, but diversely.19
Both civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction serve the “safetie” or nour-
ishment of the people, but this “safetie” is interpreted as intrinsically
twofold, namely as belonging either to the operation of grace and eter-
nal salvation, or to the order of nature and temporal peace. This dis-
tinction between spiritual and external jurisdiction recalls Augustine’s
delineation of the twofold peace of the earthly and heavenly cities.20

Princes and the Papacy

Vermigli then proceeds to observe that such an identification of the

civil magistrate with the divinely ordained “higher power” of Paul’s
Epistle is challenged by certain “ecclesiasticall men,” as he calls them,
proponents of papal authority who maintain their exemption from the
jurisdiction of the “publike and ordinarie power” of the civil magistrate:
“But the Papistes and they which will be called Ecclesiasticall men, will
not give eare hereunto: for they cry, that they are exempted from pub-
like and ordinarie powers, whereas yet the Apostle used no exception,
when he said, Let every soule be subject to the higher powers.”21 Per-

18 IUD, fol. 897; Kingdon, Political Thought, 26.

19 IUD, fol. 897; Kingdon, Political Thought, 26, my italics.
20 On this see, for example, De Civitate Dei, XIX.12–17.
21 IUD, fol. 899; Kingdon, Political Thought, 30. See also CP 4.2.10 & 11, fol. 33–
64 chapter two

haps he has in mind such apologists of the papal plenitudo potestatis as

Reginald Pole, a contemporary of Vermigli’s in Italy before the latter’s
flight. First cousin to Henry VIII, Pole was a student in Padua in the
1520s during Vermigli’s time there, was created a cardinal by Paul III
in 1536, and conferred at the Conference of Ratisbon in 1541 with Gas-
paro Contarini in a failed attempt to conciliate the Protestants. He was
one of three papal legates at the Council of Trent and was consecrated
Archbishop of Canterbury in 1556 under Queen Mary.22 In a pamphlet
critical of his claim to headship of the Church in the Act of Supremacy of
1534 Pole addressed himself to King Henry VIII as follows:
Your whole reasoning comes to the conclusion that you consider the
Church a corpus politicum … Great as the distance is between heaven
and earth, so great also is the distance between the civil power and
the ecclesiastical, and so great the difference between this body of the
Church, which is the body of Christ, and that which is the body politic
and merely human.23
On the ground of his supposition of the inherent superiority of the
spiritual to the temporal sword Pole rejects Henry’s claim to supreme
ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Church of England. Pole’s ecclesi-
ology expresses a fundamentally disparate interpretation of the sense
of Romans 13 when compared with Vermigli’s. The reformer, how-
ever, chooses not to dispute directly with his contemporaries, but rather
to examine the arguments for the Papal supremacy set out in early

35: “the Clergie and Ecclesiasticall men contend, that they by the benefite of Princes
are exempted from tributes and customes.” Vermigli cites Decretales Gregorii IX, “Non
minus” 3.49.4 in Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Emil Friedberg (Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz,
1879; repr. Graz: Akademische Druk-u. Verlagsanstalt, 1955, 1959) vol. 2, col. 654, 655;
cited hereafter as CICan. See also Boniface VIII’s Bull of 1296 “Clericis Laicos” under
the title De Immunitate ecclesiarum in Liber Sextus decretalium cum Clementinis, in CICan vol. 2,
col. 1287, 1288.
22 In “Royal Idolatry,” 192, Marvin Anderson notes that Vermigli owned a copy of

Vergerio’s 1555 Strasbourg edition of Reginald Pole’s treatise Pro ecclesiasticæ unitatis.
23 Ad Henricum Octavum Britanniæ regem, pro ecclesiasticæ unitatis defensione, libri quatuor …

Excussum (Romæ: Apud Antonium Bladum Asulanum, 1538); repr. in Juan T. Roca-
berti, Bibliotheca maxima pontificia, Rome, 1698, XVIII, 204: “Tota tua ratio concludit te
Ecclesiam existimare corpus politicum esse quod si ita est: equidem hac in parte crim-
ine malitiæ te libero, sed idem perniciosa ignorantia obcæcatum esse dico. Quantum
enim distat cælum a terra, tantum inter civilem potestatem, et ecclesiasticam interest:
tantum hoc corpus Ecclesiæ, quod est corpus Christi, ab illo, quod est politicum, et
mere humanium differt.” Translated by E. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study
in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), 229. See also
Reginald Pole, De Summo Pontifice Christi in terris Vicario, eiusque officio & potestate, Louvain:
Apud Ioannem Foulerum Anglum., 1569; facsimile reprint, Farnborough 1968.
 the union of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction 65

fourteenth-century canon law.24 While Vermigli cites a variety of

sources from the canon law, he undertakes a particularly extensive anal-
ysis of the Bull Unam Sanctam promulgated by Pope Boniface VIII at the
Roman Council of October 1302 during his dispute with Philip the Fair,
King of France.25 This document sets out a series of dogmatic propo-
sitions culminating in the assertion of Papal supremacy. Unam Sanctam
is remarkable both for succinctness and for theological clarity and thus
proves to be most useful to Vermigli in his summary of the scholastic
rationale for the subordination of temporal to spiritual power. Scholars
now think it likely that the great canonist and theologian Giles of Rome
was the chief architect of the text of the Bull.26
At the outset of his discussion of the Bull Vermigli remarks that
it is “a worlde” (pretium) to read the arguments of those “ecclesiasti-
call men” who seek exemption from the jurisdiction of the magistrate
(IUD, fol. 899). While the translator intended to convey the sense of
“marvel” or “wonder,” there is something quite appropriate about his
rendering pretium as “worlde.” For in the appeal of Unam Sanctam to
the hierarchical logic of the “Lex Divinitatis” of the sixth-century Chris-
tian neoplatonist Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Boniface VIII for-
mulates a distilled expression of a “political ontology”—indeed of a

24 See “Of a Magistrate, and of the difference betweene Civill and Ecclesiasticall

Power,” IUD, fols. 899–907; Kingdon, Political Thought, 31 ff., CP 4.13.7–9 and 14–23;
see also the scholia on “The powers that be are ordained of God,” ROM, fol. 642–644;
Kingdon, Political Thought, 5, 6; and “Whether two heads may be in the Church, one
visible and another invisible,” In Duos Libros Samuelis, CP 4.3.10. For a critical discussion
of Vermigli’s use of the Corpus Iuris Canonici see Kingdon, Political Thought, viii & ix.
25 The Bull was formally issued on 18 November of the same year. The original is

no longer in existence; the oldest text in the registers of Boniface VIII in the Vatican
archives, Reg. Vatic., L, fol. 387. There is no doubt of the genuineness of the Bull. Unam
Sanctam is incorporated under Extravagantes Decretales Communes, I.8.1, ‘De Maioritate
et Obedientia’, CICan, vol. 2, col. 1245–1246. An English translation of the Bull is
available in Brian Tierney, The Crisis of Church and State, 1050–1300 (Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 1988), 188–189; see also Tierney’s discussion of the dispute between
Boniface VIII and Philip the Fair, 180–185.
26 For a discussion of the authorship of the Bull see David Luscombe, “The ‘Lex

Divinitatis’ in the Bull ‘Unam Sanctam’ of Pope Boniface VIII,” in C.N.L. Brooke, et al.,
eds., Church and Government in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1976), 215. Aegidius Romanus or Giles of Rome, Archbishop of Bourges (1243–1316),
was the author of De ecclesiastica potestate (On Ecclesiastical Power), edited and translated
by Arthur P. Monahan, Texts and Studies in Religion, vol. 41 (Lewiston, Queenston,
and Lampeter: Mellen Press, 1990); there is another recent translation by R.W. Dyson,
(Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1986). Giles, known as doctor verbosus, presents here
a considerably extended version of the argument of the Bull; he also dedicated the
treatise to his patron Boniface.
66 chapter two

complete cosmic vision—which is deeply, though as we shall see, not

totally at odds with the Augustinian assumptions underpinning Ver-
migli’s own thought. Through his polemical use of the Bull, Vermigli
succeeds in elevating the conflict between the traditional scholastic
interpretation of Romans 13 and his own reformed reading of the text
to the profound level of a theological tension between the two leading
traditions of Christian Platonism, viz. the Pseudo-Dionysian and the
Augustinian.27 At the Augustinian pole, emphasis is placed upon the
utter incommensurability between the orders of grace and nature. Ver-
migli, along with the reformers generally, follows Augustine in looking
directly to the incarnate Christ to accomplish an immediate union of the
soul with God by grace alone in a “forensic” justification. Luther, for
example, adopts a consciously Augustinian stance in his criticism of the
lack of an explicitly Christological mediation between the soul and the
divine in the Pseudo-Dionysian spirituality.28 By contrast, at the pole of
Pseudo-Dionysian spirituality, the orders of grace and nature constitute
a contiguous, ascending hierarchy wherein the soul’s approach to God
is accomplished by a graduated process of mediation. Consistent with this
latter approach, the hierarchical mediation of certain communal, litur-
gical, and sacramental functions is deemed necessary in the “transfor-
mational process” of salvation.29 The tension between these two great
theological traditions of Christian Platonism lies at the very heart of
Vermigli’s critique of the fourteenth-century canonists’ interpretation
of Romans 13 and, by extension, of the hermeneutic embodied in the
ecclesiology of the Council of Trent.

27 For a particularly helpful discussion of the historical interplay between the polit-

ical theologies of Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius, see Wayne J. Hankey, “‘Diony-

sius dixit, lex divinitatis est ultima per media reducere:’ Aquinas, Hierocracy and the
‘Augustinisme Politique’,” Medioevo XVIII (1992), 119–150 and idem “Augustinian Imme-
diacy and Dionysian Mediation in John Colet, Edmund Spenser, Richard Hooker and
the Cardinal de Bérulle,” in Dominique de Courcelles, ed., Augustinus in der Neuzeit
(Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), 125–132, 159, 160. See also Louis Dupré, Passage to Moder-
nity: An Essay in the Hermeneutics of Nature and Culture (New Haven: 1993), 167–189.
28 Paul Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius: A Commentary on the Texts and an Introduction to their

Influence, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) 126, 220.

29 See, e.g., Pius IV, Professio Fidei Tridentinæ, first published in the bull “Injunctum

nobis” of 13 November 1564; repr. H. Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et

Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum, 37th edition, (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1991),
587–589 (nos. 1862–1870). For an English translation see Martin D.W. Jones, The Counter
Reformation: Religion and Society in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1995), 70.
 the union of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction 67

Unam Sanctam, as the Bull’s title suggests, is concerned chiefly with

the unity of the Church.30 To this end Boniface propounds the doctrine
of the papal plenitude of power (plenitudo potestatis) and consequently
upholds first and foremost the subordination of temporal to spiritual
jurisdiction:
One sword ought to be subordinated to the other, and temporal author-
ity subjected to spiritual power. For, since the Apostle said: ‘There is no
power except from God and those that are, are ordained of God’ [Rom
13:1–2], they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated
to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by
the other. For according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is the law of divinity
(lex divinitatis) that the lowest things are led to the highest by intermedi-
aries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led
back equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and
the inferior by the superior … Therefore if the terrestrial power err, it
will be judged by the spiritual power.31

The document epitomizes the scholastic interpretation of the Gelasian

ecclesiology of the “two swords” as shaped by Hugh of St. Victor,
Bernard of Clairvaux, Albertus Magnus, St. Bonaventure and Thomas
Aquinas, all of whom were deeply influenced by the Pseudo-Dionysian
spiritual and theological tradition.32 In Vermigli’s summary of this alter-

30 The reference is to the Nicene Creed: “et [credo] in unam sanctam catholicam et

apostolicam ecclesiam.”
31 CICan, vol. 2, col. 1245–1246. The passage continues: “Therefore if the terrestrial

power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power
err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all
err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man … This authority is not human
but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him and his
successors … Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the
ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings …” See
Tierney, Crisis of Church and State, 188, 189. David Luscombe notes the close similarity
between the logic employed here and the argument put forward by Giles of Rome in
his treatise on ecclesiastical power, “Lex divinitatis in Unam Sanctam,” 206, 215–217.
See also Giles of Rome, De ecclesiastica potestate, I.4, pp. 17–20 and Arthur Monahan’s
introduction, xxvii.
32 Luscombe, “Lex divinitatis in Unam Sanctam,” 208–217. Hugh of St. Victor, On

the Sacraments of the Christian Faith, transl. Roy J. Deferrari, Cambridge, Mass. 1951, 2.2.4–
7, 256–258 and also Hugh’s Commentariorum in Hierarchiam Coelestem S. Dionysii Areopagite,
PL 175, 1099. Bernard of Clairvaux, Five Books on Consideration: Advice to a Pope, transl.
J.D. Anderson and Elizabeth T. Kennan, Kalamazoo 1976. See “Super Dionysium de
cælesti hierarchia” in Albertus Magnus, Opera omnia, Monasterii Westfalorum 1951–,
t. 36, Ia pars. For Aquinas’s formulation of the lex divinitatis see Summa Theologica IIa,
IIæ Q. 172, art. 2. See also Monahan’s introduction to Giles of Rome, De Ecclesiastica
Potestate, ix–xxvii.
68 chapter two

native exposition of Romans 13, the ecclesiology of the Bull is reduced

to a single, straightforward syllogism:33 all power is ordained by God; all
powers are hierarchically ordered with respect to one another accord-
ing to the lex divinitatis; therefore, given Christ’s affirmation in the gospel
of the sufficiency of the two swords,34 the spiritual sword must by neces-
sity regulate the temporal.35 The syllogism thus hangs on the interpre-
tation of the precise manner of divine ordination, that is to say how
exactly the higher powers are “ordained of God.” According to Giles
of Rome, the putative architect of Unam Sanctam, “if the lower things
were brought to the highest in the same way an intermediary is, there
would be no right order in the universe.”36 On this account, the tempo-
ral authority cannot claim an “immediate” relation to the divine source
of power without violating the “order of the universe,” for according
to the lex divinitatis the due subordination of the lower things to the
highest is nothing less than a cosmic law. For Vermigli, however, who
follows a distinctly Augustinian logic, the first principle of order does
not consist primarily in a gradual, hierarchical mediation but rather in
a simple, binary distinction between two principal species of subjection,
namely the political / external and the spiritual / internal. Unlike Boni-
face’s appeal to a subordination of the temporal to the spiritual power
according to the lex divinitatis, Vermigli’s two species of power cannot be
ordered hierarchically, as remarked previously, owing to their incom-
mensurability. Thus, there are simply “two subjections,” one civil and
the other spiritual.
According to Boniface, however, such an assertion of the incommen-
surability of the two swords risks the charge of Gnostic dualism. The
papal plenitude of power “is not human, but rather divine, granted to
Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him and his successors …
Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the
ordinance of God [Rom 13: 2], unless he invent like Manicheus two

33 J. Rivière, Le problème de l’église et de l’état au temps de Philippe le Bel: Étude de théologie

positive, Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, VIII (Paris: Librairie Ancienne H. Champion,

E. Champion, 1926), 396.
34 Luke 22:38.
35 In a series of important monographs Walter Ullmann has designated this the

“descending theme” in medieval discourse on ecclesiastical power. See Principles of

Government and Politics in the Middle Ages, 3rd ed., New York 1974; see also Walter
Ullmann, Law and Politics in the Middle Ages: An Introduction to the Sources of Medieval Political
Ideas, Ithaca 1975, 30 ff.
36 De Ecclesiastica potestate, I.4, transl. Monahan, 18.
 the union of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction 69

beginnings …”37 On the one hand, it might appear, at least superfi-

cially, that Vermigli’s Augustinian insistence upon the incommensura-
bility of the “two subjections” has led him precisely into the Manichean
dualism envisaged by Boniface. On the other hand, however, Vermigli’s
ascription of ecclesiastical supremacy to the magistrate appears to con-
flate the civil and ecclesiastical powers and thus to raise the contrary
logical difficulty. Both his first principles and his practical conclusions
take issue with the hierarchical logic of the lex divinitatis as interpreted
in Unam Sanctam.

The Prince as Supreme Hierarch

How, then, in the light of these difficulties, does Vermigli interpret the
alternative Augustinian dialectic of the “two subjections?” He argues
that princes are to be called not only “Deacons or Ministers of God,
but also Pastors” of the people.38 As pastors the magistrates have the
care of holy things. On the basis of this claim alone, it would seem
that the inversion of the Bull’s logic is complete; the Prince is divinely
appointed to the office of Supreme Hierarch, that is the magistrate
whose highest care is for the souls of his subjects: “For we doe not
imagine that a Prince is a Neteheard [cowherd] or Swineheard, to
whom is committed a care onlie of the fleshe, bellie, and skinne of his
subjectes, yea rather he must provide that they may live vertuouslie
and godlie.”39 As we have seen, according to Vermigli’s Aristotelian

37 Unam Sanctam, in CICan, vol. 2, col. 1246.

38 IUD, fol. 898; Kingdon, Political Thought, 27. See Anderson, “Royal Idolatry,” 171.
39 IUD, fol. 901; Kingdon, Political Thought, 34. For a remarkably similar account see

Richard Hooker, Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie, VIII.3.5; The Folger Library Edition of
the Works of Richard Hooker, W. Speed Hill (ed.), 7 vols. (London and Cambridge, Mass.:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977–1997), vol. 3, 352.20–353.1: “A grosse
errour it is to think that regall power ought to serve for the good of the bodie and
not of the soule, for mens temporall peace and not their eternall safetie; as if God
had ordained Kings for no other ende and purpose but only to fatt up men like hogges
and to see that they have their mast? Indeed to leade men unto salvation by the hand
of secret, invisible and ghostly regiment or by the externall administration of thinges
belonging unto priesly order (such as the worde and Sacramentes are) this is denied
unto Christian Kings, no cause in the world to think them uncapable of supreme
authoritie in the outwarde govement which disposeth the affayres of religion so farr
forth as the same are disposable by humane authoritie and to think them uncapable
thereof only for that, the said religion is everlastingly beneficiall to them that faythfullie
continue in it.”
70 chapter two

understanding of the commonwealth as the community of virtue (teleia

koinonia), the promotion of “true religion” is the magistrate’s highest
care. Where in this argument is the Augustinian distinction between
the “two subjections?” In making his case, Vermigli both complicates
and clarifies the question by arguing for a mutual subjection of civil and
spiritual jurisdiction:
The civill power ought to be subject to the word of God which is
preached by the Ministers. But in lyke manner the Ecclesiasticall power
is subject unto the civill, when the ministers behave themselves ill, either
in things humane, or things Ecclesiasticall. For these powers are after
a sort interchangeable, and sundrie wayes are occupied about the selfe-
same things, and mutuallie helpe one another … The Ecclesiasticall power,
is subject unto the Magistrate, not by a spirituall subjection but by a politicke. For as
touching the Sacraments and Sermons, it is not subject unto it, because
the Magistrate may not alter the word of God, or the Sacramentes which
the Minister useth. Neither can he compel the Pastors and teachers of
the church to teach otherwise, or in any other sort to administer the
Sacraments, than is prescribed by the word of God. Howbeit Ministers
in that they be men and Citizens, are without all doubt subject together
with their landes, riches, and possessions unto the Magistrate.40

Preservation of the right distinction between “spiritual subjection” and

“political subjection” demands recognition of the inherently equivocal
nature of ecclesiastical power. To the extent that ecclesiastical jurisdic-
tion is involved in the “lawes touching outwarde discipline” it is prop-
erly subordinated to the rule of the civil magistrate. At the same time,
the magistrate is bound to submit to the jurisdiction of that aspect
of ecclesiastical power exercised in matters concerning “the inwarde
motions of the minde.”41 Thus in the internal and invisible realm of the
civitas Dei, power is immediately derived from the divine source without
the mediation of the magistrate; in the external and visible realm of
the civitas terrena, on the other hand, civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction
are united in the Prince or magistrate. This distinction between two
species of ecclesiastical subjection reveals how Vermigli is able both to
overthrow and to retain the logic of hierarchical mediation. Closely fol-
lowing Augustine, he upholds a Christocentric immediacy in the relation

40 IUD, fol. 901; Kingdon, Political Thought, 35, my italics.

41 IUD, fol. 897; Kingdon, Political Thought, 26. In the exercise of spiritual jurisdic-
tion, Christ alone is Supreme Hierarch: “For he is our King … [who] is now gone up
into heaven, yet doeth governe this kingdome of his, indeed not with a visible presence,
but by the spirit and word of the holie scriptures.” CP 4, 60. See Anderson, “Royal
Idolatry,” 163.
 the union of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction 71

between soul and God in the internal sphere of “spiritual subjection.”

In the external sphere of “politike subjection,” however, the logic of
hierarchical mediation continues to lend stability to the institutions of
the Christian commonwealth. According to Vermigli, bishops, doctors,
elders and other ecclesiastical rulers are subject to the architectonic
correction of the sovereign power “as when David, Joas, Hezekiah and
Josiah reformed the religion and priestes.”42 Those “ecclesiasticall men”
who deny the supremacy of the magistrate in ecclesiastical matters
still dreame of one civill power that is Ecclesiasticall, and of an other that
is profane. The one of the which they attribute unto the Pope, and the
other unto the Magistrate: but all in vaine: for as much as pertaineth
unto Ecclesiasticall power, the civill Magistrate is sufficient. For he, as
saith Aristotle, in his Politikes, must provide, that all men doe their
duetie: both laiers, phisitians, husbandmen, Apothecaries: among whom
we may also recken ministers and preachers … For the church hath
Elders, who must provide in what order all things ought to be doone,
and that all things be in order the Magistrate ought to provide.43

Vermigli’s overriding concern in his rejection of the traditional exemp-

tions of the clergy from civil jurisdiction is unity and order in the com-
monwealth comprising “all sorts and conditions of men.” Hierarchy is
sustainable, therefore, not as a principle governing the relation between
the spiritual and temporal realms, but rather as the means for securing
the stability and unity of all matters concerning “outward discipline.”
Thus, Vermigli overturns Reginald Pole’s claim that civil and ecclesias-
tical power are as far distant from one another as heaven and earth and
in his Commentary on Samuel observes that the title of headship claimed
by King Henry VIII in relation to the Church of England is indeed jus-
tified: “And this perhaps is it, why the king of England would be called
head of his own Church next unto Christ. For he thought that that
power which the Pope usurped to himselfe was his, and in his owne
kingdome pertained to himselfe. The title indeed was unwonted and
displeased manie godlie men: howbeit if we consider the thing it selfe,
he meant nothing else but that which we have now said.”44

42 CP 4, 61.
43 See the scholium on I Sam. 8.7, “Whether two heads may be in the Church, one
visible and another invisible.” CP 4.3.5, fol. 38; compare CP 4.13.7.
44 CP 4.3.6, fol. 38. It is probable that Vermigli is alluding here, among others,

to John Calvin who had accused of blasphemy those who used this title to refer
to the position of Henry VIII with respect to the Church of England. See Calvin’s
“Commentary on Amos,” 7:10–13, Opera quæ supersunt omnia, ed. G. Baum, E. Caunitz
72 chapter two

What conclusions, then, may we draw from this inquiry? First—and

perhaps most remarkably—the uniting of civil and ecclesiastical juris-
diction in the person of the civil magistrate becomes for Vermigli the
very instrument whereby the binary Augustinian distinction between
the “two kindes of subjection” is finally and safely secured. Indeed the
clear distinction between the orders of Grace and Nature reflected in
Vermigli’s own reformed soteriology appears to lead him to this for-
mulation of the constitutional arrangement of civil and ecclesiastical
power. In this argument there is, moreover, a remarkable conjunction
of Aristotelian and Augustinian political theory. Vermigli’s Augustinian
critique of the Dionysian lex divinitatis as interpreted in the Bull Unam
Sanctam, renders ecclesiastical power simultaneously both more radi-
cally spiritual and more human and worldly: the power exercised by
ministers through the Word in the “inward motions of the minde”
is sharply distinguished from that wielded by the magistrate through
the sword in matters of “outward discipline.”45 Conversely, civil power
has become sacralised, chiefly owing to its unmediated link with the
divine fount of power. And while Boniface VIII’s interpretation of the
Dionysian lex divinitatis has been repudiated, the hierarchical princi-
ple itself has nonetheless been reconfirmed in a secular guise. Indeed,
owing to Vermigli’s adherence to the Aristotelian conception of the
architectonic function of political power, the logic of hierarchical medi-
ation is reaffirmed by him as essential to the stable ordering of external
political community, both civil and ecclesiastical. It is the hierarchical
principle itself which demands the subordination of ecclesiastical per-
sons to the ruling authority of the civil magistrate in all matters which
touch “outward discipline.” In his interpretation of Romans 13 Ver-
migli’s Augustinian Christo-centrism is normative in shaping his rejec-
tion of the hierarchical mediation between the orders of nature and
grace, between the realms of the “two subjections.” At the same time,
however, within the order of nature—that is within the external, tem-
poral realm of political existence—the hierarchical rule that the lower
is led back to the higher through the intermediate power continues to
hold. In the realm of “the inwarde motions of the minde,” however,
“Christ alone is given to be head of the Church for the Church is a
celestial, divine, and spirituall bodie; … for regeneration and remission

and E. Reuss (Brunswick: 1963–1900), vol. xliii. 134. I am grateful to one of the
reviewers of this essay for this reference.
45 IUD, fol. 897; Kingdon, Political Thought, 26.
 the union of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction 73

of sinnes doe flowe from the spirite of Christ and not from man … . So
that everie sense and moving of the church floweth from Christ alone,
not from any mortall man.”46 In the realm of “politike subjection,” on
the other hand, the magistrate assumes the role of Supreme Hierarch,
the very “lex animata” who gives life and orderly motion to the manifold
members of the body politic:
And kings maie be called the heads of the Commonweale … For even
as from the head is derived all the sense and motion into the bodie, so
the senses by good lawes, and motions, by edictes and commandements
are derived from the prince unto the people. And this strength exceedeth
not the naturall power … For vertue springeth of frequented Actions. So
when as princes by lawes and edictes drive their subiects unto actions,
they also drive them unto vertues. But the spirit of God and regeneration
are not attained by manie actions, but onelie by the blessings of God.47
Thus, Vermigli’s rejection of the hierarchical lex divinitatis is best under-
stood as qualified. By this argument, the goals of unity, order and peace
pursued by Boniface VIII by means of the assertion of the papal pleni-
tude of power are sought equally by Vermigli in the Christian common-
wealth, albeit through the due subordination of all subjects, in all mat-
ters civil and ecclesiastical, to the supreme magistrate. In this fashion
the lex divinitatis is reinterpreted within an Augustinian and Aristotelian
framework as a key stabilising principle of early-modern, secular politi-
cal life in general and of the Tudor state in particular.

46 CP 4.3.2, fol. 36.

47 CP 4.3.1, 2, fols. 35, 36.
 text

PETER MARTYR VERMIGLI

Of a Magistrate, and of the difference

betweene Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall power 1

Now it remains to address the Magistrate,2 [897] whom I judge can

be described as a person chosen and instituted by God to defend the
divine laws in matters of external discipline, by inflicting bodily punish-
ment upon transgressors and by supporting and encouraging the good.
The divine plan selects many people who do not act as magistrates.
The ministers of the Church are such an example. They still defend

1 I wish to thank my research assistant, M. Nicholas Dion, graduate student in the

Faculty of Religious Studies at McGill University, for his contribution to the translation
of this text from the Latin original. The text reproduced here is an extended scholium
drawn from lectures given on the Book of Judges during Vermigli’s second period
as professor at Strasbourg in the presence of Marian Exiles resident there, including
Richard Cox and John Jewel. Following the death of Edward VI in 1553, Vermigli had
been provided by the government with a passport of safe conduct “which after he had
obtained yet his friendes scarcelie beleeued, that although he had had received the
Queens Letters, that he could depart away safe. For his aduersaries said, that so great
an enemie of the Popes Religion should not be suffered to scape out of their hands, but
should be plucked euen out of the ship to prison and punishment.” His good friend
Thomas Cranmer met with a less fortunate end. Josiah Simler, “An Oration of the
life and death of that worhtie man and excellent Diuine D. Peter Martyr Vermilius,
professor of Diuinitie in the Schoole of Zuricke,” Another Collection of certein Diuine matters
and doctrines of the same M.D. Peter Martyr, translated by Anthonie Marten (London: Henry
Denham, 1583), Qq.iij. recto.
2 Titled ‘De Magistratu’, the scholium appears at the conclusion of Vermigli’s com-

mentary on the Book of Judges, chapter 19. The commentary was first published in a
Latin edition at Zurich under the title In librum Iudicum D. Petri Martyris Vermilij Florentini
… commentarij doctissimi (Zurich: Christopher Froschauer, 1561) and three years later in
English translation by John Day under the title Most fruitfull [and] learned co[m]mentaries of
Doctor Peter Martir Vermil Florentine, professor of deuinitie, in the Vniuersitye of Tygure: with a very
profitable tract of the matter and places (London: John Day, 1564), fols. 255 recto–267 recto.
For a recent edition of this sixteenth-century translation, see Kingdon, Political Writings,
26–61. Professor Kingdon’s edition is most helpful and has provided a solid foundation
for the annotation of this new translation. The foliation provided in square brackets
refers to the authoritative Latin text of the scholium published in Loci communes: Ex variis
ipsius aucthoris & libris in unum volumen collecti, & quatour classes distribute, ed. Robert Mas-
son, 3 vols. (London: John Kingston, 1576).
76 chapter two

God’s word and laws, but not only in matters of external instruction. It
is the duty of ministers to reach into the depths and motions of souls
by way of the divine word. The Holy Spirit acts here as well, joining
His strength with that of orthodox preaching and of the sacraments
distributed by the Church. The magistrate works alone in edifying and
punishing transgressors. The minister binds the guilty and the incor-
rigible in the name of God, and excludes them from the kingdom of
Heaven unless they correct their ways. The magistrate inflicts exter-
nal punishment, working through the use of the sword. Both ministers
and magistrates act to nurture the pious, but in different ways. The
magistrate increases them in works, honours and merits. The minister
consoles them through the promises of God and the sacraments. The
magistrate assures that the laws are kept most carefully, the guilty are
punished, and the good are both helped and nurtured. The law acts
as a mute magistrate, while the magistrate represents the moving and
speaking law. Certainly he is also a minister of God since, as Paul said,
magistrates sing the praises of those who live justly.3 The magistrate
wields the sword against the wicked, acting as the avenger and cham-
pion of God, and looks to nothing else but the salvation of men.

The manifold forms of the Magistrate’s power

There is no single form for a magistrate. He may be a monarch, an

aristocrat, a constitutional man or tyrant, an oligarch or a democrat.4
Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers [898] have elegantly expounded
the descriptions and natures of these forms.5 Of all these forms, the

3Rom. 13:3.
4See commentary on 1 Samuel 8:6, In duos libros Samuelis Prophetæ qui vulgo Priores libri
Regum appellantur D. Petri Martyris Vermilii Florentini, professoris diuinarum literarum in schola
Tigurina, Commentarii doctissimi, cum rerum & locorum plurimorum tractatione perutili (Zurich:
C. Froschauer, 1564).
5 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, VIII.10.1–3 (Bekker 1160a31): “Now there are three

forms of constitution, and also an equal number of perversions or corruptions of those

forms. The constitutions are Kingship, Aristocracy, and thirdly, a constitution based on
a property classification, which it seems appropriate to describe as timocratic, although
most people are accustomed to speak of it merely as a constitutional government or
Republic. The best of these constitutions is Kingship, and the worst Timocracy. The
perversion of Kingship is Tyranny. Both are monarchies, but there is a very wide
difference between them: a tyrant studies his own advantage, a king that of his subjects.
For a monarch is not a king if he does not possess independent resources, and is not
better supplied with goods of every kind than his subjects; but a ruler so situated lacks
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 77

best one must provide a good or tolerable state for everyone lest it
degenerate into vice. When tyrants or princes who conduct matters
shamefully come to power, they must be endured as much as is per-
mitted by the word of God. When the Jews were oppressed by the
strength of the Babylonians, God warned them to endure6 and pray
for the king7 although he was a tyrant, and had captured the king-
dom of the Hebrews most unlawfully. Even though Cæsar held Judea
by tyranny, still Christ said, Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Cae-
sar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.8 The Apostles also taught that
we must serve princes and pray for them.9 Nero was a most impure
brute, yet in the Epistle to the Romans, the Apostle shows that we must
obey princes not only out of fear but because of conscience.10 Phocas
obtained the Empire of Rome by a most evil device, and killed both
his Prince Mauritius and his sons.11 Still the Romans recognised him as
Emperor, and Pope Gregory I was allowed to read his commands and
writings to the people. One may wish to identify the characteristics of a
Commonwealth, and ask whether the Jews possessed one. This is easy
to explain. At first, the Jews had an aristocracy. Approving of Jethro’s
counsel, God declared that the wise, the strong and those fearful of God
should be chosen to manage the Commonwealth.12 As was prophesied,
God ordered that seventy men be chosen to help Moses manage the
state, and He breathed his spirit into them.13 Thus were the Israelites
ruled, although a monarchy was later instituted.

nothing, and therefore will not study his own interests but those of his subjects. (A king
who is not independent of his subjects [i.e., elected by them] will be merely a sort of
titular king). Tyranny is the exact opposite in this respect, for the tyrant pursues his
own good. The inferiority of Tyranny among the perversions is more evident than that
of Timocracy among the constitutions, for the opposite of the best must be the worst.”
See also Plato, Republic 544C; Cicero, De Republica, I.41–45.
6 Jer. 27:12.
7 Jer. 29:7.
8 Matt. 22:21.
9 Rom. 13:1; 1 Pet. 2:13. These two texts are the scriptural loci classici for Reformed

political theology.
10 Rom. 13:5.
11 Phocas was a non-commissioned officer in the Roman army when he seized

power by murdering the emperor Mauritius in 602 CE. He ruled for eight years.
12 Deut. 1:9; Exod. 18:14.
13 Num. 11:16.
78 chapter two

That Princes may be called Pastors

It must not be omitted that princes are not only referred to in holy
writings as deacons or ministers of God, but also as pastors. Ezekiel
complained heavily of this, for these pastors cruelly and perversely fed
the people.14 Homer called his king Agamemnon πομενα λ ον, “shep-
herd of the people”.15 These pastors should not behave like soldiers or
mercenaries, oppressing and skinning the people, but they should serve,
nurture and feed like shepherds. Princes are also called fathers, for the
Romans called their senators patres conscripti, “enlisted fathers.”16 Nor
was there a greater or more ancient honour in the Commonwealth
than to be called pater patriae, “father of the homeland.”17 Therefore, the
divine commandment “Honour your father and your mother” must
also apply to princes, who should give paternal adoration in return.18
Princes should never forget that they do not rule over beasts but over
men, and that they themselves are also men. They should therefore be
much better and superior to those men whom they rule. Otherwise,
they are not fit to rule. We do not give any sheep command over the
other sheep. It is given first to a ram, and then to a shepherd above
him. Just as a shepherd rules the sheep, so is a magistrate commis-
sioned to rule his people. Therefore, magistrates should surpass their
people. We must also consider who installs magistrates. Sometimes this
is done by a consenting senate, sometimes by popular vote, by mili-
tary decision, or by hereditary succession. These are but instruments.
God Himself is the proper cause of magistrates. This may be shown in
many ways. First, a certain light is ignited in the souls of men, allowing

14 Ezek. 34.
15 Homer, Iliad, transl. Richmond Lattimore (Chicago: Chicago University Press,
1951), II.244.
16 In Latin, ‘Patres et conscripti,’ i.e. the Roman senate. See T. Livy, Ab urbe condita, 2.1.

According to ancient tradition, Romulus instituted a senate consisting of one hundred

elders called Patres. After the Sabines joined the State, another hundred were added.
Tarquinius Priscus, the fifth king, added a third hundred, called Patres Minorum Gentium.
When Tarquinius Superbus, the seventh and last king of Rome, was banished, several
of the senate followed him, and the vacancies were filled up by Junius Brutus, the first
consul. The new members were enrolled in the senatorial register, and called Conscripti;
the entire body was then addressed as Patres [et] Conscripti or Patres Conscripti.
17 The epithet pater patriæ was first conferred by the Roman Senate on M. Tullius

Cicero for his role in the suppression of the conspiracy of Catiline. It was later con-
ferred on Julius Cæsar, Cæsar Augustus, and many other emperors, but was not the
emperor’s title by right.
18 Exod. 20:12.
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 79

them to understand that they cannot live without a prince. Out of this
the office of the magistrate emerges. The divine law also commands
that one should obey the magistrate.19 Even before the gift of the law,
this same command was given by Moses in the book of Genesis. God
had appointed that whoever sheds human blood, his blood should also
be shed.20 Certainly, this should not be done thoughtlessly or by any-
one, for that would be absurd. God did not order this secretly with
the intention of giving His approval to murder. Paul writes that There
is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.21
Christ responded to Pilate, You would have no power over me unless it had been
given you from above.22 These passages and arguments make it clear that
God is truly the proper cause of magistrates.
This argument is mocked by others. They say that if every magistrate
is divinely given, then each should always rule without fault. Yet there
are many examples of princes acting perversely and viciously towards
the Commonwealth. Under the rule of Nero, Domitian, Commodus,
Caracalla and Heliogabalus, good laws were condemned, good men
were killed, and the discipline of the city was corrupted.23 If the magis-
trate were truly from God, they claim, these things should never have
occurred. This reason does not move us, nor should it. The office must
be distinguished from the individual. An evil and wicked magistrate
may still possess a good and useful power. There is nothing so good
that evil men cannot use it to their ends. It is not surprising that good
men still drew good and pleasant experiences from the rule of kings
and emperors who abused the power given to them. I have shown such
cases previously. The testimony of Daniel makes it plain that magis-
trates are divinely ordained,24 for God gives and transfers kingdoms at
His own discretion. Then we see that the monarch has been at times in
the east, at times in the south, and afterwards in the west, and some-
times has been compelled into the north. At times there were good
princes, at other times evil. Sometimes noble men ruled, and often men
of ordinary birth did. Of course these men were often unable to gain

19 Deut. 17:12.
20 Gen. 9:6.
21 Rom. 13:1.
22 John 19:11.
23 This theme is emphasized, e.g., by Lactantius in his essay De mortibus persecutorum.

See L. Coeli Lactantii Firmiani Divinarum institutionum libri septem (Antwerp: Johannes Stel-
sius, 1570).
24 Dan. 2:21 & 37.
80 chapter two

the power necessary either to acquire or to hold a kingdom. It is most

absurd to think that these things were done by chance and without the
providence of God.

The alterations of Princes must not be attributed to the stars

An astronomer may perhaps argue that such changes are under the
influence of the stars. Daniel, the minister of truth, said that God alters
the times. Just as He has set seasonal changes within a year, so at
times he has set up or removed princes according to His judgement.
He cast down Saul and lifted up David, foretelling His own actions
lest it appear to occur by chance or accident.25 [899] Kingdoms and
Commonwealths can thus be called workshops of the divine will. The
divine will exists in these kingdoms, even though most princes do
not understand it, because God ordered their creation. God called
on the Medes and the Assyrians to afflict the Israelites. Once this
was accomplished, He repelled and drove away the invaders.26 He
roused the Persians against the Chaldeans, then the Greeks against
the Persians, and finally the Romans against the other nations. Who
divided the kingdom of the Hebrews into Judea and Israel if not God?
Abia the Silonite predicted that this division would occur, saying that
word would soon come forth from the Lord.27 Who overthrew Ahab?
Who took care that Jesse was anointed if not God? While I grant
that there are certain tyrants who would break apart commonwealths,
nonetheless we deserve these actions by virtue of our wickedness.
We pose so many shameful acts that they cannot all be corrected by
the magistrate’s usual means, by gentle and soft management of things.
God wills that tyrants should strike the people, at times restraining
and calming His petitions to insert good and pious princes. After God
brought down Nero, He installed Vespasian, then Domitian, Nerva
and Trajan. They were followed by Commodus, Pertinax and Severus.
Then came Heliogabalus and Alexander. There are those who say
that the wicked acts of tyrants are not from God, but that the tyrants
themselves cause such things. They thus conclude that empires and
kingdoms are not from God. Here, they are making conclusions based

25 1 Sam. 16:1.
26 Isaiah 10:5 & 22.
27 1 Kings 11:30.
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 81

on a false syllogism from that which is in some respect unto that which
is without qualification (a secundum quid ad simpliciter). It is incorrect to
conclude that since certain actions of a magistrate are not from God,
the magistrate is not from God. Either this, or they argue falsely from
accidental causes (ab accidentibus). Vicious and wicked things occur to
public powers, but their nature is not necessarily responsible for this. A
certain man will doubt whether it is permitted for a pious man to seek
the help of a magistrate who is both a gentile and also a tyrant. What
of it? Paul appealed to Cæsar, one of the worst tyrants.28 At first glance,
it may appear that Paul acted against his own precept, for he criticised
Christians who pleaded their cases in the tribunals of gentiles.29 On this
account Paul exposes the Corinthians, because there were Christians
in the Church who could have heard their cases. Paul did not agree
that Christians should quarrel with other Christians before a tribunal
of impious men.30 When Paul appealed to Cæsar, his business was not
with other Christians, but with the Jews and the Roman ruler only.
Since Paul did not share his faith with the magistrate and, with his life
being sought, he could not have acted otherwise. Therefore, he did no
wrong in imploring the aid and intervention of the common magistrate,
even although he was a gentile. Just as we make daily use of the sun
and the moon so is it permitted to employ the services of the public
magistrate, of whatever sort he may be.

The gentiles made use of a gentile magistrate

The Christian Church behaved similarly when the emperors were not
Christian. Paul of Samosata was condemned as a heretic and cast down
from his rank of bishop. Since he did not want to vacate the bishop’s
palace, help was sought from the emperor Aurelianus who saw to it
that the house was handed over to the new bishop.31 Who would say
that the Church sinned here in making use of a public magistrate who
was not faithful? Let us return to our original argument and firmly
acknowledge that the magistrate is from God, even though our sins

28 Acts 25:11.
29 1 Corinthians 6:3.
30 1 Corinthians 6:1–6.
31 D. Eusebii Pamphili Cæsareæ Palestinæ episcopi ecclesiasticæ historiæ libri IX, ed. Beatus

Rhenanus (Antwerp: Johannes Steelsius, Anno 1548), VII.30.19.

82 chapter two

bring about many wicked and unfair things. This position appears to
contradict the prophet Hosea, who wrote They have set up kings, but not
through me.32 One must realise that Hosea was speaking of tyrants, who
neither looked to laws, nor nurtured the good, nor removed evil from
among the people. For these reasons their reign did not come from
God, but was grounded in their own desires and feelings, which had
no regard for the divine law. These tyrants invaded kingdoms under
the direction of their own passions and ambitions, unlike those who
felt the call of God to a kingdom. Nor did they assume power by a
will to obey the divine call, but sought instead to satisfy their own
ambitions. This cannot be called reigning by divine authority. Yet to
suppose that they were not promoted to a kingdom through the will
of God is effectively contrary to the entirety of Scripture. God called
Nebuchadnezzar as his servant because He wished to abuse the king’s
position in order to injure the Israelites.33 Had he not been impelled
by the divine will but had instead been pursuing his own passions and
desires, one could have said that Nebuchadnezzar did not rule from
God when he fought against the Jews. Therefore, Hosea’s statement
in no way contradicts us, since we believe the magistrate to be from
God and we should obey him. Paul wrote, Let every person be subject to
the governing authorities.34 The same is said in his letter to Titus and in
the First Epistle of Peter.35 In his Epistle to Timothy, Paul adds that one
should pray for these authorities.36 But the Papists and those who would
call themselves churchmen (ecclesiastici) will not hear this argument.
They insist on their exemption from ordinary public authority, even
though the Apostles did not consider themselves exempt when they
said, Let every person be subject to the governing authorities and, He who resists
the authorities resists what God has appointed.37 Commenting on this passage
Chrysostom wrote that this law includes apostles, prophets, evangelists
and monks. Chrysostom wrote this of men within the church, even
though he himself was patriarch (praesul) of Constantinople, and the
emperors were then Christian.38

32 Hosea 8:4.
33 Jeremiah 27:6.
34 Romans 13:1.
35 Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13–14.
36 1 Timothy 2:2.
37 Romans 13:1, 2.
38 John Chrysostom, In Epistolam Divi Pauli ad Romanos Homiliæ octo priores, Germano
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 83

Indeed it is truly a marvel (pretium) to hear arguments that are used

by these false churchmen. Boniface VIII (of whom they write that he
walked like a fox, reigned like a lion, and died like a dog) says that
there are two swords in the Church.39 Though this seemed to be said
rashly, Boniface cited these words from Luke 22: When I sent you out
with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything? They said, Nothing.40
Christ added, But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag.
And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. And they said, Look,
Lord, here are two swords. And he said to them, It is enough.41 Boniface says
that two swords are enough for the Church, and that one indeed is
temporal while the other is spiritual. Those who claim that Peter did
not literally have a sword fail to understand the words of Christ when
He said to Peter, Bury your [900] sword in its sheath.42 Yours, Christ said,
not another man’s. Peter owned a sword, but he was ordered to keep it
safe. Still, some order must be conserved in these swords. These powers
were ordained by God. There would be great confusion in the Church
if one of these swords was not ruled by the other. Boniface claims,
therefore, that the temporal sword should be ruled by the spiritual. To
explain this further, he says that the church has two swords, but that
it does not use them both in the same way. She wields the spiritual
sword directly, but the temporal sword should be bound by the will and
sufferance of the Church. This is difficult to see, as is often the case
with allegories. The idea is that the sword of the emperor should be
trained as subject solely to the Pope’s will and judgement. When he
gives his consent, it (viz. the temporal sword) should strike. It should
also hasten to strike as long as the Church suffers or strikes with its own
sword. These things must be set in order so that the temporal sword
may be led back to God through the mediation of the spiritual sword.
Dionysius (who is thought to be the Aeropagite, although he may in
fact be another) says concerning this that everything lower is led to
the highest by means of something intermediate. The temporal sword

Brixio … Interprete, Nunc primum & uersæ & editæ (Basle: Froben, 1533) 23.1; PG 60,
615.
39 Vermigli refers to Boniface VIII’s famous bull Unam Sanctam, incorporated in the

Corpus Iuris Canonici under the title Extravagantes Decretales Communes, I.8.1, “De Maioritate
et Obedientia,” ed. Emil Friedberg (Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1879; repr. Graz:
Akademische Druk-u. Verlagsanstalt, 1955, 1959) vol. 2, col. 1245–1246.
40 Luke 22:35.
41 Luke 22:35–38.
42 Matthew 26:52.
84 chapter two

must be bound to the Pope’s approval in order for it to be led back

to God.43 This is the case even now. Whenever the Most Holy Father
approves taking up arms against the Lutherans, he expects the emperor
to obey immediately.44 If one prince is not sufficiently obedient to him,
ambassadors are immediately sent here and there, so that every king
and prince may conform to the Pope’s will, while those who refuse are
turned around and shaken.
Boniface later added that he was above all kings and princes, since
the importance of a given jurisdiction should be judged according to
the value of the matters that it deals with. Popes are associated with
spiritual matters, he said, and magistrates with temporal matters. The
temporal sword is therefore inferior to the spiritual sword. Boniface
proposed another reason, saying that magistrates paid tithes to the
Church, and that tithes are paid by the lower authority to the higher.
So when kings and princes pay tithes, they admit that their lands and
revenues pertain to the Church, and that they are therefore liable.45

43 CICan, Extravagantes decretales communes, 1.8.1, ed. Friedberg, vol. 2, col. 1245–1246:

“One sword ought to be subordinated to the other, and temporal authority subjected
to spiritual power. For, since the Apostle said: ‘There is no power except from God
and those that are, are ordained of God’ [Rom 13:1–2], they would not be ordained if
one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were
not led upwards by the other. For according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is the law of
divinity that the lowest things are led to the highest by intermediaries. Then, according
to the order of the universe, all things are not led back equally and immediately, but
the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior … Therefore if the
terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual
power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power
of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man … This authority is not
human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him
and his successors … Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God,
resists the ordinance of God [Romans 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two begin-
nings …”.
44 By way of example, in the autumn of 1546, four months after Martin Luther’s

death, the Pope and the Emperor agreed to force Protestants to acknowledge the
decrees of the first session of the Council of Trent by enforcing subscription to the Augs-
burg Interim. Sacræ Cæsareæ Maiestatis Declaratio: quomodo in negocio religionis per imperium
usque ad definitionem Concilij generalis uiuendum sit, in Comitijs Augustanis XV. maij, anno 1548.
proposita, & publicata, & ab omnibus imperij ordinibus recepta: e germanica lingua in latinam …
uersa / Huic accessit reformatio, a Cæsarea Maiestate in declaratione hac promissa ([Cologne]: cum
privilegio Cæsareo Iaspar Gennepæus excudebat, 1548).
45 CICan, 2:1245–1246: “We must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power

surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things
surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and
consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 85

Boniface continues by arguing that he who blesses is greater than he

who is blessed. Furthermore, bishops consecrate and anoint kings. The
gloss adds that only the right arm of kings is anointed in this way, while
bishops are anointed on the head. While kings are anointed with olive
oil, bishops are anointed with the oil of chrism.46 Kings are therefore
necessarily inferior to bishops. Furthermore, kings receive their crowns
from bishops, as well as their sceptres.47 Samuel installed both Saul and
David.48 The prophet sent by Elisha anointed Jesse.49 These matters
associated with bishops are therefore greater than those affairs handled
by the kings. Christ said to Peter, Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven.50 This power is greater than any human power. God said to
Jeremiah, I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up
and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.51 Boniface
concludes from all of this that the Church is more powerful than any
king and is rightfully exempt from their rule. The profane, lay power
of emperors and kings is judged by ecclesiastical persons. If these men
appoint magistrates, they should be allowed to overthrow them. It is
for him who builds to destroy. The spiritual magistrate should therefore
judge the civil magistrate.52 By whom should the spiritual magistrate be
judged if he should commit an offence? Boniface says that the greater
should judge the lesser. If the Pope is the highest power, by whom
will he be judged? By no one, Boniface says, but by God alone.53 The
spiritual power can be judged by no one but by him who judges all

even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish
the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good.”
46 Liber sextvs Decretalivm D. Bonifacii Papæ VIII. Suæ integritati vna cum Clementinis &

Extrauagantibus, earumque glossis restitutus. Ad exemplar Romanvm diligenter recognitus (Paris:

[s.n.], 1612).
47 These are themes noted for their prominence in the Investiture Controversy of the

eleventh and twelfth centuries. Uta-Renate Blumenthal, The Investiture Controversy: Church
and Monarchy from the Ninth to the Twelfth Century (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1988).
48 1 Sam. 1:10.
49 1 Sam. 16:1, 2 Kings 9:1.
50 Matthew 16:19.
51 Jeremiah 1:10.
52 CICan, 2:1246: “For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to

establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good.”
53 CICan, 2:1246: “if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior

spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and
not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle.”
86 chapter two

things.54 Has he not built his tyranny beautifully? He calls himself alone
“spiritual”. As if this were not gross enough, the glosser is too foolish
to see these absurdities before him when he asks “Can the Pope be
spiritual even if he is wicked and unclean?”55 Boniface himself explains
this distinction. There is but one kind of spiritual person, and another
type for the temporal estate. Such a spiritual person may reprimand all
others with a brotherly suggestion. He himself should be reprimanded
by no one, for if he is spiritual, none of his actions can be admitted as
improper. One who does not live and behave spiritually should never
be called spiritual because of his rank. Yet many bishops and popes
are so called. One must nonetheless acknowledge the Roman bishop
as the most spiritual and holy. They teach us to lie, for they wish
to call a filthy scamp the holiest. Boniface concludes finally that all
kings and emperors should be subject to his power alone. This must
be done to avoid creating two beginnings (principia), like the Manichees
did.56 We should obey the words of Moses, and he did not say “In
the beginnings” but rather “In the beginning (principium), God created
Heaven and earth”.57 Consequently, Boniface claims to define, discern
and pronounce that all should obey the Pope as the highest power out
of necessity for their salvation. Thus, he concludes that all churchmen
are exempt from the civil power.

Of the two powers, civil and ecclesiastical

Before I come to reject this excessively ‘Thrasonical’ boasting,58 it may

be useful to speak a bit more concerning the two powers, which I will
call civil and ecclesiastical. When it is said that the ecclesiastical power

54 1 Cor. 2:15.
55 See note 209 above.
56 CICan, 2:1246: “Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists

the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings,
which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses,
it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth.
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for
salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
57 “In principium creavit Deus cœlum et terram.” Gen. 1:1.
58 That is to say “boastful,” after the braggart Thrason, a character in the play

Eunuchus by Terence (158 BC). A commentary on this play appeared while Vermigli
was Regius Professor at Oxford. Petri Menenii Lvgdvnensis Commentaria in P. Terentii Andriam
& Eunuchum … Quibus accessit Libellus de fabularum origine & earum differentia, de ludorum
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 87

is preferred over all other civil duties, this must be understood rightly
and completely. The word of God supports all ecclesiastical power, so
it is nothing without it. Moreover, the word of God is a common rule
by which everything should be arranged and which everyone should
obey. It teaches how the external sword and the commonwealth should
be managed. It shows us how all things should be done by all men.
Thus, when the emperor Theodosius raged cruelly and inconsiderately
against the Thessalonians, Ambrose persuaded him to wait thirty days
before handing down any further death sentence, lest the magistrate
act impetuously out of rage and take a decision that might not be
remedied afterwards. Ambrose explained that if the emperor punished
the transgressors later, they could be corrected more effectively.59 Many
bishops have often used their authority to intervene in very serious
matters, either calming or ending cruel wars, by preaching from the
word of God. [901] In this way, the ecclesiastical power encompasses
everything, because it draws its propositions from the word of God.
There is nothing in this world to which the word of God fails to
extend. Those who seek to know what churchmen have to do with
the commonwealth, with warfare, pharmacy, or cooking falter seriously.
They say that when a minister of the word takes notice of these things,
he violates the law of God, and should be reprimanded according to
the word. Why not warn them? Why not command them to stop their
sinning? The minister’s duty is to correct sinners, not with the sword
or through fines, not through prison sentences or exile, but rather by
his own proper function, which is through power of the word of God.
Political power extends to all things that pertain to political power, yet
in what way? Does the civil power command the appropriate motions
of the soul and of inward repentance? It cannot bring about these
things. Instead, it provides the individual with the means to bring these
things about on his own. The civil authority ensures that bishops,
pastors and doctors teach purely, reprimand in a fatherly way, and
administer the sacraments according to the word of God. Surely the
magistrate cannot do these things by himself, but he should take care
that those who can do it well are available to the people. Both powers

generibus ac tibiarum, quibus modis fiebant, quæ non sunt hactenus à quoquam vel amplius vel magis
perspicue tractata (Lvgdvni [Lyon]: I. Tornæsium et G. Gazeium, 1552).
59 Theodoriti episcopi Cyrensis Rerum ecclesiasticarum libri quinque, conversi in Latinum a

Ioachimo Camerario Pabergensi (Basle: Apud Ioannem Hervagium, 1536), V.17–18.

Also Cassiodorus, Historia ecclesiastica tripartita, 9.30.21; CSEL 71, 544.
88 chapter two

thus extend most widely and include all things, but not in the same way.
The proper methods of ruling for both powers must be taken from the
word of God, which is in the Church.60

Two kinds of subjection

There are, moreover, two kinds of subordination. The first is political

and civil to which all men are subject. If they offend against these laws,
they may rightly expect to be incarcerated, or fined a certain sum of
money, exiled, put to death, or otherwise externally punished by the
magistrate. If they should behave righteously, they may receive honours,
rewards, merit and praise. By this account, the civil power is not
subject to the ministers of the word, because the latter cannot coerce
by external punishment. The second kind of subordination is spiritual,
that is, through faith and obedience. As some men obtain their office
from the word of God, they often behave in a certain manner, acting
or avoiding, giving way or complying, because they feel that it is the
command of the word of God. These are the limits of either power.
We must also accept the words of Valentinian Cæsar, available in the
Historia Tripartita: “Value that bishop,” he says, “to whom we who rule
the empire can submit our neck, and use his advice like medicine”.61
These words make it clear that the power of the Church lies in giving
advice from the word of God concerning salvation. However, that same
emperor later erred by allowing the people to elect Ambrose bishop
of Milan when he was already designated prætor of that city. When
the emperor found out that this had happened, he gave thanks to
God, saying that while he had appointed Ambrose to rule the bodies
of men, God wished him to rule their souls as well.62 Valentinian

60 That is to say, the “prophetical office” of the ministry defines both itself and the

magisterial function.
61 Cassiodorus, Roman consul and monk (died c. 562), composed a widely used

abstract of the works of the early church historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret,
published under the short title of Historia ecclesiastica tripartita. For an edition most likely
available to Vermigli see Autores historiæ ecclesiasticæ: Eusebij Pamphili Cæsariensis libri IX.
Ruffino interprete. Ruffini Presbyteri Aquileiensis, libri duo … Item ex Theodorito Episcopo Cyrensi,
Sozomeno, & Socrate Constantinopolitano libri XII. uersi ab Epiphanio Scholastico, adbreuiati per
Cassiodorum Senatorem: unde illis tripartitæ historiæ uocabulum, ed. Beatus Rhenanus (Basle:
Froben, 1528), 7.8.2–3; CSEL 71,394. See also CICan, Decreti, ‘Valentinianus inperator’,
1.63.3, ed. Friedberg, vol. 1, col. 236.
62 CICan, Decreti, ‘Valentinianus inperator’, 1.63.3, ed. Friedberg, vol. 1, col. 235–236.
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 89

did not correctly distinguish between the two functions. How is this?
Should the bishops not care for both souls and bodies? If bishops
should give themselves to gluttony, drunkenness or lascivious living,
should they not be punished? Certainly, they should be. Neither must
the civil magistrate have care for the bodies of men while neglecting
the souls. We do not suppose that the magistrate is a mere cowboy
or swineherd, caring only for the stomach, the flesh, and the outer
man. Rather, the magistrate should provide that his people may live
virtuously and piously. What if Christian princes fail to correct grave
public sins committed, ignoring the advice given to them from the word
of God? What should a bishop do then? Ambrose excommunicated the
emperor Theodosius because he imposed such grave tyranny upon the
Thessalonians.63 Pope Innocent excommunicated Arcadius for sending
John Chrysostom into exile after he had freely and truly advised him.64
There are also the decrees of the sixth general council requiring that
there should be two synods in one year. If the princes should desire to
impede this process, they should be excommunicated.65
What does this have to do with our prior argument? We read in
Eusebius that the Emperor Philip, the first Christian magistrate living
in the times of Origen, wished to be present with the faithful at the
Easter Vigil, and to communicate with them in their prayers.66 The
bishop prevented the emperor from being present until he made a
full confession of his wicked and disgraceful ways before the whole
assembly of the Church. The bishop argued that the emperor should
openly acknowledge his sins, for otherwise he could not be admitted
to communion. The bishop applied this to the highest monarch in the
whole world. In such manner the civil power should be subjected to the
word of God, which is preached by the ministers.
The ecclesiastical power, on the other hand, is subjected to the
civil when the ministers behave badly in civil or ecclesiastical matters.

The office of “Prætor” was one of the ancient magistracies of Rome and carried with
it judicial function and elite status. See Claudia Rapp, “The Elite Status of Bishops
in Late Antiquity in Ecclesiastical, Spiritual, and Social Contexts,” Arethusa 33.3 (Fall
2000): 379–399.
63 Theodoriti episcopi Cyrensis Rerum ecclesiasticarum libri quinque conversi in Latinum a Ioachi-

mo Camerario Pabergensi (Basle: Apud Ioannem Hervagium, 1536), V.17–18.

64 CICan, Decreti, ‘Duo sunt’, 1.96.10, ed. Friedberg, vol. 1, col. 339–340.
65 CICan, Decreti, ‘Quoniam quidem’, 1.18.7, ed. Friedberg, vol. 1, col. 55–56.
66 D. Eusebii Pamphili Cæsareæ Palestinæ episcopi ecclesiasticæ historiæ libri IX, ed. Beatus

Rhenanus (Antwerp: Joannes Steelsius, Anno 1548), VI. 34.

90 chapter two

These two powers are in a certain way interchangeable, and deal

with the same issues in various ways, and mutually reinforce each
other. Aristotle told Theodectes that rhetoric and dialectic can also
be called interchangeable skills, because they both deal with similar
matters although in different manners.67 The ecclesiastical power is
subject to the magistrate not by a spiritual subjection, but by a political
one. As it pertains to the sacraments and preaching ecclesiastical power
is not subjected to the political. The magistrate cannot bend the word
of God concerning the sacraments that are employed by ministers. Nor
can he call together the pastors or doctors of the Church and tell
them to teach or administer the sacraments in a way other than that
prescribed by the word of God. Nonetheless, seeing that ministers are
still men and citizens with fields, wealth and possessions of their own,
they are subject to the scrutiny of the magistrate. Thus both Christ and
the Apostles were accustomed to paying tribute and the entire early
church did the same, back in the days when they were most holy men.
Their customs also are subject to the censure and judgement of the
magistrates.
It must be added that ministers are subjected to magistrates not only
concerning those things mentioned above, but also (as I have explained
earlier) concerning their function. If ministers do not teach correctly, or
fail to administer the sacraments properly, [902] it is the responsibility
of the magistrate to call them together and see that they do not teach
improperly, nor mix fact with fiction, nor abuse the sacraments, nor
otherwise betray the divine order. If ministers live badly and wastefully,
the magistrate should reject them from the sacred ministry. Solomon
did this when he cast down Abiathar and replaced him with Zadok.68
And also in the New Testament. Justinian removed Silverius and Vig-
ilius.69 I do not doubt that similar actions were performed by other

67 Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1.1 (Bekker 1345a1–5): “Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic.

Both alike are concerned with such things as come, more or less, within the general
ken of all men and belong to no definite science. Accordingly all men make use,
more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements
and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others.” Theodectes was
a rhetorician, tragic poet, and friend of Aristotle. Some ancient writers believed the
Rhetoric of Aristotle to be the work of Theodectes (Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 2.15.10).
Rhet. III.9 is sometimes identified as the ‘Theodectea’.
68 1 Kings 2: 26–27.
69 Vigilius was pope (537–555) and successor of St. Silverius. The Empress Theodora

exiled Silverius and made Vigilius pope in the expectation that he would compromise
with the Monophysites. Silverius died shortly thereafter. Vigilius himself was later
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 91

princes. I will not argue how just these actions were, but I will say that
they appeared to be lawful based on the reasons which were presented.
Some will say that I speak concerning fact but not concerning right.
But I speak of the right also. The king should keep the prescribed law
of the Lord. He is ordained as the guardian not only of the first table
of the law, but also of the second. He who offends according to either
table attacks the regal power. While a king can remove useless or harm-
ful bishops, a bishop cannot cast down a king who has sinned. John [the
Baptist] criticises Herod, but does not reject him as king.70 Ambrose and
Innocent excommunicated emperors, but they did not promote others
to their positions. Christ called Herod a cunning fox but he did not
carry away his kingdom.71 He paid tribute to that most worthless prince
Tiberius and He never told anyone to shake off his yoke.72 The Popes
should consider what right they have to remove emperors and kings
from their rightful place according to their whim. This was never done
by any prophet or Apostle, or even by Christ. The Popes boast that
they have great power. Still, whatever power they may have is entirely
from the word of God. Popes may teach, preach or advise if they wish
to exert their power. Outside these duties, the civil and temporal power
of which they boast so much is alien to the ministers. In sum, there is
no great king or emperor who is exempt from the power of the divine
word, which is preached by the ministers. Similarly, there is no bishop
who, having offended, should not be reproved by the civil magistrate.
The only difference to be found is in the manner of reproof. The min-
isters of the Church do this by the word, while magistrates do it by
external punishments. Still our false churchmen (ecclesiastici) wish to be
magistrates and to rule. Yet Christ did not want to be king. When he
was sought after to be made a king, he immediately withdrew.73 Instead,
he clearly indicated that his kingdom was not of this world.74 He also
said to the Apostles, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them,
and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you.”75
Peter, whose successors these men claim to be, advised ministers not to

deposed by Justinian. See Henry Chadwick, The Church in ancient society: from Galilee to
Gregory the Great (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
70 Matthew 14:4.
71 Luke 13:32.
72 Matthew 17:27.
73 John 6:15.
74 John 13:36.
75 Matthew 20:25–26.
92 chapter two

lord over the clergy.76 Still these men wished to have prisons, soldiers
and swords and wars according to their desires.
Perhaps they will cite the example of the Asamoneans from the Old
Testament and object that both kings and priests agreed to share their
power. This history is given in the books of the Maccabees, but we
must determine if this decision was made rightly, or rather wickedly
and ambitiously.77 I judge that this decision transgresses the prescribed
order, for God more than once promised his kingdom to the tribe of
Judah at the time of the Messiah.78 He had previously commanded
the Levites differently, telling them that they should not possess lands79
nor occupy a kingdom amongst their brothers.80 Anyone who would
claim that this decision was made by an ancient and hidden revelation
of God’s judgement will not reveal the true reason. Such examples
should not be admitted. I judge that they sinned in this matter. They
acted correctly when they freed the homeland from tyranny but, this
having been done, it was not right to invade another kingdom. Nor
did God secretly declare that this act displeased him. As we can gather
from Josephus, this house (domus) was never without tragedy.81 Still they
object, claiming that Peter killed Ananias and Sapphira82 and that Paul
afflicted Elymas the magician with blindness.83 This is true, but these
things were done through the word of God, not by force with the sword
or by the work of an executioner. We would be surprised if these men
acted according to the divine word. Why do they not heed the words of
Paul, in his Epistle to Timothy: “No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian
pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him.”84 If they wish to
fight for God, why do they stumble into mundane business? Do they
have so much free time remaining after completing their own affairs
that they can care for the affairs of others? Let them answer genuinely.
Would they permit any king nowadays try to teach the gospels or

76 1 Peter 5:3.
77 1 and 2 Maccabees. In his Antiquities Josephus notes that the original name of
these Maccabees, and their posterity, was “Asamoneans”, derived from Asamoneus, the
great-grandfather of Mattathias. Antiquitatum Iudaicarum libri XX (Basel: Froben, 1548),
XII.6.
78 Genesis 49:10.
79 Psalm 89:39.
80 Numbers 18:20.
81 Josephus, Antiquitatum Iudaicarum, XII.11.
82 Acts 5:5 & 10.
83 Acts 13:11.
84 2 Timothy 2:4.
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 93

administer the sacraments? They would not. Neither would God put
up with it, since he afflicted Uzziah with leprosy for burning incense to
Him.85 Why therefore would they invade foreign territory? Civil and
ecclesiastical functions must be distinguished. Each office requires a
separate individual. There is no man who can effectively hold both
offices. Such a task is too difficult.
Nevertheless the two offices do reinforce each other. The prince
speaks his judgement. The churchman does not, but instead teaches
how the judgement should be spoken. Do not show a respect of persons in
judgement. Do not afflict the poor and the foreigner, do not receive bribes.86 The
political head does not preach, nor does he administer sacraments.
If these functions are incorrectly performed, he should punish the
ministers, lest the false customs be adopted by others in their meetings.
There are two considerations here. First, should the civil magistrate
be considered both the power and also he who exercises that power?
As a Christian, he is doubtlessly subject to the word of God. As he who
exercises that power, he should also be ruled by that same word of God,
seeking from it guidelines for ruling and administrating. As a minister of
the Church, he should look to the ministry and to him who executes it.
As an individual, the minister is subjected to the civil power, for he too
is a citizen, pays tribute as others do, and is governed by the restraint
of custom. As pertains to the ministry though, he is subjected to the
magistrate in another way, for the magistrate must correct him should
he either teach or administer the sacraments contrary to the word of
God. Yet the minister is to seek rules and justification for his function
not from this magistrate’s regiment but from the word of God. By this
distinction, we easily understand the differences and similarities of the
two powers.
Now it remains to refute the arguments of that Thrason Boniface.
[903] First of all, according to the Apostle, Christ claimed that two
swords were sufficient.87 From this, he infers that the Church possesses
two powers, and that each power has a sword connected to it. It may
be possible that there are, at times, two swords in the Church. They
have not both always been present, nor will they necessarily always be
in the future. What external sword did the Church have in the times
of Christ, or of the Apostles or of the martyrs? Nevertheless, they claim

85 2 Chronicles 26:16.
86 Deut. 1: 16, 17.
87 Luke 22: 38.
94 chapter two

that the Church possesses both now. I confess that this is true, because
the emperors and the kings are now Christians whereas once they were
pagans. The Church can also be said to contain agriculture, trade,
architecture and other things of this kind, since those who perform
these professions are members of the Church. And, as the schoolmen
say, this occurred accidentally (per accidens). These fields are not essential
to the Church’s existence. So now, since civil magistrates are members
of the Church, the Church is said to wield the external sword. It does
not follow that the ministers also possess the temporal sword simply
because the civil leaders are part of the Church in our age, just as it
would be improper to infer that ministers are farmers, merchants and
carpenters simply because the Church is concerned with agriculture,
trade and architecture.
Now I come to that place in the Gospels where the Apostles say
that they were sent away with nothing, being without bag or boot,
to which Christ responded, “Let him who has a purse take it, and likewise
a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.”88 What
did Christ mean by these words? The only reasonable option is that
he was indicating that the condition of times far ahead would differ
from the way things were, as if he had said, “While I was with you,
you did not feel troubled, nor did you lack anything, but difficult times
await, and you will need tunics, boots and swords”. He meant that he
would separate himself from the Apostles, sending them around the
entire earth to preach and teach the gospel. While doing this, ministers
would meet so many adversities that they would think themselves in
need of swords. This is metonymy whereby one thing is understood
for another. The same figure of speech is used in Genesis, when the
Lord said, “And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth.”89
God was not truly repentant of his act of creating humanity, but as
with men who are accustomed to penitence, he changed the fact. Then
God destroyed the humanity He had created with the flood. Christ
does not instruct his disciples to fight with steel, but uses a figure of
speech to describe the condition of a time to come. Just as a toga often
signifies peace and tranquillity, so in this case does the sword indicate
troubled and turbulent times. Chrysostom interpreted these words by
citing a passage in Paul, Salute Prisca & Aquila.90 Chrysostom writes that

88 Luke 22:36.
89 Genesis 6:6.
90 Romans 16:3.
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 95

the Lord has not broken His previous law, If any one strikes you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also. Bless those who speak evil to you, pray for those
who persecute you.91 If this is true, why does Christ command his disciples
to buy themselves a sword? This was never His intention, according to
Chrysostom. It is a figure of speech, signifying that soon Christ would
remove himself from among the Apostles and they would suffer many
calamities.92 These words must not be taken at face value. In another
place, Christ said, “What you hear whispered, proclaim upon the housetops.”93
Despite this, we never read that the Apostles stood on rooftops when
they preached to the people. Neither is it right to leave the open places
and the temples to speak divine words from rooftops. Christ meant that
they should clearly and openly repeat what they had heard privately.
The Lord also said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”94
This too was said figuratively. It should not be understood that the
Apostles overturned the temple of Solomon (as the evangelist himself
interpreted), but rather that the temple was Christ’s body in which,
as Paul wrote, The whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.95 Returning to the
matter at hand, Chrysostom expounds Luke’s true meaning in this
following explanation. It was prophesied that the Son of man would
be counted among the wicked.96 But the Apostles did not understand
Christ. They thought that He had simply spoken about an outward or
literal sword. Boniface interpreted the passage in much the same way.
Since Christ added, “It is enough”, he understood that two swords in
the Church would suffice, and that there should be neither more nor
less. Chrysostom understood this quite differently. When Christ noticed
that the Apostles did not understand, his answer demonstrated that he
wanted to drop the matter. Like a teacher speaking to a child who does
not understand Christ said, “It is enough”. Clearly, two swords would
not suffice against the many adversaries of Christ. He should very
well have mentioned breastplates and shields as well. Based on this,
Chrysostom concluded that Christ’s words here were figurative and

91 Matthew 5: 39, 44.

92 John Chrysostom, In epistolam ad Romanos … homilia, XXXI, in D. Ioannis Chrysos-
tomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani In omnes D. Pauli epistolas commentarii, quotquot apud Grecos
extant.: Latinitate donati, & recens à multis mendis purgati (Antwerp: Johannes Steelsius, 1556).
93 Matthew 10:27.
94 John 2:19.
95 Colossians 2:9.
96 Mark 15:28.
96 chapter two

spoken as a parable.97 To accept Boniface’s explanation would imply

that the Church had two swords even in the time of the Apostles, which
is most untrue.
Let us now come to what Christ said to Peter, namely Put your sword
back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword,98 i.e.,
by his own sword, Boniface explains, not another man’s.99 What can
be understood from these words? Although Peter did have a sword,
how could he have drawn it even if he had been commanded to?
Why should he have a sword, if he is forbidden to use it? Boniface
would doubtless answer that he has a sword but cannot use it unless
by the hand of another. Or he might say that he does not use his own
sword, but that of the emperor or of another prince, for the emperor
should draw the sword at the approval and allowance of the Church.
I would ask whether when Christ ordered Peter to put up his sword,
he intended Peter to do this by his own approval and judgement or
by the agency of another man. Certainly anyone who acts through
another appears to act himself. If anyone wishes to kill an enemy for
money or promise of reward, he is no less made a murderer by the
fact that he did not act by his own hand. A magistrate does not put
the guilty to death by his own hand but commands the executioner
to do it. Our response to Boniface exposes a fallacy of equivocation.
We wish to know whether a minister of the Church execute the office
of the civil magistrate and use the civil sword, but the Papists return
us to the sword [904] of Peter, a private man. In his fourth book
De Consideratione addressed to Eugenius, Bernard appears to interpret
this passage as actually involving two swords.100 I admit that Bernard

97 See Chrysostom’s homily on Matthew 26: 51–54, Passio domini nostri Iesu Christi

secundum Matthæum in decem homilias diuisa (Paris: apud Benedictum Preuotium, 1557),
Homily 84; see also The homilies of S. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople: on the
Gospel of St. Matthew, 3 vols. (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1843–1851), III.84.
98 Matthew 26:52.
99 CICan, Extravagantes Decretales Communes, I.8.1, “De Maioritate et Obedientia,” ed.

Emil Friedberg, vol. 2, col. 1245.

100 Bernard of Clairvaux, De consideratione ad Eugenium papam tertium, libri quinque (Rome:

Gulielmi Facciotti, 1594), IV.11.10: “Why do you [Bernard says, addressing the Pope]
attempt to usurp the sword which you once ordered to be placed back in the scabbard?
That you have denied it is yours does not seem to have paid sufficient attention to the
words of the Lord when He says, ‘Return your sword to its sheath.’ Yours, therefore, it
is, and, if not perhaps by your wish and if it is not to be unsheathed by your hand, or
otherwise does not belong to you, why should the Lord have responded to the Apostles
when they said, ‘Look, here are two swords,’ by saying, ‘That is sufficient,’ rather than,
‘That is too much.’ Both therefore belong to the Church, namely, the spiritual sword
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 97

used certain similar arguments, but they were not exactly identical. We
should keep in mind the age in which Bernard lived. Anyone reading
Bernard’s De Consideratione will see that there was universal corruption in
the Church, and that he complained heavily of the situation. Eugenius,
who was exiled from the city by the Romans, sought a way to return
on his own. Bernard encouraged him to preach the gospel, to act
against the Romans by employing the word and preaching rather than
by the sword. Eugenius asked him whether this meant that he should
feed serpents, dragons and wild beasts. Bernard replied that Eugenius
should approach the Romans with the word rather than the sword.101
In another place Bernard said, “If you will have both swords, you will
lose both”.102 Clearly, Eugenius never intended to fight by himself, but
was perhaps trying to move others to war. Bernard dissuaded him from
this idea. This is enough concerning him.
Boniface added that these two swords in the Church should be
ordered so that one should be subjected to the other. He approved
of Paul’s words, “There is no authority except from God, and those that exist
have been instituted by God.”103 This clearly shows how Boniface distorts
Scripture. The word “ordained” corresponds to the Greek τεταγμναι,
meaning “to institute or designate”. What kind of order does Boniface
propose? He says that the minister should teach and that the civil
power should hear and believe. This order does not concern the Pope,
for he teaches nothing at all. Pseudo-Dionysus says that the lowest
things are led to the highest through intermediaries.104 Based on this,
Boniface concluded that the external sword should be referred back to

and the material, and the one is to be wielded for the Church and the other by the
Church; one by the hand of a priest, the other by the hand of a soldier but by the
approval of the priest and at the signal of the Emperor.”
101 Bernard of Clairvaux, De consideratione ad Eugenium, IV.3.6, 7.
102 The gloss is found in sixteenth-century editions of the Canon Law, but not in

Friedberg’s. For an edition with the glosses restored, see Liber sextus decretalium D. Bonifacii
Papæ VIII: una cum clementinis & extrauagantibus, earumque glossis restitutus (Lyons: Hugo à
Porta, 1559). Cf. Robert Kingdon, Political Thought, 57, n. 47.
103 Rom. 13:1.
104 CICan, 2:1245. See Dionysius the Pseudo Areopagite, Ecclesiastia hierarchia, cap. 5;

Opera omnia quæ extant. Eiusdem uita. Scholia incerti auctoris in librum De ecclesiastica hierar-
chia / quæ omnia nunc primùm à Ioachimo Perionio … conuersa sunt (Lutetiæ Parisiorum: Ex
officina typographica Michaëlis Vascosani, 1556). For an English version, see Pseudo-
Dionysius: the Complete Works, translated by Colm Luibheid and Paul Rorem with intro-
ductions by Jaroslav Pelikan, Jean Leclercq and Karlfried Froehlich, Classics of Western
Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1987).
98 chapter two

God by the spiritual sword.105 I will grant that the spiritual sword, that
is to say the word of God, is the intermediary by which the external
sword should be moderated and directed to God. But why does the
Pope not use the word as his intermediary? Why does he not teach, or
preach? He certainly does not call back princes who have strayed to
the right path. In fact, the case is quite opposite, for the Pope and the
bishops and ministers of the Church are justly reproved and punished
by the Prince. When Aaron was High Priest, he gravely erred in having
submitted to the foolishness of the people and making the golden calf.106
Moses, in his role as civil magistrate, accused him of this. Towards
the end of Deuteronomy, Moses is even referred to as king.107 When
the priests mishandled the money that had been offered to repair the
roof of the temple, it was king Jehoash who solved the problem.108 I do
not even mention David and Solomon, who distinguished between the
orders of priests and the Levites.109 I could prove this with many more
examples, but these will suffice. I also grant that the civil power may
be corrected by ministers through the preaching of the divine word.
The Pope does not use this kind of correction, but instead employs his
astonishing tyranny. Furthermore, the Popes boast that their dignity is
greater because they deal with spiritual and heavenly matters, while the
civil leaders only deal with earthly and civil matters. So be it. We do
not deny that ministers deal with matters greater and more divine than
the magistrates. Is the Pope sole administrator of these matters? In fact,
he himself seldom administers them at all. If the value of a minister is to
be judged by this standard, it would seem that many bishops and priests
are far more valuable than the Pope, who never preaches and only very
rarely administers the sacraments, and this to very few people.

Tythes

Let us now come to tithes. Boniface seeks to justify their payment

by arguing that all princes are subject to him. He appears to use
an argument of a different kind here. At first glance, he agrees with

105 CICan, 2:1245–1246.

106 Exodus 32:4.
107 Deut. 33:5.
108 2 Kings 12:7.
109 1 Chronicles 23; 2 Chron. 8:14 and 29:5.
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 99

Hebrews 7, where Paul deems the worth of Christ’s priesthood to be

greater than that of the Levites’.110 Thus Boniface interprets the tithes
paid by Abraham to Melchizedek: for even though Levi had not yet
lived, he was nonetheless present in the loins of Abraham. He who pays
tithes to another confesses himself to be inferior to the other. Christ
was a priest after the order of Melchizedek, thus leading the Apostles to
conclude that the Levitical priesthood is far inferior to the priesthood
of Christ. I have disclosed the source from which Boniface constructs
this argument. The place is obscure and needs explanation; nor does
Boniface apply it effectively to his purpose. First of all, it is necessary
to understand that tithes once extended to ceremonies, and this applied
as much to Melchizedek as to the Levites. In both priesthoods, these
tithes referred to Christ and both were types or figures of Christ. Once
a year, the Levitical priests went into the Holy of Holies. This was
never done without the shedding of blood.111 By analogy, Christ himself
entered into the Tabernacle of Heaven through his blood. Melchizedek
resembled Christ in that he had neither father nor mother. Christ, as
far as He was God, had no mother, and as far as He was a man,
lacked a father. What, then, was the purpose of the tithes in either
priesthood? The elders should use them to acknowledge that everything
they possessed was owing to Christ. By the ceremonial payment of
tithes, the people worshipped Christ. Although both priesthoods appear
to prefigure Christ, anyone comparing Melchizedek with the Levitical
priests will notice that Christ is more clearly and expressly similar to
Melchizedek, as the Epistle to the Hebrews demonstrates.112 Boniface
says, “We accept tithes from all of the laity. Once Christ will come,
the payment of tithes will not be a greater ceremony than it was
before the coming of Christ.”113 Before His coming, men used tithes
to worship Christ as the flesh to come, and they confessed that they
owed to Him both themselves and everything they owned. For this
same reason, they paid the first fruits of all of their labours. Still today,
the Church accepts tithes from us. By what right? It is not properly
a ceremonial right, but rather a moral one, for the ministers should
be fed by the people. [905] “The labourer is worthy of his hire”114

110 Hebrews 7:5.

111 Heb. 9:7.
112 Heb. 7.
113 CICan, 2:1245–1246.
114 Mathew 10:10.
100 chapter two

and “the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should
get their living by the gospel.”115 The method of payment does not
signify, whether it derive from the land, the house, cash or from tithes.
Ministers are sustained honestly, and by no means in a sordid way. In
some places, these wages retain the old designation of tithes. In many
other places, they are not called tithes, but stipends or salaries. They
are rewards, which are owed for a minister’s work, rather than tithes
simply.
As it pertains to the argument put forward, one should see that
rewards and stipends are in this way “mediatorial” for they are at
times paid to inferiors and at times to superiors. The tribute that we
give to kings and princes serves as their stipends, partly serving to
feed and sustain them, and partly to confess our subjection. From this
salary, kings may possess a commonwealth and watch over us. At times,
inferiors accept stipends. Princes, for example, pay them to soldiers,
yet we cannot say that soldiers are superior to kings and magistrates.
This is not to say that I diminish the worth of ecclesiastical office but
rather wish it to be understood that these arguments are insignificant.
Neither do I doubt that the Church that pays stipends to its ministers
is greater than them. Ministers are not made greater than those who
pay them, considering tithes as they are paid today. While kings and
emperors are installed and anointed by bishops, and while the former
accept the crown and the sword from the latter, this does not help
Boniface’s case. For the civil power is itself not bestowed by the bishops,
but by God. Emperors and kings are chosen and installed by God
in a way that agrees with Him. The prayers offered by the Church
beseech God to confirm and strengthen the prince’s heart, to increase
his devotion, and to instil the fear of God’s name in the king’s heart,
as well as to favour his counsel and bless his actions, so that they may
be useful to both Church and Commonwealth. While these things are
being done, the bishop acts as the voice of the Church, and leads in
the offering of prayers. The royal unction is performed according to
an ancient ceremony and custom of the Jews.116 The king does not

115 1 Corinth. 9:14.

116 See 1 Samuel 9:16 for the account of Samuel’s anointing of David and 1 Kings
1:38–40 for the anointing of Solomon: “So Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet,
and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites, went down,
and caused Solomon to ride upon king David’s mule, and brought him to Gihon. And
Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 101

accept his power from the bishop but directly from God, as is indeed
confessed by their decrees. Gelasius says that the emperor is granted
his power through divine privilege.117 What does Boniface reply to this?
He declares that it is to God alone. Paul wrote, There is no authority except
from God.118 Justinian proclaims that his power is given to him by the
divine majesty.119 A gloss on the chapter Unam Sanctam states that the
power granted to kings is given by God alone, and that therefore kings
do indeed receive the crown from the bishop and the sword from the
altar.120
We may dismiss Boniface’s final argument. He writes, “I give the
power to the emperor, therefore I am greater than the emperor”.
Let the most blessed Thrason121 answer this for me: When he was
elected Pope, who consecrated him? It was certainly the bishop Hos-
tiensis.122 Let us therefore conclude that the bishop Hostiensis was
greater than the Pope. If this does not follow, then Boniface’s argument
is wanting (as is shown above) for it is built upon a ruined foundation.
It is not the bishops who give power to kings. Besides, there were
many emperors who were never consecrated by a bishop. They were
nonetheless called emperors. Neither were the more ancient emperors
of the Greeks anointed by bishops. Hence, this is a new invention.123
In fact, the Pontiff was often consecrated by the civil magistrate.
Moses consecrated Aaron when (as it is said) Moses was the civil

they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon. And all the
people came up after him, and the people piped with pipes, and rejoiced with great joy,
so that the earth rent with the sound of them.”
117 CICan, Decreti, 1.96.11 ‘Si imperator’, ed. Friedberg, vol. 1, 341.
118 Romans 13:1.
119 Ius civile manuscriptorum librorum ope, summa diligentia et integerrima fide infinitis locis

emendatum, et perpetuis notis illustratum (Antwerp: Christopher Plantin, 1567), Codex, ‘De
Iure veteri enucleando’, Leg. 1.17.1.
120 Liber sextvs Decretalivm D. Bonifacii Papæ VIII. Suæ integritati vna cum Clementinis &

Extrauagantibus, earumque glossis restitutus. Ad exemplar Romanvm diligenter recognitus (Paris:

[s.n.], 1612), additio 2 in gloss to CICan, Extravagantes decretales communes, tit. ‘De maiori-
tate et obedientia’, cap. 1.8.1.
121 See note 240 above.
122 Like Boniface a canonist and decretalist, Henricus de Segusio was known as

‘Hostiensis’ owing to his appointment as cardinal archbishop of Ostia, the old port city
of Rome. Henricus de Segusio, Lectura in quinque Decretalium Gregorianarum libros (Paris,
1512).
123 In the Latin west the tradition of royal unction is traced back to Pepin the Short,

son of Charles Martel and father of Charlemagne. Pepin was elected King of the
Franks in 747 and shortly thereafter anointed by Archbishop Boniface. In return for
this ecclesiastical recognition of his rule Pepin defended Rome from the Lombards.
102 chapter two

magistrate.124 So Boniface tires himself in vain concerning his power

of consecration, because nothing can be concluded from it. He also
boasted of his power of the keys. “We,” he says, “have the power
to bind and to loosen.”125 This power of the keys is placed in him
that he may preach the word of God. He who believes the Gospel is
loosened, and he who does not is bound. Yet Popes do not preach, nor
do they teach. Therefore, they can neither loosen nor bind. Besides,
this subjection is spiritual. It is grounded in faith and obedience, not
in civil power and dominion. Later the example of Jeremiah is raised,
to whom God said, I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms.126
Concerning this, I first demand to know what king Jeremiah ever cast
down by revoking his empire, and which new king did he institute as a
replacement. No example can be shown. So what does Jeremiah mean
in the passage? He maintains that he could announce which kingdoms
would be overturned by God because of their sins and which new
ones would be instituted. These things he could do by the spirit of
prophesy and by the word of God. The Popes, however, do not exercise
their power in this way. They should display divine threats before the
kings and princes, and in this way seek to rule above the nations and
kingdoms. Can Jeremiah be called the reason for which the kingdom
was cast down? He was not the proper efficient cause, but rather merely
a certain occasion. When he warned the king of Judah and the king
did not heed him, the prophet by his prediction, only brought about
another reason for God to damn and reject the king. Thus Paul wrote,
For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among
those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a
fragrance from life to life.127 The Apostles never physically killed anyone,
though they did bring death in their preaching to those who did not
wish to believe. Therefore it is God who dissipates, overturns, disperses
and sows. Neither does he disdain to call us his co-workers.
Boniface continues with the claim that the lay power should be
judged by churchmen (ecclesiastici).128 What kind of judgement should
this be? The Church sets forth the wrath of God against sinners, who
should be seized and warned by the holy texts. Where are bishops per-

124 Exodus 40:13.

125 CICan, 2: 1246.
126 Jer. 1:10.
127 2 Cor. 2:15–16.
128 CICan, 2: 1246.
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 103

mitted to expel kings and make them leave their kingdoms? Whence do
they have this right? Which text do they bring forth? The least tolera-
ble example of this occurs when the Pope says that he cannot be judged
by anyone. Nevertheless John XXIII was cast down not only by God,
but by men in the council of Constance. So these men appoint and
reappoint canons, and they approve and forbid as they see fit. [906] At
times emperors have expelled and cast down Popes, and thus claimed
to be superior. Paul wrote to the Galatians, Even if we, or an angel from
heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you,
let him be accursed.129 If any Pope (past, present or future) should deal in
corrupt teachings, will anyone pronounce him anathema? Will no one
then judge him? The Church shall give its sentence upon him. The
magistrate, as the most prominent member of the Church, should not
only judge such a Pope but also execute the sentence. The magistrate
should provide to this end that the work of the Church shall not be
given to enemies of piety. The faithful magistrate should not allow the
goods of the Church to be wasted by bishops who are enemies of God.
The Canonists often claim that the benefit should be given for the
sake of the office. If they fail to perform their duties, should the mag-
istrate allow them to enjoy the benefits? But let us hear the argument
from which Boniface claims that he can be judged by no one. The spir-
itual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. Clearly, this is
a beautifully sound and apt argument. Paul was certainly not writing
here of public judgements, by which men are beheaded or discharged
from their places, but of the understanding of divine matters that per-
tain to salvation. These, I say, pertain properly to the judgement of
the spiritual man. Paul never dreamt that this should concern the seat
and knowledge of civil matters. From these words his intention is easily
understood: We have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is
from God.130 Paul may respond that this spirit was given to us so that we
may know what is given to us by God. Since the spirit of this world
cannot pass judgement on divine things, it is added that The unspiritual
man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God.131 This should only include
those very few civil and public causes that pertain to man’s salvation.
The spiritual man himself is judged by no one. Peter and Paul were
both judged by the civil power. Paul himself announced that he may be

129 Gal. 1:8.

130 1 Cor. 2:12.
131 1 Cor. 2:14.
104 chapter two

judged by them.132 Were these civil powers spiritual? Certain ones were,
but this place must be understood as follows. Spiritual men, by which
such men exist, can be judged concerning divine things and matters of
salvation only by those who are of the same spirit as them. It is often
said among the impious and mundane that the spiritual man is sedi-
tious, impure and of ill repute; but only God and His spirit can see
into their hearts. Boniface thus concludes that the Pope must be the
sole highest power, lest we appear to establish several beginnings (prin-
cipia), like the Manichees. He adds that God created the world in the
beginning, not in the beginnings.133 We abhor the Manichees, thus we
establish one first principle and we pronounce God and his word as the
sole fount and origin of all powers, both civil and ecclesiastical. The
foundation of both powers depends on the word of God. We thus make
one beginning and not two. If Boniface wishes to press the words of
Genesis 1:1 further, there should only be one king in the entire world.
For once Paul said, One Lord, one faith, one baptism.134 He did not add,
“One Pope”.
Our Thrason advances even further so that he may exclude those
who do not acknowledge the Pope as the highest power and the head
of the Church from the hope of salvation. There were once two or
three Popes (which lasted in all sixty years).135 From this, it should be
necessary that the Papists admit themselves to be Manichees, having
established two beginnings. What do they feel moreover concerning the
Greeks, the Persians and the eastern people who do not acknowledge

132 Acts 25:10.

133 Gen 1:1. See note 239 above. CICan, Extravagantes Decretales Communes, I.8.1, ‘De
Maioritate et Obedientia’, vol. 2, col. 1246.
134 Ephesians 4:5.
135 See Walter Ullmann, The origins of the Great Schism; a study in fourteenth-century

ecclesiastical history (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1972). The so-called “Great Schism”
lasted from 1378 to 1415. At the death of Gregory XI, after almost seventy-five years
of the Avignon Captivity of the Papacy, the cardinals were driven by a Roman mob
to elect an Italian pope, viz. Urban VI. He sought to restore the papacy to Rome.
The cardinals met, declared Urban’s election invalid, and elected their own pope,
Clement VII, who promptly decamped to Avignon. Thus two papal lines at Rome and
Avignon came to be established. In 1409 the council of Pisa declared that Gregory XII
of the Roman line and Benedict XIII of the Avignon line were neither of them pope,
and then proceeded to elect Alexander V, who died shortly afterwards. Alexander’s
successor, John XXIII, was successful in gaining authority. John convened the Council
of Constance to settle the matter once and for all, and was himself deposed along
with Benedict XIII while Gregory XII resigned. Martin V was elected and the schism
ended.
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 105

the Pope? Those who read the Scriptures and believe in Jesus as our
Lord are called Christian, yet Boniface still excludes them from the
hope of salvation. This is the ambition and strange tyranny of the
Popes. When we object to the Papists using these words of Paul, Let
every person be subject to the governing authorities,136 they respond that every
soul should be subject to its own highest power and not that of another
man. Otherwise it would require that the French be subjected to the
Spanish, and the Spanish to the Germans. This is absurd, so we should
confess that every person should obey his own magistrate. Now the
clerics perceive the bishops as the power to which they should be
subjected. The bishops in turn are subjected to the archbishops and
the primates, and they to the Pope. By this agreement, they claim that
they obey the power and satisfy the words of Paul, and should have
nothing to do with kings or civil magistrates. This is nothing else but a
wicked abuse of the Apostle’s words.
Do they see that they divide the commonwealth into two bodies,
when it should be one? When the kingdom of the clergy is divided
from the kingdom of the laity, they make two peoples within one
kingdom and appoint a magistrate to command each people. By this
account, the French clergy may not appear to be French, and the
Germans may not seem to be German. This does not create a union
but rather a division and separation. Paul spoke of that power which
carried the sword, not that of bishops and archbishops. Paul says that
one should not raise the sword without reason. He speaks of that power
to which tribute is paid, since it is for this reason, he says, that we
pay tribute. Bishops neither bear the sword nor demand tribute from
the people. Paul was not speaking of them, for if the bishops have
the sword through the German authorities, and they collect tribute or
taxes, they do not act as bishops, but they act joined by accident to
the civil power, whose authority they may rightly observe. It stands that
Paul was speaking of the civil power, which every soul is ordered to
obey. The interpretation of Origen, by which he explains that Paul said
every soul, not every spirit, is not probable either. Origen continues that
the spiritual man is not moved by affections, neither does he possess
anything in this world, and is thus very little subject to external coercive
power.137 Therefore Paul commanded every soul, that is, [907] every
natural man, to obey the civil power. Why? Was Christ not spiritual?

136 Romans 13:1.

137 Origen, Explanatio Origenis Adamantij Presbyteri in epistola Pauli ad Romanos diuo Hiero-
106 chapter two

Was anyone more spiritual than He? He perceived a higher power

and paid tribute. What of the Apostles? Were they not spiritual? They
never removed themselves from the civil power. Rather they appeared
to obey, and taught others to do the same.
We must now consider the answer which men like Boniface make.
They say that they do not have this power ordinarily by right of
their functions, but by the gifts and privileges conceded to princes.
And they ask “why should we not enjoy the liberties and privileges
of princes?” We should here look at what princes have actually done,
and not what they should have done. Without any doubt God subjected
every soul to the higher power, and no prince is allowed to rescind the
divine law. Nor is human reason better than the providence of God
at discerning eventualities in human affairs. This event is sufficient to
show the benefits that such a dismissal of princes brings about. Once
bishops and false men of the Church have drawn themselves away from
the civil power, immediately they deteriorate further from the divine
model than they were before, and they make the people they were
connected to no better. Rather than continuing to say that emperors
and kings gave them this right, let them hear the word of God, which
they are ordered by princes to obey. They have not only slipped out
from under the obedience of princes in this matter, but they have also
declared their immunity from them.138 Immunity, however, is defined
as freedom from the obligations of honour and the sustaining of civil
duties. Among these burdens are included tributes and taxes. Tributes
are paid on lands and estates. Customs and duty are paid on goods,
and on things which are imported and exported. Ulpian called these
the tendons or sinews of the commonwealth (nervi republicae), for nothing
could be built or managed without them.139 Which right or reason do

nymo iterprete, ed. Theophilus Salodianus (Venice: Bernardin Benalium, 1512), 9.25. PG
14: 1226.
138 CICan, Decretales Gregorii IX, 3.49.4 ‘Non minus’ and Sexti Decretalium, 3.23.3 ‘Cleri-

cis Laicos’, ed. Friedberg, vol. 2, cols. 654–655, 1062–1063. See Leona C. Gabel, Benefit
of clergy in England in the later Middle Ages (New York: Octagon Books, 1969). The so-called
immunity or “benefit” of the clergy is privileged exemption from the ordinary obliga-
tion (munus) imposed upon subjects to the civil authority. According to the “benefit of
clergy” Christian clerics were exempt from prosecution in the King’s courts from the
time of the reforms of Innocent III in the twelfth century. By the sixteenth century this
benefit was gradually extended to all “clerks” or literate persons. In 1576, ecclesiastical
courts were deprived of all jurisdiction over criminal actions.
139 CICiv, Digest ‘De vocatione ac excusatione munerum’ 48.18.1.20. See also M. Tullius

Cicero, Oratio pro lege Manilia (Paris: M. Vascosani, 1537) 7.17.

 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 107

they have to withdraw from public service? By what appearance do

they boast the liberty from princes that neither Christ, the Apostles
nor prophets claimed? Although they claim to have this right by the
gift of kings and emperors, they may not injure citizens. Yet while
they are elevated by this claim, others are burdened beyond measure.
Nor are they removed from all burdens by regal law or privilege.
Indeed, they are immune from personal burdens. This was done for
important reasons which the princes of the nations perceived. In the
Digest of the Roman Law the prætor Ulpian said, “If anyone should
receive a priestly office, he is absolved if he cannot be absent from
it without offence”.140 In the Codex the emperor Constantine exempts
ecclesiastics from personal and unclean burdens.141 Those burdens are
called personal which are performed by the diligence of the soul and
work of the body. Unclean burdens include heating limestone, digging
sand, maintaining water conduits, heating the baths and other things of
these kinds. The clergy are deservedly exempt from such burdens, since
these exercises make the ministry contemptible. They are freed from
personal burdens because they must be surrounded with the sacred,
and should be removed from mundane things. Therefore, princes have
rightly conceded churchmen these rights, lest they be distracted from
their religious studies and be held in low esteem by the people.
What if anyone should try to pass for a minister simply by his cloth-
ing or possessions, yet do nothing in the Church? Surely he should not
be granted immunity. In the Codex Justinian declares that we should
recognise only those who devote themselves to sacred things as men
of the Church, and not vagabonds or leisurely (otiosus) people who
only boast to be ministers in name. He continues that ministers are
not released from ordinary burdens, but only from extraordinary bur-
dens.142 Ordinary burdens are those which legal commandments con-
tinuously impose. Extraordinary burdens are demanded by some pres-
ent necessity, but later cease. If the men of the Church should have
lands or estates, they should pay for them as other citizens would.
When the Church accepts estates, it accepts their civil burdens as well.
They are, however, free from extraordinary tributes. Once the clergy
were poor, and owned nothing more than was necessary to live and
worship, or if, by chance, they possessed more, they gave it to the poor.

140 CICiv, Digest 50.5.13.

141 CICiv, Codex, De episcopis & clericis, 1.3. leg. 1 and 2.
142 CICiv, Codex, De episcopis & clericis, 1.3. leg. 51‘Generaliter sanctimus’.
108 chapter two

Yet the opposite is true now, for they abound in riches and they bestow
were little on the poor. Previously, if there was some kind of urgent
need—as if a path needed to be fortified, or a bridge constructed,
or ships built to carry an army—churchmen were summoned to pay
extraordinary amounts, as seen in the imperial laws contained in the
Codex.143 This also helps fraternal charity. Nowadays, while others are
oppressed, men of the Church are faint, overflowing in leisure and
riches. The clergy should not be put at their ease while others are bur-
dened.144
Nevertheless the Pope, in his decrees De immunitate Ecclesiae would
have the clergy utterly exempt, citing the words of the Lateran Coun-
cil.145 Boniface VIII, in the Liber Sexti Decretalium, De immunitate Eccle-
siarum, does not permit laymen to be paid anything.146 He proposed
excommunication of the prince who accepted tribute from ministers of
the Church as well as of the minister who paid him.147 This law was
judged too cruel and was mitigated by Benedict XI in the Extravagantes

143 CICiv, Codex, 1.2.7. See Kingdon, Politcal Writings, 60, n. 157.
144 2 Cor. 8:13.
145 CICan, Decretales Gregorii IX, 3.49.4 ‘Non minus’ and 3.49.7 ‘Adversus consules’, ed.

Friedberg, vol. 2, cols. 654–656.

146 CICan, 2:1062–1063: “Antiquity teaches us that laymen are in a high degree hostile

to the clergy, a fact which is also made clear by the experiences of the present times;
in as much as, not content within their own bounds, they strive after what is forbidden
and loose the reins in pursuit of what is unlawful. Nor have they the prudence to
consider that all jurisdiction is denied to them over the clergy—over both the persons
and goods of ecclesiastics. On the prelates of the churches and on ecclesiastical persons,
monastic and secular, they impose heavy burdens, tax them and declare levies upon
them. They exact and extort from them the half, the tenth or twentieth or some
other portion or quota of their revenues or of their goods … The prelates and above-
mentioned ecclesiastical persons we strictly command, by virtue of their obedience
and under penalty of deposition, that they by no means acquiesce in such demands,
without express permission of the aforesaid [apostolic] chair; and that they pay nothing
under pretext of any obligation, promise and confession made hitherto, or to be made
hereafter before such constitution, notice or decree shall come to their notice; nor shall
the aforesaid secular persons in any way receive anything. And if they shall-pay, or
if the aforesaid persons shall receive, they shall be, by the act itself, under sentence
of excommunication. From the aforesaid sentences of excommunication and interdict,
moreover, no one shall be able to be absolved, except in the throes of death, without
the authority and special permission of the apostolic chair; since it is our intention by
no means to pass over with dissimulation so horrid an abuse of the secular powers.”
From Ernest F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages (London: George
Bell, 1910), 432–434.
147 Boniface VIII threatened Philip the Fair of France with excommunication, and

Edward I of England was another principal object of the promulgation of the bull
‘Clericis laicos’.
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 109

Decretales Communes.148 The prince was not permitted to do anything

without first consulting the Roman pontiff. He did not excommuni-
cate those princes who accepted tribute from men of the Church, but
those who demanded it. The prince is not permitted to demand any-
thing by his right. It is obviously permitted in certain cases of the high-
est necessity—as when there is present danger to altar and hearth—
that a consensus first be reached among the bishops and clergy, and
that the Pope assent afterward. As long as this decree stands, they
should comply with it. Yet these men exempt themselves from the ser-
vice of obedience and tribute to kings and princes who are, according
to Ulpian, the very ‘sinews’ of the commonwealth.149 While I ponder
these things, [908] the words of Diocletian come to mind. When a
philosopher sought immunity, Diocletian ruled “This petition contra-
dicts your profession. You say that you want to conquer your affections,
but you show your avarice to be greater.”150 Churchmen claim to be
spiritual men. The greatest requirement for the spiritual man is broth-
erly love, which does not recommend that we act freely and securely
when others are made to suffer by their cares and burdens. Aquinas
added a passage from Genesis that shows priests are not exempt from
tribute by the divine law, but by civil laws, no less agreeing with the
law of nature. Pharoah, the king of Egypt, did not require the priests to
weigh out a fifth of their first fruits as tribute, as was demanded from
every other Egyptian.151 Based on this, he concluded that priests were
exempt from taxation. This place should be diligently considered. First,
we should observe that the Egyptian priests had their living directly
from the king’s treasury. They were provided with a small daily subsis-
tence. When famine struck, however, all the Egyptians sold their land
to the king in order to buy corn to satisfy their hunger. At the end
of the famine, the king returned the fields to their former owners, but
continued to require that they pay him one fifth of their fruits annually.
The priests were not required to do this. It is not surprising that they
did not sell their fields to the king since they were fed publicly. One
would assume that they continued to pay tribute from their fields as
they would have before the famine. The only sound conclusion from

148 CICan, 3.13.1 ‘Quod olim’, ed. Friedberg, vol. 2, cols. 1287–1288.
149 CICiv, Digest ‘De vocatione ac excusatione munerum’ 48.18.1.20.
150 Diocletian was himself noted for an insatiable avarice. Lactantius, De mortibus

persecutorum, 1.7.
151 Thomas Aquinas, comment on Genesis 47:22, Postilla seu expositio aurea … in librum

Geneseos, in lucem prodit, diligentia & opera f. Antonij Senensis (Lyon, 1573).
110 chapter two

this is that priests should be supported by the public purse. Since they
did not pay the fifth as tribute, this must have occurred for another
reason.
They also cite the seventh chapter of Ezra, where Artaxerxes advises
that when the tribute is imposed upon the Jews, it should not be
demanded from the Levites.152 Again, this is not surprising, since the
Levites owned no land from which they could pay tribute as it per-
tained to oblations, first fruits and tithes. For this reason, their trib-
ute was restored to them. Julius Cæsar writes in De bello Gallico, “The
French priests, known as druids, paid no tribute”.153 Pliny writes that
the druids did not own their lands.154 This does not mean that the mag-
istrates would be justified in acting with greater remove from the clergy,
or being less kind to them, simply because ministers should always be
surrounded with sacred things and not be concerned with things that
do not profit them spiritually. They are consequently unable to increase
their wealth, and this often causes them considerable loss for they only
have their stipends while they are alive. I only disapprove of their claim-
ing for themselves immunity, both real and personal, through rejecting
ordinary civil obligations, since to do so is tyrannical and plainly against
the authority of the divine word. The Pope will not allow princes to
demand tribute by their own decision from bishops and churchmen,
and he orders furthermore that ministers should not pay it even if it
is demanded. The word of God says otherwise: Let every person be sub-
ject to the governing authorities. The word says here for this reason also
you should pay tribute to whom it is due.155 No one is left out, nor
did Christ himself wish to be exempt from paying tribute. Chrysostom
comments that it may seem grave for Christians, who are the sons of
God destined for the kingdom of Heaven, to be subject to the princes
of this world. He replies, however, that while we are in this life, our
dignity must be concealed. We should not show what we may become.
Therefore, while we live here, it is no burden on us to exalt the mag-
istrates, to yield to them and to render them honour.156 These things

152 Ezra 7:24.

153 Julius Cæsar, Rerum ab se gestarum commentarii: De Bello Gallico libri VIII (Paris:
Michael Vascosanus, 1543), 6.14.
154 Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historiæ liber XVII. De plantis, arborumq[ue] natura ac ratione

(Paris: Michael Vascosanus, 1549), 16.249.

155 Rom. 13:1, 6–7.
156 John Chrysostom, In Epistolam Divi Pauli ad Romanos Homiliæ octo priores, Germano

Brixio … Interprete, Nunc primum & uersæ & editæ (Basle: Froben, 1533) 23.3; PG 60, 618.
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 111

are most respectable and well befit the saints. Being regenerate by the
word and spirit, it might appear to us that there is no work for the
magistrate. The Jews, being the people of God, were most indignant
to suffer subjugation by the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the
Romans, and other nations unknown to God. The Anabaptists and
Antinomians shout that it is unworthy of a Christian to uphold the
magistrate. In like manner, the Papists and clerics today excuse them-
selves from this yoke. The Apostles, who foresaw these events, often
emphasised that the civil power should be obeyed. Thus, this precept
is twice transgressed by men of our day. First, men transgress in saying
that the people should not obey the magistrate, and should seditiously
take up arms against him. Secondly, they also transgress who bypass
the magistrate using craft and device, so that he is left unable to per-
form his function. There are present in Courts those who cajole the
ears of princes, praising and decrying anyone they choose, who blame
the good instead of the evil, and commend the evil instead of the good.
According to their seditious ramblings, some are granted provinces to
govern while others are removed from power. Diocletian said that a
good, prudent, and cautious emperor is often betrayed by his aids. The
prince is at home in his palace and his familiars may accuse and defend
whomsoever they wish. Among the Romans, the Senators (patres con-
scripti) are said to have been often circumvented (circumscripti).157 Many
deceits hinder the course of justice. It is of no importance whether this
is done by force or intrigue; either way the commonwealth is injured,
and the institution of God condemned. This is enough concerning this
topic.
We must also consider the claim that a magistrate who gives orders
contrary to the divine word should not be obeyed. When he acts
thus, he is not a magistrate, as Paul says, for a magistrate should be
a minister of God for good.158 Thus, if he makes orders against the
word of God, he is at least in part not a divine minister. You will
say that sometimes serious, troublesome and difficult orders are made
that do not contradict the word of God. What should be done with
these? One should obey. We are told to obey lords though they may
be troublesome as long as they command nothing against the divine
mandate. If they do, one should answer them following the advice of

157 The pun is lost in translation. ‘Patres et conscripti,’ i.e. the Roman senate. See

T. Livy, Ab urbe condita, 2.1.

158 Rom. 13:3.
112 chapter two

Peter, who said, We ought to obey God rather than men.159 Nebuchadnezzar
wanted his statue to be worshipped. The faithful Hebrews answered,
We will not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have set
up.160 Antiochus commanded the Hebrew woman to eat the flesh of
swine. She preferred to die with her seven children than to act in a
way contrary to the divine law.161 The martyrs, both of old and in our
time, chose to suffer most extreme punishments and cruel deaths rather
than sin against the divine law. Eusebius of Cæserea [909] explains that
Constantius, the father of Constantine, ordered that every Christian
be driven away from all honours and magisterial offices because of
their worship. Those who were truly pious chose to be deposed from
their positions and preferred to leave their dignities rather than be
separated from Christ. This served them well, for the emperor was
pleased with them. Those who denied Christ to retain their dignities
were removed by the emperor, who declared that those who broke their
faith in God would not be loyal to him.162 Later Constantius, the son of
Constantine, being an Arian, tried to induce the orthodox bishops into
heresy. They chose to be exiled rather than to embrace the emperor’s
wicked purpose.163 Then Julian the Apostate opened the temples of
idols and determined to bring pagan rites and worship to Christians.
Those who were truly pious in the Christian religion held it closer
to them than their own lives. In Homer, Achilles says, “provided the
Atreidæ lead aright, I will obey them; but when they cease therefrom,
no more will I obey.”164 Such matters not only pertain to subjects, but
also to the inferior magistrates. What if a superior ruler commands
inferior magistrates to receive the Mass into their cities? Certainly they
should not obey. A certain man may claim that one should defer to him
who has the higher power. I answer that in human and civil matters,
they should obey the civil magistrate as long as he commands, but in
nothing against God. We must return to that maxim “That whereby
an object is made in a certain way is all the more such in itself.”165

159 Acts. 4:29.

160 Daniel 3:18.
161 2 Maccabees 7.
162 Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, 8.13.12–13.
163 See Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica as continued by Rufinus, 10.12 seq.
164 This line occurs in Euripides, Iphigenia at Aulis, ll. 928–930.
165 “Propter quod unumquodque est tale, id ipsum est magis tale” is a commonly

quoted scholastic maxim. It is formulated by Aristotle in Analytica Posteriora, Bekker 72

a28. See, e.g., Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, quæstio 60. art. 5. obj. 2; quæstio 87.
art. 2. obj. 3.
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 113

Therefore, if we obey the magistrate because of God, we should obey

God all the more. The magistrate is thus the intermediary and in such
cases ought not to obey the higher power, but rather that which is
mandated by God himself.
There are many who may say that before refusing to obey a mag-
istrate in religious matters, we should look for the Church’s consent.
Let them consider that Christ never commanded this. Each individ-
ual is bound to the divine law in himself, without the consent or dis-
sent of others. Let us assume that the head of a household owns sev-
eral slaves that he commands to work in the country. Some of them
do not perform their duties while the master is away. Should the rest
abandon their work because some consent to shirk their duty? When
Christ called Paul to preach, did Paul wait for the consent of his other
brethren? He did not. In fact, he wrote in his epistle to the Galatians,
When he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his
grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among
the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to
those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia.166 He did not
wait for the consent of others but immediately obeyed his calling. We
should do the same. After God has revealed his truth to us we should
not delay. One must only wait for consent if the matters in question
are doubtful or obscure. Our reason for this is clear. If we wait idly
for consent, the opportunity may be lost and good occasions may be
corrupted. Tiberius wanted to count Christ among the number of the
gods, but he thought he should first obtain the approval of the senate.
The senate refused, and while Tiberius was waiting for consent, Christ
could not be counted among the gods. Yet Tiberius had the power
to make it happen on his own. Let them tell us whose consent they
wait for: the consent of the bishops? They will never consent. They are
sworn enemies of the truth.
Let us now return to the intermediate magistrates whom we men-
tioned earlier. We should remember that God commanded his sons to
honour their mother and father.167 By these words, God commanded
honour and reverence for the higher powers as well, for the magistrate
acts as a parent, as it were, to the inferior magistrates. Let us see what
Christ said concerning this: He who loves father or mother more than me is not

166 Gal. 1:15–17.

167 Exodus 20:12.
114 chapter two

worthy of me.168 Certainly the same thing should be felt towards the mag-
istrate who is the father of the homeland. Care should be taken that
the magistrate is not loved more than the Lord. If the civil magistrate
should command something against the Lord, it must be refused with
disdain. Nor must anyone who is not willing to separate himself from
the magistrate in such situations profess himself to be a Christian. This
would be to serve two masters, and to limp on both sides.169 If the Lord
is God, follow him.170 Not in part, but entirely. They say that we should
be fearful of creating danger in the Commonwealth by opposing the
superior power. I will answer this differently than Demades answered
the Athenians.171 Cassander of Macedonia, who succeeded Alexander
the Great, petitioned the Athenians that Alexander be venerated as a
god.172 They hesitated at this and Cassander appeared ready to make
war unless they accepted his demand. Demades spoke to the people,
saying that it was to be feared in trying to maintain the heavens they
should lose the earth.173 I respond with words that are altogether dif-
ferent. It is to be feared lest that in excessive zeal for their earthly
commonwealth, they should lose heaven. Although the superior power
may rage and make threats, we must act with sound reason. God must
be reverently and piously worshipped by us, even though every magis-
trate should contradict us and the entire earth protest. Therefore, if that
superior power should give an order against the divine law, he must not
be heeded. Thus Naboth the Israelite refused to concede the vineyard

168 Matthew 10:37.

169 Matthew 6:24.
170 1 Kings 18:21.
171 See Plutarch, Moralia opuscula multis mendarum milibus expurgata (Basil: Froben, 1542),

219e, 804b, 842. Demades was an Athenian orator and demagogue of low birth (380–
318 BCE). He engaged in a lifelong enmity with Demosthenes stemming from a dis-
agreement over the policies of Philip of Macedon. Demades interceded with Alexan-
der the Great to save Athens from destruction. He proposed Alexander’s deification
in Athens, and was later fined ten talents. See The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. Simon
Hornblower and Antony Spawforth, 3rd edn. revised (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2003).
172 G.L. Cawkwell, “The Deification of Alexander the Great: A Note,” in Ventures

into Greek History: Essays in Honour of N.G.L. Hammond, ed. Ian Worthington (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1994), 293–306.
173 Dinarchus, 1.94,103, Hyperides, 5.31–32. Ian Worthington, Craig R. Cooper &

Edward M. Harris, translators, Dinarchus, Hyperides, and Lycurgus (Austin: University of

Texas Press, 2001), see the introduction to Dinarchus. See also Polybius Megapolitanus,
Historiarum libri priores quinq[ue] … epitome sequentium librorum, usq[ue] ad decimumseptimum,
Vuolfgango Musculo interprete (Basel: Ioannem Heruagium, 1549), 12. 12b3.
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 115

which he had inherited to king Achab.174 He sought here to uphold the

divine law, for it warned that the tribes and families of Israel should
remain separate concerning their possessions. Thus, it was not permit-
ted Naboth to give away his entire inheritance. One who was heavily
in debt could sell his field until the year of Jubilee, but after this year,
it would return to its prior owner.175 By this agreement, God wished
that the inheritances of the Israelites not be mixed together with the
nations’. On this account Naboth refused to give up his ancestral inher-
itance, lest the law of God be rescinded. The magistrate should also
imitate this and refuse to concede his cities or dominions to the impu-
rity of the mass and idolatry of the Papists. [910] When the Jews were
held in oppression by the Macedonians, they chose to suffer rather than
admit the statue of Olympian Jove into the temple of God.176 When the
Romans ruled them, they fomented a great deal of sedition and tumult
rather than suffer the setting up of the silver eagle or the statue of
Caligula in the holy place.177 The Arian emperor Valentinian desired
the Basilica of Milan be delivered to him, so that he could celebrate his
heretical prayers and rituals there. Ambrose refused to concede, and
stayed in the Basilica with his people until nightfall, lest the emperor
try to occupy it when it was empty.178 If the Hebrews did not want to
stain the holy temple with statues, and Ambrose would not suffer to
contaminate the Church with heresy, why would faithful magistrates
permit idolatry and polluted Papist worship in their temples?
Magistrates say that these matters do not concern them and that
the temple is outside their power. What then? If a homicide should be
committed in the temple, or a conspiracy hatched against the Com-
monwealth, would magistrates leave these murderers and conspirators
unpunished? How can they say that such wickedness does not concern
them? Would they carefully and knowingly put up with these things?
If they are wise and wish to look out for the commonwealth, surely
they would not. Some may object that the temple is not theirs in the

174 1 Kings 21:3. Cp. “A sermon concernynge the tyme of Rebellion” below, CCCC

MS 102, no. 29, fol. 444.

175 Leviticus 27:24.
176 1 Maccabees 1:57.
177 2 Maccabees 6:2.
178 Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, 11.15. It was actually the Empress Justina, widow of

Valentinian I, who desired a place of worship for her Arian Gothic soldiers. Ambrose
replied: “The palaces belong to the Emperor, the churches to the Bishop.” See Am-
brose of Milan, Omnia opera, per eruditos uiros, ex accurata diuersorum codicum collatione, ed.
Erasmus et al. (Basel: Froben, 1529), vol. 3, 20; PL 16. 994–1002.
116 chapter two

first place, and that the magistrate should not be concerned with what
happens there. When these temples are within the city, it concerns the
magistrate well enough. Indeed the idolatry, sacrilege and blasphemy
occurring there is much more serious than homicides and conspira-
cies. How can a magistrate who wishes to call himself Christian not
think the governance of the temple his proper business? They say that
the superior power established this order. Yet we have dealt with this
argument previously. They argue that if the same power destroys a
city, or attempts to take away or diminish privileges, they would not
bear it, but rather call the people to arms. Yet these things [viz. idol-
atry, etc.] are much sharper and more grievous, yet they are done
openly and publicly. Such actions are far more serious, for they are
done in a place where the Gospel of Christ has been received for many
years.
Since the magistrate often excludes himself from ecclesiastical causes,
saying that they are not his business, the argument he uses must be
shown to be false. Although I have heavily dealt with this matter
already, I will join the elements of my argument together to make it
clearer. First, I said that the magistrate is the guardian of the divine law,
which includes not only the second table, but the first also.179 Therefore
he is the guardian of both the one and the other. I also mentioned the
words of Augustine who said that both private men and kings should
serve the Lord. It is written in the Psalms, When peoples gather together,
and kingdoms, to worship the Lord.180 In another place, Now therefore, O kings,
be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, with trem-
bling.181 Augustine adds that a private man serves the Lord by confess-
ing His name and living rightly. This, however, is not sufficient for a
king or magistrate. He should serve the Lord with his authority and
power by punishing those who oppose Him.182 Unless he does this, the

179 Exodus 25:10 seq. The first table, consisting of the first four of the ten command-

ments, concerns the obligation to serve God. The second table, commandments five
through ten, governs the relation of worshippers in their dealings with one another.
180 Ps. 102:22.
181 Ps. 2:10–11.
182 Aurelius Augustine, Epistula ad Bonifacium, ep. 185, PL 33.803: “How then are kings

to serve the Lord with fear, except by preventing and chastising with religious severity
all those acts which are done in opposition to the commandments of the Lord? For a
man serves God in one way in that he is man, in another way in that he is also king. In
that he is man, he serves Him by living faithfully; but in that he is also king, he serves
Him by enforcing with suitable rigour such laws as ordain what is righteous, and punish
what is the reverse.”
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 117

magistrate appears to give his assent to blasphemy and heresy. When

the king sees and suffers these men, he joins himself to them and pro-
motes their shameful acts. When Nebuchadnezzar first came to know
God, he proposed a decree promising capital punishment for those who
should blaspheme against the God of Daniel.183 Darius later made a
similar decree.184 Our magistrate should stamp out all idolatry, blas-
phemy and superstition. Heathen princes may think the care of religion
(cura religionis) to be outside their power. Why was Socrates condemned
by the Athenians? I am not concerned with the justice or rightness
of this act (for it is thought by everyone that Anitus and Melitus lied
against him). I say that he was condemned because of his religion, for
he taught new divinities and led the youth away from the old gods to
accept his alternative form of worship.185 He was thus condemned by
the common magistrate. The Athenians thought that the care of reli-
gion and piety was the duty of the magistrate. The law of God states
that blasphemers should be put to death not by a private man or by
priests, but by the magistrate.186 The pagan emperors of earlier times
raged against the Christians because they thought that affairs of reli-
gion pertained to their authority. And in this they were not mistaken.
Chrysostom says that no one, neither the Apostles nor the prophets,
criticised either the Jews or the pagans for elevating the care of reli-
gion. However, they were deceived in the knowledge of religion itself,
for they defended theirs as true while condemning Christians as impi-
ous and blasphemous. Constantine, Theodosius and many other holy
princes were praised for carrying away idols and either closing or over-
turning their temples. They would not have done these things unless
they esteemed the care of religion to be their concern. Otherwise, they
were busibodies putting their sickle into another man’s harvest. The
Donatists interpreted this in a most perverse way and complained bit-
terly in the time of Augustine when the Catholic bishops sought help
against them from the civil magistrate. Augustine refuted them by the
same argument that I have just made above. He further demanded to

183 Dan. 3:96.

184 Dan. 6:25.
185 See Plato, Apology of Socrates, 24C–31C: “These new accusers must also have their

affidavit read. What do they say? Something of this sort:—That Socrates is a doer of
evil, and corrupter of the youth, and he does not believe in the gods of the state, and
has other new divinities of his own.”
186 Levi. 24:16.
118 chapter two

know why they had accused Cæcilianus, bishop of Carthage, in front

of Constantine if it was wrong for an emperor to judge in religious
matters.187
From those things that Augustine wrote against Petilianus and Par-
menianus, it can be gathered that the Donatists accused Cæcilianus
before several bishops, as well as before the emperor Constantine, who
sent the matter back to the Roman bishop Melchiades.188 Having been
defeated by this bishop, the Donatists again appealed to the emperor.
He did not reject their call but sent the matter to the bishop of Arles
by whom they were once again condemned. The Donatists did not rest
there, but [911] again called to the emperor, who heard their cause,
condemned them again, and absolved Cæcilianus by his judgement.189
Where are they now, who so often and so impudently cry that no
appeal can be made except to the Pope, and that the civil magistrate
cannot judge religious causes? Who once had the right to call councils?
The councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon were
all called by emperors.190 Leo I asked the emperor to call a council in
Italy, because he suspected the Greeks of following the error of Euty-
ches and he could not change their mind. The bishops were called to
Chalcedon where the emperor was present among them, as was Con-
stantine at the Council of Nicea. Nor were they present only to sit idly
by and do nothing. Rather, they followed the matters put forth by the
bishops and impelled them to set proper boundaries. Theodoret relates
how Constantine admonished the fathers to discern all things by the
sacred gospels, the Apostles, the prophets, and the divinely inspired
( εωπνεσοις) scriptures.191 Justinian compiled in the Code many laws

187 See Augustine, Epistula ad Bonifacium, ep. 185, PL 33.803; CSEL 53.322.
188 Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, 3.25.29; PL 43:245–383; CSEL 52.185. See also
Contra epistulam Parmeniani, 2.13.27; CSEL 51.78.
189 Augustine, Epistulam ad Catholicos de secta donistatarum vulgo de unitate ecclesiæ liber unus,

17.46; PL 43; CSEL 52.291.

190 The four great Ecumenical Councils of the Early Church. According to artcicle

XXI of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, “General Councils may not be gathered
together without the commandment and will of Princes.”
191 Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica tripartita, 2.5.7; CSEL 71.91: “Viewing the common

public prosperity enjoyed at this moment, as the result of the great power of divine
grace, I am desirous above all things that the blessed members of the Catholic Church
should be preserved in one faith, in sincere love, and in one form of religion, towards
Almighty God. But, since no firmer or more effective measure could be adopted to
secure this end, than that of submitting everything relating to our most holy religion
to the examination of all, or most of all, the bishops, I convened as many of them as
possible, and took my seat among them as one of yourselves; for I would not deny
 text: vermigli, ciuill and ecclesiasticall power 119

concerning bishops, presbyters and other men of this kind. Augustine

himself taught that the magistrate should punish heretics and idolaters
in the same way that they punish adulterers. Such transgressors asso-
ciate with ‘spiritual harlots’ against God, which is far graver than to
commit adultery in body. Idolaters and heretics should be punished as
murderers, for they harm the soul rather than the body. Such punish-
ments are permitted in cases of homicide, for the blood is separated
from the slain body. Yet the death of the soul cannot be observed. The
magistrate may use the same care in employing his authority to compel
men to attend his holy meetings and hear the word of God. By often
hearing the word, they may begin to live satisfactory lives who had pre-
viously failed to satisfy. As the histories teach, God often illuminated
pious princes who were in his care with most famous victories.192
It cannot be denied that the magistrate’s duty includes the defence
of the cities and commonwealths that he commands, and to provide
that they come to no harm. Since idolatry is the cause of captivity,
pestilence, famine and subversions of commonwealths, the magistrate
should repress these things and preserve the true and sound religion.
Paul teaches that fathers should instruct their children in sound dis-
cipline and the fear of God.193 A good magistrate is the father of his
homeland (patria). He should thus take care that his subjects be taught
as ‘public’ children, after the example of the Apostles. On the one
hand, kings and princes claim that religious matters are not their con-
cern. On the other hand, they confer, grant, and sell bishoprics, abbeys
and holy positions to whomever they see fit. They do not think this to
be foreign to their duties. While they think that they should not take
notice of religious matters, they provide nonetheless that those whom
they promote to such ample dignities should properly execute their
offices. It remains that God will gain knowledge of their actions, judge
them and avenge their negligence.

that truth which is the source of my greatest joy, namely, that I am your fellow-servant.
Every point obtained its due investigation, until the doctrine pleasing to the all-seeing
God, and conducive to unity, was made clear, so that no room should remain for
division or controversy concerning the faith.”
192 E.g. Constantine’s victory at the Battle of Milvian Bridge on 28 October 312

where he is said to have carried the day owing to his conversion to Christianity—in
hoc signo vinces—and thus to have gained the seat of Empire.
193 Hebrews 12:7.
 chapter three

‘SYNNE AND SEDITION’: PENITENCE

AND THE DUTY OF OBEDIENCE

Textual Introduction

On 21 July 1549, the fifth Sunday after Trinity according to the ecclesi-
astical calendar and in the midst of a year of almost unprecedented civil
disorder, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer entered the quire of St Paul’s
Cathedral accompanied by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of London
and there preached a sermon in which he dissected the causes of and
proposed certain remedies for the civil disorder which had gripped the
realm since the promulgation of the new liturgy of the Book of Com-
mon Prayer.1 Martial law had been proclaimed by the Council just three
days previously in the face of open rebellion against the government in
Norfolk, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and in parts of the West Coun-
try.2 There had been various insurrections and disturbances in the west
since the accession of Edward VI—notably in response to the unpop-

1 This event is described by Sir Charles Wriothesley in A Chronicle of England dur-

ing the reigns of the Tudors, from A.D. 1485 to 1559, ed. W.D. Hamilton, from a transcript
made early in the seventeenth century for the third earl of Southampton (Westminster:
Camden Society, 1875–1877), 16–18. For another contemporary account, see Chronicle of
the Grey friars of London, ed. John Gough Nichols (London: Camden Society, 1852), 60:
“the xxj day of the same monyth, the whyche was sonday, the byshoppe of Caunter-
bury came sodenly to Powlles, and there shoyd and made a narracyon of thoys that
dyd rysse in dyvers places within the realme, and what rebellyous they were and wolde
take aponne them to reforme thynges befor the lawe, and to take the kynges powre in
honde.” The first Edwardine Book of Common Prayer was approved on 21 January 1549
with the passage by Parliament of “An Act for Uniformity of Service and Administra-
tion of the Sacraments throughout the Realm.” 2 and 3 Edward VI, c. 1; Statutes of the
Realm, iv. 37–39.
2 For a succinct description of the 1549 rebellions, see Anthony Fletcher and Diar-

maid MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions, 5th edn. (Harlow: Longmans, 2004) and esp. 52–64
on the Western Rebellion; cited hereafter as TR. See also Francis Rose-Troup, The West-
ern Rebellion of 1549: an account of the insurrections in Devonshire and Cornwall against religious
innovations in the reign of Edward VI (London: Smith, Elder, 1913) and B.L. Beer, Rebellion
and riot: popular disorder in England during the reign of Edward VI (Kent, Ohio: Kent State
University Press, 1982).
122 chapter three

ularity of William Body, lay Archdeacon of Cornwall a close former

associate of Thomas Cromwell and now agent of Protector Somerset’s
policy of religious reform.3 A decisive turning point in the course of the
English Reformation had been reached early in 1549 with the passage
of the Act of Uniformity.4 The Act required that “after the feast of Pen-
tecost next coming”—i.e. 9 June 1549—the offices and sacraments of
the Church of England be conducted according to the new vernacular
rites in replacement of the old Latin liturgies and “in such order and
form as is mentioned in the said book, and none other or otherwise.”5
This profound alteration of public worship was not widely popular, and
was especially resented in Cornwall and parts of Devon where many
of the people spoke little or no English. The enforcement of the new
liturgy depended upon the first Edwardine Act of Uniformity of 1549:
“all and singular ministers in any cathedral or parish church or other
place within this realm of England, Wales, Calais, and the marches of
the same, or other the king’s dominions, shall, from and after the feast
of Pentecost next coming, be bound to say and use the Matins, Even-
song, celebration of the Lord’s Supper, commonly called the Mass, and
administration of each of the sacraments, and all their common and
open prayer, in such order and form as is mentioned in the same book,
and none other or otherwise.”6 On Whitmonday 1549, the day follow-
ing the authorised change in the liturgy, the parishioners of Sampford
Courtenay in Devon convinced the local priest to revert to the old ways:
“we wil not receyve the newe servyce because it is but lyke a Christmas
game.”7 Justices arrived at the next service to enforce the change. An

3 See I. Arthurson, “Fear and loathing in West Cornwall: seven new letters on the

1548 rising,” Journal of the Royal Institute of Cornwall, new series II, 3.3 & 4 (2000): 70.
4 Eamon Duffy, The stripping of the altars: traditional religion in England, c. 1400 – c. 1580

(New Haven: London: Yale University Press, 2005), 463–467.

5 For a full account of the Edwardine religious reforms see Diarmaid MacCulloch’s

Birkbeck Lectures for 1997–1998, Tudor Church Militant: Edward VI and the Protestant
Reformation (London: Penguin, 2001). The Act specifically required that “all and singular
ministers in any cathedral or parish church or other place within this realm of England,
Wales, Calais, and the marches of the same, or other the king’s dominions, shall,
from and after the feast of Pentecost next coming, be bound to say and use the
Matins, Evensong, celebration of the Lord’s Supper, commonly called the Mass, and
administration of each of the sacraments, and all their common and open prayer, in
such order and form as is mentioned in the said book, and none other or otherwise.”
6 2 & 3 Edward VI, cap. 1, printed in Documents of the English Reformation, ed. Gerald

Bray (Cambridge: J. Clarke, 1994).

7 Only three copies of the western rebels’ demands are known to have survived. See

“The Articles of us the Commoners of Devonshyre and Cornwall in divers Campes by

 penitence and the duty of obedience 123

altercation at the service led to a proponent of the change (a William

Hellyons) being run through with a pitchfork on the church steps. Gath-
ering thousands of supporters, these religious traditionalists marched to
Crediton and proceeded thence to lay siege to the City of Exeter to
further their demands.
While economic oppression of the people by the gentry owing to the
enclosure of the commons was of great concern, the formal demands of
the rebels Devon and Cornwall presented in a supplication to the King
leave no doubt that the government’s sweeping religious reforms played
the primary role in fomenting the uprising.8 In direct opposition to the
newly imposed religious settlement the rebels insist upon the restoration
of “the masse in Latten, as was before, and celebrated by the Pryest
wythoute any man or woman communycatyng wyth hym” (art. 3), the
hanging of the reserved sacrament “over the hyeghe aulter, and there
to be worshypped as it was wount to be” (art. 4), communion “in one
kynde” (art. 5), and “Images to be set up again in every church, and all
other auncient olde Ceremonyes used heretofore”. Not until the final
articles do the demands turn to more mundane concerns, e.g. “that no
Gentylman shall have anye mo servantes then one to wayte upon hym
excepte he maye dispende on hundreth marke land” (art. 13) or the
restoration of Abbey and chantry lands and endowments to the support
of monastic communities (art. 14). In the face of open insurrection and
the spilling of blood—the city of Exeter had been under siege since 2
July, and as many as 4000 are said to have died by the cessation of the
insurrection—Thomas Cranmer composed a detailed written response
to the western rebels’ demands.9 He chose to launch his appeal for
the restoration of order with a high-profile public sermon preached at
St Paul’s in mid-July at the very height of the confrontation between
government and people.10

East and West of Excettor,” in a rare tract titled A Copye of a Letter, in Rose-Troup, The
Western Rebellion of 1549, 222–223 and appendix K, 492–494.
8 See “Sermon in the tyme of Rebellion,” fols. 427, 453, 459. On the Western

Rebellion, see TR, 52–64.

9 Thomas Cranmer’s response to these articles is found in CCCC MS 102, fol. 337;

repr. The remains of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, ed. Henry Jenkyns (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1833), 202–244. For a contemporary account of the siege of
Exeter see The discription of the cittie of Excester, collected and gathered by Iohn Vowel alias Hooker,
gentelman and chamberlain of the same cittie, (London: John Allde, 1575), 51 vº–52 rº. John
Hooker was Member of Parliament for Exeter and was uncle to Richard Hooker the
divine.
10 Charles Wriothesley draws attention to the solemnity of the occasion. See Chronicle
124 chapter three

Most significantly, however, the sermon was not of Cranmer’s own

composition but, as we shall shortly demonstrate, was the work of his
close associate and theological mentor Peter Martyr Vermigli, recently
appointed Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford and
Canon of Christ Church.11 Cranmer had personally invited Vermigli to
take up this prestigious appointment at the handsome annual salary of
40 marks. At the time of the West Country Rebellion, Vermigli was
already embroiled in a heated disputation on the sacrament of the
Eucharist as a consequence of his inaugural lectures in the Oxford
Divinity School on Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians; and, on the
basis of his thoroughly evangelical formulation of eucharistic doctrine,
he was soon to be engaged in advising Cranmer on a revision of the
liturgy of 1549 in a more thoroughly reformed direction.12 One of the
chief fruits of these lectures would be the revised Book of Common Prayer
of 1552.13 Josiah Simler relates that “not long after this disputation
the Commons of Devonshire and Oxfordshire raised a Commotion,
wherein death was threatened unto many, but namelie unto Martyr.
When he could not nowe teache no nor remaine without daunger in

of England, 16: “The one and twentith daie of Julie, the sixth daie after Trinitie soundaie,
the Archbishopp of Canterburie came to Poules, and their in the quire after mattens
in a cope with an aulbe under it, and his crosse borne afore him with two priestes
of Poules for deakin and sub-deacon with aulbles and tuniceles, the deane of Poules
followinge him in his surples, came into the quire, my lord Maior with most part of
the aldermen sitting there with him. And after certaine assembly of people gathered
into the quire the said Bishopp made a certaine exhortation to the people to pray to
almightie God for his grace and mercy to be shewed unto us.”
11 Vermigli succeeded Richard Smith as Regius Professor of Divinity in March 1548.

Mark Taplin, “Pietro Martire Vermigli,” ODNB. See Philip M.J. McNair, “Peter Martyr
in England,” in Joseph C. McLelland, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform (Water-
loo, Ont.: Sir Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1980), 85–105 and William M. Jones,
“Uses of foreigners in the Church of Edward VI” Numen 6.2 (April, 1959): 142–153.
A crucial result of this controversy was the publication of his celebrated treatise on
eucharistic theology which was to become the theological foundation for the revision of
the liturgy in the Second Prayer Book of 1552. See Peter Martyr Vermigli, Tractatio de
sacramento eucharistiæ (London: ad æneum serpentem, 1549).
12 Jennifer Loach, “Reformation Controversies,” in The History of the University of

Oxford, vol. 3, The Collegiate University, ed. James McConica (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1986), 368–375. See the Introduction to Peter Martyr Vermigli, The Oxford Treatise
and Disputation on the Eucharist 1549, transl. and ed. Joseph C. McLelland, PML vol. 7
(Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2000).
13 On Vermigli’s collaboration with Cranmer on the revision of the doctrine of the

eucharist and the liturgy of the Prayer Book, see J.C. McLelland, “The Second Book of
Common Prayer,” in The Visible Words of God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of
Peter Martyr Vermigli (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1957), 28–40.
 penitence and the duty of obedience 125

the Citie [of Oxford], he by the assistance of his friendes was safelie
conducted to London” and there resided with Cranmer at Lambeth
Palace.14 Thus Vermigli was actually dwelling under Cranmer’s roof at
the very time the sermon in question was preached at St. Paul’s.
According to Charles Wriothesley’s brief account of the event in his
Chronicle of England, the sermon likened the insurrection of 1549 to a
great plague of God reigning ouer us … for our great sins and neglecting
his worde and commandments, which plage is the commotion of the
people in most parts of this realme now raigning among us specially
against Godes commandmente and the true obedience to our most
Christen King Edwarde the sixt, naturall, christian, [i.e. by natural and
divine law] and supream head of this realme of Englande and other his
domynions, which plage of sedition and divicion among ourselues is the
greatest plage, and not like heard of since the passion of Christ.15

Cranmer is described as exhorting his audience that this plague of sedi-

tion was instigated “by the Devill for our miserable sinnes and tres-
passes in that we have shewed us to be the professors and diligent hear-
ers of his worde by his true preachers and our lives not amended” and
concluding with a solemn admonition that the situation could only be
remedied and order restored through penitential acts of fasting and
prayer.16 Although brief, Wriothesley’s description of Cranmer’s pub-
lic preaching on the rebellion at St Paul’s is sufficiently specific with
respect to both theme and argument to allow virtually certain iden-
tification with a manuscript in the collection of the Parker Library
of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.17 The text of the manuscript
sermon follows the same tri-partite structure: it compares the insur-
rection to a “plague”, attributes its cause to “synne” and “unchristian
lyvyng”, and proposes finally that “the remedie of al our plags is onely

14 Josiah Simler, An Oration of the life and death of that worthie man and excellent Divine d.

Peter Martyr Vermillius, professor of Diuinitie in the schoole of Zuricke, in Vermigli’s Divine Epistles
(London: John Day, 1583), Qq ii vº.
15 Wriothesley, Chronicle of England, 17–18.
16 For example, compare Wriothesley’s report that “we have shewed ourselves …

dilgent hearers of his word … our lives not amended” (Chronicle, 17) with the text of the
sermon itself: “The generall cause of these commotions is synne, and under christian
profession unchristian lyving” (CCCC MS 102, fol. 415).
17 A MS translated from the Latin of Peter Martyr in the collection of the Parker

Library, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 102, no. 29, fols. 411–499. Title of MS
on fol. 409; text begins on fol. 411. See Montague Rhodes James, A Descriptive Catalogue
of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1912), vol. I, no. 102.
126 chapter three

penaunce”.18 Gilbert Burnet was the first historian of the Reformation

to make the connection between Cranmer’s public preaching on the
Rebellion and the Parker Library manuscript and alleges, moreover, to
have seen the sermon in Cranmer’s own hand in the library of Corpus
Christi.19 This, however, proves to have been something of an exagger-
ated claim. While several marginal headings of the main divisions of
the argument, as well as some emendations to the text together with a
lengthy prayer appended to the MS are in Cranmer’s own distinctive
script, the bulk of the manuscript is in an unknown secretary hand.
In another reference to the same sermon John Strype maintains that
a solemn day of fasting was appointed as a result of the outbreak of
civil insurrection, and that Cranmer had directed officially sanctioned
homilies be written and read in church by curates in order “to preserve
[the people] in their obedience, and to set out the evil and mischief of
the present disturbances.”20 Strype proposes that the manuscript of “A
sermon concernynge the tyme of Rebellion” in the Parker Library may
have been composed for such general public use, although there is no
evidence of the work having been employed in this way.21
Following Burnet’s and Strype’s lead, Henry Jenkyns included the
sermon in the second volume of his edition of Cranmer’s works pub-
lished in 1833.22 Jenkyns, however, expresses doubt about the authen-
ticity of Cranmer’s authorship. In particular he draws attention to a
fact hitherto (and quite astonishingly) ignored, viz. Matthew Parker’s
epigraph “hic sermo prius descriptus Latine a Petro Martyre”.23 The epigraph
links the sermon to another Latin manuscript in the collection which

18 “A Sermon concernynge the tyme of rebellion,” CCCC MS 102, no. 29, fols. 418,

424, 485.
19 The History of the Reformation in England, ed. E. Nares (London: Dove, 1830), vol. 2,

244.
20 Memorials of the most reverend father in God Thomas Cranmer, sometime lord archbishop of

Canterbury (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1812), 187.

21 It is perhaps remotely possible that Strype may have confused this sermon with ‘A

homily against strife and contention’, Certayne sermons, or Homelies: appoynted by the Kynges
Maiestie, to bee declared and redde, by all persons, vicares, or curates, euery Sondaye in their churches,
where they haue cure (London: R. Grafton, 1547), STC 13675, sermon 12.
22 The remains of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, collected and arranged by

the Rev. Henry Jenkyns (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1833), 248–273.
23 The Latin sermon with Parker’s annotation ‘Sermo Petri Martir manu propria

scripta in seditionem Devonensium’ (fol. 73) is part of the same collection, MS 340,
no. 4, fols. 73–95. See James, Descriptive Catalogue, Vol. II, no. 340. Referring to English
version, Jenkyns remarks that “although this sermon has been placed among Cranmer’s
works, his claim to it is not indisputable.” Jenkyns, ed., Cranmer, 248.
 penitence and the duty of obedience 127

is identified by Parker as Vermigli’s autograph. Nonetheless Jenkyns

asserts that “far from being only a translation of the Latin Sermon”
the manuscript of “A sermon concernynge the tyme of Rebellion” is
only loosely based on the manuscript of the Latin sermon in Ver-
migli’s hand to which the epigraph refers. Thus according to Jenkyns,
Cranmer composed an English sermon roughly “based on materials in
Latin” prepared by Vermigli.24 Following Jenkyns, Edmund Cox, editor
of the Parker Society edition of Cranmer’s Works, defends Cranmer’s
authorship of the sermon and observes by way of confirmation that
the piece follows a series of topics and various scriptural and historical
examples of sedition roughly sketched out by Cranmer in another set
of autograph notes.25 Cox repeats Jenkyns’s remarks about the addition
of significant new material in the English version of the sermon, and
concludes by taking the question of Cranmer’s substantive authorship
of the sermon as settled.26
On close inspection of the Latin sermon bearing Parker’s epigraph
“Sermo Petri Martir manu propria scripta in seditionem Devonensium”—also
in the collection of the Parker Library—and comparing it with other
examples of Vermigli’s autograph, there can be no doubt that this
manuscript is indeed Vermigli’s.27 Matthew Parker may have made
some egregious errors in the identification and dating of some of the
early manuscripts in his vast collection, but he is certainly reliable when
it comes to his own contemporaries.28 Moreover, careful collation of the
Latin and English versions of the sermon shows that the 19th-century
editors of Cranmer’s works, i.e. Jenkyns and Cox, were mistaken in
their insistence (based on Burnet’s original claim) that the English ser-

24 Jenkyns states that “In some parts long passages are omitted, in others much

new matter is added … It may be observed also, that both the Latin and the English
Sermons contain the same topics and examples as the rough Notes by the Archbishop
which are printed above. Perhaps therefore it may be reasonably conjectured, that
Cranmer placed these brief notes in the hands of P. Martyr, to be expanded into a
regular homily; and that afterwards, from the materials thus prepared in Latin, he
drew up the English Sermon which follows.” Jenkyns, ed., Cranmer, 248.
25 “Heads of a discourse against rebellion,” CCCC MS 102.34, fol. 530–532.
26 The Works of Thomas Cranmer, ed. John Edmund Cox, PS 2 vols. (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1844–1846), 2:190.

27 For a published facsimile of Vermigli’s hand matching the hand of the Latin text

of the sermon see Johannes Ficker, Handschriftenproben des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts nach
Strassburger Originalen (Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner, 1906), plate 28A.
28 Christopher de Hamel, “Archbishop Matthew Parker and His Imaginary Library

of Archbishop Theodore of Canturbury,” Annual Report of the Executive Committee of the

Friends of Lambeth Palace Library (2002).
128 chapter three

mon is substantively Cranmer’s own composition.29 In actuality, the

English text is a close line-by-line translation of Vermigli’s original and
indeed renders the text of the Latin sermon faithfully and in its entirety.
There are approximately four and half folios of the expansive secretary
hand in the translation for each folio of Vermigli’s much more com-
pact italic Latin. While the English version of the sermon has a small
amount of interpolated material, this is largely confined to the addition
of short phrases and minor aesthetic revisions to the translation, the
occasional reworking of the syntax (doubtless principally for rhetorical
effect), with the addition of a concluding collect and marginal head-
ings both in Cranmer’s own hand. It would thus seem plausible to infer
that these emendations to the text of the sermon and the prayer in
Cranmer’s autograph had misled Gilbert Burnet to assert Cranmer’s
authorship in the first instance, and that Jenkyns and Cox followed Bur-
net’s lead in this reading of the evidence. Taken together, however, the
additions in Cranmer’s hand are quite negligible when compared to
the overall length of the text.30 In short, the public sermon preached
by Cranmer at St. Paul’s on 21 July 1549 proves to be substantively a
close translation of Vermigli’s autograph Latin text, exactly as Matthew
Parker suggests in his epigraphs to the two manuscripts.
Nonetheless, received opinion continues to ascribe authorship of the
sermon to Thomas Cranmer. This view of the matter is reiterated by
G.E. Duffield in the 1964 Sutton Courtney edition of selected writings
of the Archbishop.31 Although the full text of the sermon is not included
among his printed selections, Duffield discusses the manuscript and
includes Cranmer’s autograph “Heads of a discourse against Rebel-
lion” as evidence of his authorship.32 In his brief introduction to Cran-
mer’s “Heads” which he titles “Notes on Rebellion, 1549,” Duffield
observes that “Cranmer was much troubled by the revolts in 1549,
and often preached against them. We know he used sermons by Peter
Martyr and Martin Bucer in his own preparation.”33 In this man-
ner Duffield perpetuates the earlier view that Cranmer employed Ver-

29 Jenkyns, ed., Cranmer, 248.

30 In the text of the sermon following the additions of text in another hand and
departures from the Latin original are given in square brackets.
31 G.E. Duffield, The Works of Thomas Cranmer (Appleford, Berks: Sutton Courtenay

Press, 1964), 221.

32 CCCC MS 102, no. 34, fols. 530–532. Matthew Parker’s epigraph reads “Heads of

a discourse against Rebellion.” Duffield reprints the “Heads” in Cranmer, 241–244.

33 Duffield, Cranmer, 221.
 penitence and the duty of obedience 129

migli’s text as a resource of materials for the composition of his own

homily rather than preaching a substantive translation of the Floren-
tine’s sermon. Since Cranmer’s autograph “Heads of discourse against
Rebellion” cover some of the principal topics included in the English
sermon, at first glance they would appear to lend some support to the
case for Cranmer’s authorship. The same view is reinforced in a recent
biography of Vermigli in the new Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.34
To add further intricacy to the question of attribution, there is yet
another manuscript in the Parker collection containing another series
of notes in Latin, in Vermigli’s hand and bearing Matthew Parker’s
epigraph “Cogitationes Petri Martyris contra seditionem”.35 Like Cran-
mer’s jottings Vermigli’s “cogitationes” also cover the main heads and
examples set out in the sermon. The vexed question whether Cran-
mer’s notes may have been based on Vermigli’s notes, or vice versa,
is difficult to determine. Cranmer’s notes are somewhat more detailed
than Vermigli’s, and this fact may lend support to the view that Cran-
mer may well have been working from Vermigli’s notes and expand-
ing on them. Regardless of which set of notes may have preceded the
other—more likely we have a case here of two distinguished divines
working cooperatively—it can be asserted with reasonable plausibility
that the sermon Wriothesley describes Cranmer having preached at
St Paul’s in July 1549 was the result of close collaboration with Peter
Martyr, an inference reinforced by Simler’s report that Vermigli was
residing at Lambeth Palace at the time in question.36 Just as Cran-
mer worked in close theological collaboration with Vermigli in the revi-
sion of his own eucharistic theology and in the consequent revision of
the 1549 liturgy which would culminate in the revised Book of Common
Prayer of 1552,37 and yet again in the work of the Royal Commission for
the reformation of the Canon Law (Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum),38 so
indeed it would appear only natural that Vermigli should be enlisted

34 See Mark Taplin’s recent biography “Pietro Martire Vermigli, evangelical reform-

er” in ODNB.
35 CCCC MS 102, no. 31, fols. 509–511.
36 Josiah Simler, Oration, Qq ii vº.
37 J.C. McLelland, “The Second Book of Common Prayer,” The Visible Words of God,

28–40.
38 Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum ex authoritate primum Regis Henrici. 8. inchoata: deinde per

Regem Edouardum 6. prouecta, adauctaq[ue] in hunc modum, atq[ue] nunc ad pleniorem ipsarum
reformationem in lucem ædita (London: John Day, 1571). For a critical edition, see Gerald
Bray, ed., Tudor Church Reform: The Henrician Canons of 1535 and the Reformatio legum
ecclesiasticarum (Woodbridge: Boydell Press for the Church of England Record Society,
130 chapter three

to contribute to the official pulpit campaign of response to the upris-

ings and thus to assist in the restoration of order within the common-
wealth at large. The precise nature of the cooperation between Cran-
mer and Vermigli with respect to this “Sermon concernynge the tyme
of Rebellion”, however, is in need of some reformulation. Whereas
received opinion emphasizes the role of the “Cogitationes” and holds
that Cranmer drew upon these writings as an ancilliary resource for
a sermon that was largely of Cranmer’s own composition, the textual
evidence clearly shows that, with the exception of some minor alter-
ations and the addition of a concluding prayer and some topical head-
ings, the English version of the sermon is in actuality a complete and
close line-for-line translation of Vermigli’s Latin composition. To con-
clude while the existence of parallel sets of preparatory notes suggests
a close collaboration between the two divines, Vermigli’s sermon can
by no means be relegated to the status of a lumber room of mate-
rials made use of by Cranmer as has long been asserted. Rather, a
full recognition of Vermigli’s primary authorship of this highly signifi-
cant political sermon is long overdue. The lack of such recognition is
perhaps symptomatic of a long-standing tendency of English Reforma-
tion historiography to downplay the central role played by continental
reformers—such as Vermigli, Bucer, and Heinrich Bullinger—in defin-
ing the religious settlement under Edward VI. As the author of the
sermon Vermigli played a decisive part as a political theologian in this
dramatic public response to the 1549 rebellion in a manner consistent
with his leading role as principal author of the Eucharistic theology of
the second Edwardine Book of Common Prayer (1552) and as a proactive
royal commissioner on the reform of the Canon Law.

Argument of the Sermon

Vermigli opens his sermon by comparing “the commen sorrow of this

present tyme” to the example of Job “when he came to his extreme
misery, lyving upon a dong hill.”39 Throughout, the sermon builds upon
the trope of the “body politic” where Job personifies the body of the
realm of England upon whom the rebellion as “the plage of God”

2000). For an historical introduction to the work of the Royal Commission authorized
to reform the Canon Law of England, see Bray, xli–cxvi.
39 A Sermon concernynge the tyme of Rebellion, CCCC MS 102.34, fol. 411.
 penitence and the duty of obedience 131

is visited.40 The anguish of this body / realm is “now so troubled, so

vexed, so tossed, and deformed, and that by sedition among our selfes,
of such as be membres of the same, that nothing is lefte unattempted
to the utter ruyne and subversion therof.”41 The grief moreover is such
as can be bewailed “with teares rather than with wourdes” (fol. 411).
The preacher thus invites those who would contemplate the “extreme
mysery” of a kingdom racked by sedition to put themselves in the place
of Job’s three friends, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and
Zophar the Naamathite.42 In this fashion the discourse aims to raise
consideration of England’s civil discord to the more universal level of
theodicy: a divine justice is at work in these immediate political and
social events, and the main task of the preacher of the divine Word is to
explain the ways of God to men.43 Such an approach opens up a very
distinctive vantage point, viz. that of the political theologian. Vermigli
proclaims as his chief goal that “out of holy scripture I may playnely
sett out before your eyes the princypal causes of al these tumults and
seditions” (fol. 415), and thereby to determine what personal, religious,
and political remedies may be necessary. The structure of the sermon’s
argument thus follows an uncomplicated homiletical order: the general
and primary cause of the Rebellion is considered first, followed by
an analysis of specific secondary causes related chiefly to the distinct
interests of the principal antagonists, and concluding with a concerted
proposal for the restoration of order in the commonwealth.
The summary heading of the first cause of the sedition currently
“plaguing” the body politic comes, at least initially, as something of
a surprise. Vermigli does not begin by criticizing the rebels as might
have been expected of the official voice of the Establishment, but rather
draws attention to the “remisseness of correction in governours”.44
The sermon nonetheless refers habitually to the governors in the first

40 See David George Hale, The Body Politic: A Political Metaphor in Renaissance English

Literature (The Hague: Mouton, 1971) and Ernst H. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies:
A Study in Mediæval Political Theology (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957).
41 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 412–413.
42 Job 2:11–13.
43 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 413: “the eternall punyshment of god threatenith sore to

come upon us for thies seditions and without faile will fall ammonge us, except wee
cease in tyme from our discorde, and amende the same by godlye concorde and godly
repentaunce, so that wee be constryned day and night to bewayle the decaye not only
of a worldely kingdom, and moost noble realme, but also the eternall damnation of
innumerable soules.”
44 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 416.
132 chapter three

person—and here the name of Protector Somerset looms large, though

unspoken, while both Vermigli and Cranmer, author and preacher,
clearly identify themselves with the establishment—“We have been
to[o] remise in ponysshing offenders.”45 Cranmer, it must be recalled,
is a leading member of the Privy Council and, after the King and the
Protector, the most senior public personage in the Realm. Scripture—
and predictably the first text appealed to here is the locus classicus of
Reformation political theology, viz. Romans 13—makes plain that Gov-
ernors and rulers are “ordyened of god for the intent and purpose that
they should be goddes officers and to punyshe and converte those that
be evill.”46 Government has signally failed in this purpose. Thus the
sermon is blunt in attributing the “prima causa” of rebellion to exces-
sive leniency, a failure of the governors to fulfill their essential, divinely
mandated role of punishing and converting the evil:
either thinking this clemency for the tyme expedient for the common
wealthe, or els not duely waying how grevouse those offences [be in
the sight of God] were and how much they offended god. And whilst
wee lacked this right iudgement of goddes wrathe againste synne, loo,
[418] sodenly cometh upon us this scourge of sedition, the rodde of
goddes wrathe, to teache us how sore god hateth all wickedness [and
is displeased with his ministers that wynke thereat].47
This unexpectedly frank criticism from a pillar of the establishment
strikes at the very heart of Somerset’s strategy and reveals something
of the intricate dynamic of interplay among the rulers themselves as
well as between rulers and ruled.48 Just as Job refuses to blame his suf-
ferings on either external circumstance or divine injustice, but even-
tually comes to acknowledge his own finitude and shortcomings, so
Vermigli aims not to mince words here, but to attribute civil disorder
first and foremost (prima causa) to the government’s own failure to fulfil

45 In the MS (fol. 417) Cranmer substitutes “remise” for the translator’s “slacke”.
46 See Vermigli’s Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos … Commentarii (Basle: P. Perna,
1558). See his commentary on this passage in the text appended to chapter II above.
See also W.J. Torrance Kirby, “The Civil Magistrate: Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Com-
mentary on Romans 13,” in The Peter Martyr Reader, ed. J.P. Donnelly, Frank James III
and Joseph C. McLelland (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 1999): 221–
237.
47 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 417.
48 On the debate among historians concerning Edward Seymour’s strategy in gov-

ernment, see Ethan Shagan, “Protector Somerset and the 1549 Rebellions: New
Sources and New Perspectives,” English Historical Review 114.455 (Feb. 1999): 34–63. See
also M.L. Bush, The government policy of Protector Somerset (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Uni-
versity Press, 1975).
 penitence and the duty of obedience 133

its scripturally mandated function. In the current disorder of rebellion

the rulers should first recognize the cause in themselves, and not in the
“other”, and that they are consequently recipients of a divine judge-
ment upon their own inadequacy.
As it turns out, criticism of the policy and conduct of Somerset
was actually not an uncommon analysis of the situation among several
prominent members of the governing establishment, and so Vermigli’s
diagnosis of the ills need not be interpreted as quite as daring as may
initially appear. When the Protector was finally toppled in October in
the aftermath of the rebellion, just two months after the preaching of
this sermon, it was not by the rebels. The Privy Council charged that
Somerset had colluded with rebels, he had “failed in speed repress-
ing of them,” and “in time of rebellion he said that he liked well the
actions of the rebels, and that the avarice of gentlemen gave occasion
for the people to rise, and that it was better for them to die than to
perish for want.”49 In conspicuous ways the regime of Protector Som-
erset had announced its support for the rebels’ claims. Ethan Shagan
has recently argued that “the Protector’s strategy involved an elaborate
courting of public opinion and a stunning willingness to commit the
regime to fundamental changes in policy at the initiation of the com-
mons.” Consequently, “we can see in Somerset’s policy a novel mode
of popularity-politics in the process of invention.”50 Briefly, the strategy
of the Protector was to foster an alliance between government and peo-
ple by superseding the interests of the landed gentry. It is precisely this
strategy which Vermigli calls into question in the opening paragraphs
of his sermon and thus casts himself (and Cranmer) in the prophetical
role of speaking truth to power.
In a letter to Somerset dated 7 July 1549, exactly two weeks in
advance of Cranmer’s sermon, Sir William Paget had also taken direct
aim at the Protector’s policy of clemency towards the rebels:
Mary, the King’s subjects owt of all discipline, owt of obedience, caryng
neither for Protectour nor Kings, and much lesse for any other meane
officer. And what is the cause? Your owne levytie, your softnes, your
opinion to be good to the pore … Yt is pitie that your so muche
gentlenes shuld be an occasion of so great an evell as ys now chaunced
in England by these rebelles … Consider, I beseeche youe most humbly,

49 Gilbert Burnet, History of the Reformation of the Church of England (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1865), vol. 5, 284.

50 Ethan Shagan, “Protector Somerset and the 1549 Rebellions,” 47.
134 chapter three

with all my harte, that societie in a realme dothe consiste, and ys mayn-
teyned by meane of religion and law.51

It would appear from the argument of the sermon, then, that Vermigli
and Cranmer, as author and preacher respectively, were party to a clos-
ing of ranks by the ruling élite, a manoeuvre which would lead to the
exclusion of the King’s uncle from power and result ultimately in his
execution. In “lacking this right iudgement of goddes wrathe againste
synne” Somerset, representative of the first of the “estates”, had failed
singularly in the foremost task of God’s vice-gerent, namely “truely and
indifferently [to] minister justice, to the punishement of wickednes and
vice, and to the mayntenaunce of God’s true religion and vertue,” as
Cranmer had neatly summarized the role of Christian kings, princes,
and governors in the prayer of Intercession in the recently promulgated
liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer.52 On this point Cranmer, Vermigli,
Paget, and ultimately the majority of the Privy Council could all agree.
Nonetheless, Vermigli was to write a sympathetic and public letter of
consolation to the Duke subsequent to his fall from power.53 Vermigli,
however, goes more deeply into the matter and interprets the Protec-
tor’s fatal policy of leniency in the light of theodicy in the tradition of
Aurelius Augustine.54 Since the governance of subjects is “mediated” by
the “powres ordeyned of god,” the coercive power of governors and
rulers also serves as the “remedium peccati” for ordinary sinners, while the
coercive hand of the divine power alone acting in history serves as the
divine remedy for the failure of princes.55 God alone can take offence
at the slackness of rulers and correct those who, according to Scrip-
ture, are “immediately” under his divine appointment. And it is there-
fore foremost on account of the sin of the appointed rulers, Vermigli

51 SP 10/8/4 (Calendar of State Papers Domestic, Edward VI, revised edition, no. 301);

TR, 160. B.L. Beer, ed., “A critique of the protectorate: an unpublished letter of Sir
William Paget to the Duke of Somerset,” Huntington Library Quarterly 34 (1971): 277–283.
52 The First and Second Prayer Books of King Edward VI (London: Dent, 1913; repr. 1999),

382.
53 An epistle vnto the right honorable and christian prince, the Duke of Somerset written vnto him

in Latin, awhile after hys deliueraunce out of trouble, by the famous clearke Doctour Peter Martyr, and
translated into Englyshe by Thomas Norton (Londo[n]: [N. Hill] for Gualter Lynne, 1550). On
Vermigli’s warm personal rapport with Somerset, see M.L. Bush, The government policy of
Protector Somerset, 109–112. See Appendix 2 below p. 245.
54 De civitate Dei, XI.9; XII.6; XIX.6.
55 See Common Places, transl. Anthony Marten (London: Henry Denham, 1583) 4.17,

fol. 282; cited hereafter as CP. For Augustine, war is frequently the “remedy for sin” in
human history. De civitate Dei XIX.12, 27.
 penitence and the duty of obedience 135

argues, that “we suffer worthily this plage of god.”56 In this passage
the “we” is somewhat ambivalent. On the one hand, it can be taken
to represent the entire “body politic”, for whatever the head inflicts
through its shortcomings the whole body suffers. On the other hand,
the “we” might also be taken to refer more exclusively to those few
directly involved in government. Far from being able to cast the blame
solely upon the rebels themselves, and thus self-righteously to see the
government as the mere object of the plague of sedition, the rulers
themselves, following the example of Job, must endeavour to shoulder
blame in the case. “There is none righteous, no, not one.”57
Vermigli proceeds to confirm this theodicy of the Rebellion by ap-
pealing to some biblical examples from the history of Israel, specifically
to the sufferings of Eli and David for their failure to chastise their
children, and the destruction of the tribe of Benjamin:
Consider I praye you by this example, how certayne and [L 78]58 present
destruction cometh to comon weales, because offendours against god are
unponysshed. And whensoever the magistrates be slacke in doing their
office herein, let them loke for none other but that the plage of god shall
fall in their necks for the same, whiche thinge not only the foresaide
examples, but also experiences with our selfes dothe playnely teache us,
for whensoever any member of our body is deseased or sore, yf wee suffer
it long to contynue and fester, doo wee not [422] see that at length it
dothe infecte the whole body, and in processe of tyme utterly corrupteth
the same.59

The magistrates’ defiance of the divine mandate to uphold justice by

punishing violators of the law is the cause of plagues suffered both indi-
vidually by the “head” and collectively by the whole “body” of the
realm. The magistrates, however, cannot be the sole scapegoats in this
account of the sufferings of the body politic. In the current insurrection,
the subordinate members as well as the head “have offended god, both
hieghe and lowe.”60 The sermon makes clear that there are not just two
principal antagonists involved in this drama, i.e. government and peo-
ple, but rather three: the Crown, the landed nobility and gentry, and
the rebellious commons. A large body of innocent bystanders is also to

56 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 420.

57 Romans 3:10.
58 The “L” represents the foliation of the Latin MS, while plain numbers in square

brackets refer to the English MS.

59 Tyme of Rebellion, fols. 421–422.
60 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 423.
136 chapter three

be taken into account, not to mention menacing foreign powers.61 Cit-

ing the example of Daniel in the time of Israel’s exile and captivity in
Babylon, Vermigli invites every man to search his own conscience, “let
everyman confesse, and bewayle aswell his owne synnes, as the synnes
of the heddes and rulers”62 and makes his transition to a consideration
of the principal secondary cause (secunda causa) of the rebellion which
he takes to be the sin of covetousness (avaritia) on the part of both com-
mons and gentry, “both hieghe and lowe”. Sin is thus classified into
distinct political and social-economic categories. The primary cause of
the plague of rebellion is “sinne” both by the ruling powers themselves
and by those openly resisting their authority—thus sin is interpreted in
the political sense of disobedience towards the order ordained by God,
the secondary cause concerns primarily social and economic considera-
tions motivated by sin interpreted as “greedy desire, and as it were
wourshipping of riches” on the part of the two main social classes.
In the case of both the primary and the secondary causes, a divinely
appointed order is disrupted—“bothe the highe and lowe parte being
so much blynded have bronge our Realme to this poynte.” The pur-
suit of private interests by both classes as well as failure of both in the
proper exercise their respective public duties (whether these be ruling
or obeying) are the main causes of the disorder. Both the primary (i.e.
political) and the secondary (i.e. economic) causes constitute disregard
and disobedience towards a divinely constituted order and thus both
are ultimately attributable to the condition of original sin, the universal
cause.63
Vermigli makes the traditional Tudor political theologian’s appeal
to the concepts of hierarchy, order, and degree: “every manne shulde
be content with that state place and degree, that god the author of
all good thinges, hath called hym unto.”64 The argument for submis-
sion to authority has its prime exemplar in Christ’s deference to the
jurisdiction of Cæsar.65 Vermigli’s critique is applied even-handedly to
both commons and gentry, on the one hand to those who “muster
them selfes in unlawfull assemblies, and tumultes to the disorder and

61 See Tyme of Rebellion, fols. 434, 456.

62 Daniel 9:1–19.
63 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 424.
64 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 426. Stephen Alford, Kingship and politics in the reign of Edward VI

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 40–41.

65 See Vermigli, Common Places, 4.21, 328–331, “Of the enduring of Tyrannie by

godlie men”.
 penitence and the duty of obedience 137

disquietness of the whole realme” and, on the other hand, to those

“whiche throughe covetuousness of ioyning land to lande, and enclo-
sures to enclosures have wronged and oppressed a great multitude of
the kinges faithfull subiectes.”66 Both classes narrowly pursue their own
interests to the detriment of the health of the whole body of the realm,
and yet both are in some fashion justified in their actions and in their
rejection of the behaviour of the other. Vermigli here attempts a sub-
tle, dialectical analysis from the assumed standpoint of a divine justice
which transcends the finite, determinate interests of all the antagonists.
On the basis of a scripturally-oriented theodicy, Vermigli attributes fault
all round and addresses the entire suffering body politic like the voice of
God from the whirlwind to Job: “where were you when I laid the foun-
dations of the earth?”67 Since human nature is universally corrupted as
a consequence of the Fall, justice cannot be found in the behaviour of
any of the estates. None can lay claim to righteous conduct. All display
ignorance of godly religion; and consequently, the actions of both gen-
try and commons are addressed in tandem because, as Vermigli puts
it, “bothe of them be deseased with a like seekness.”68 From the per-
spective of a reformed soteriology, all political and social order must
first assume original sin on the part of all the agents: indeed the only
safe assumption of the political theologian regarding the motivation of
all classes is the radical and universal depravity of the fallen human
condition.
According to Vermigli there is a demonic power at work in the stir-
ring up of sedition and this is particularly evident in the “confusion” of
interests and motivations on the part of the principal antagonists. The
avaricious impulse of both commons and gentry stems from the com-
mon failure to recognize the essential finitude of human existence in
the world, and hence of the inherent limitations of both duties towards
and claims upon the body politic. Like the utopian Anabaptists of Lei-
den and Munster, there is evidence all round of a perverse desire “to
confounde all thinges upsy downe with sediciouse uprores and unqui-

66 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 427. On the common people’s objection to the enclosures,

see for example the first article of “Kett’s demands being in Rebellion” of 1549: “We
pray your grace that where it is enacted for inclosyng that it be not hurtfull to suche as
have enclosed saffren groundes for they gretely chargeablye to them, and that frome
hensforth noman shall enclose eny more.” BL Harleain MS 304, fol. 75; Anthony
Fletcher and Diarmaid MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions (Harlow: Longman, 2004),156.
67 Job 38:4.
68 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 427.
138 chapter three

eteness …”69 In a thoroughly Augustinian vein of approach, Vermigli

insists upon the theological necessity of a clear distinction between the
claims of the earthly and heavenly cities, of “thinges that be so transi-
torie” and “everlasting life”. The demonic influence is apparent in the
ignoring of this distinction between what is properly to be “used” (usus)
with what is to be “enjoyed” (frui), in the conflation of the temporal
with the eternal, in the seeking of happiness and rest in things which
of themselves are mere instruments: “Wee see by daily experience, that
menne be so madde when they ones geve them selfes to covetuousness,
that they lesse esteme the losse of their honnestye, common welth, lib-
erty, religion, yea of god hym self [432] and everlasting life, than the
losse of their riches.” The covetousness of both commons and gentry
is an expression of the libido dominandi, the lust of domination. This
analysis of the dangers of avarice is echoed by Hugh Latimer in a well-
known sermon on “Covetousness” preached before Edward VI in Lent
the following year.70
Having torn a strip off the gentry for their contribution to provok-
ing the “commotions” through their avaricious enclosures of common
lands, Vermigli redirects his critical attention to the rebels. The human
condition being what it is, there can be no monopoly on depravity
among the well-born and well-heeled. While the injustice of the rich
towards the poor is real enough, this can offer no justification for rebel-
lious resistance.71 In a classic appeal to the doctrines of passive obedi-
ence and the integrity of the “corpus politicum”, Vermigli observes that
scripture requires obedience, even to tyrants: “And in what case soever
the gentylmen be in, yet who gave subiects auctority to levye armyes
in a kings [433] Realme without his leave and consent?” A note in
the margin in Cranmer’s hand summarizes the first dictum of Tudor
political theology: “subditis non licet accipere gladium.”72 It is not permit-
ted to subjects to take up the sword; God has delivered the sword into
the hands of princes and magistrates.73 Vermigli continues his analy-

69 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 429.

70 27 sermons preached by the ryght Reuerende father in God and constant ma[r]tir of Iesus Christe,
Maister Hugh Latimer (London: John Day, 1562), fol. 110 v° [misprinted 109].
71 Cp. “Of Troubles and Sedition: further of the suffering of Tyrannie,” CP 4.21,

fols. 319–324.
72 Sir John Cheke, The Hurt of Sedicion howe greueous it is to a commune welth (London:

John Day and William Seres, 1549), sig. Aiiii v°. Alford, Kingship and politics, 189–190.
73 Cp. “Whether it be lavvful for subiectes to rise against their Prince,” CP 4.21,

fols. 324–325.
 penitence and the duty of obedience 139

sis with this observation concerning the body politic: “Who did ever
see the feete and legges devide themselfes from the hedd, and other
superior partes? Dothe it than become the lower sorte of the people
to flocke to gither, against their heades and rulers?”74 He points out
that the unity of the body politic is especially vulnerable at the time of
the king’s minority, and thus the members have an even stronger duty
to maintain the integrity of the whole body, especially in view of both
internal and external enemies of the Realm “outward with Scottes and
frenchemenne, and amonge our selfes with subtill papistes, who have
persuaded the symple and ignoraunt Devonshire menne under [434]
pretense and cullour of religion to withstand all godly reformatione.”75
The demands of the Devonshire rebels focus chiefly on the perceived
shortcomings of the vernacular liturgy of the new Book of Common Prayer
and are weighted strongly with appeals for the restoration of the old
religion.76 The Articles of the western rebels demand specifically the
restoration of the doctrine and ceremonies established under the 1539
Statute of Six Articles of Henry VIII until Edward should reach the
age of majority.77 The question of the king’s minority is addressed in a
response sent by the Council to the rebels on 8 July by means of an
appeal to the distinction between the king’s “body natural” and “body
politic”:
If ye would suspende and hang our doynges in doubt untill our full age,
ye muste firste knowe as a kyng, wee haue no difference of yeres, nor
tyme, but as a naturall man, and creature of God, wee haue youthe and
by his sufferaunce, shall have age: we are your rightfull kyng, your liege
lorde, your kyng anoynted, your kyng Crouned, the souereigne kyng of
England, not by our age, but by Gods ordinaunce, not onely when we

74 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 433. Compare, for example, Richard Morison, A remedy for

sedition: wherin are conteyned many thynges, concernyng the true and loyall obeysance, that comme[n]s
owe vnto their prince and soueraygne lorde the Kynge (London: Thomæ Berthelet, 1536), sigs
B3v: “A comune welthe is lyke a body, and soo lyke, that it can be resembled to nothyng
so convenient, as unto that. Nowe, were it not by your faythe, a madde herynge, if the
fote shuld say, I wyl weare a cappe, with an ouche, as the heade dothe? If the knees
shulde say, we woll carie the eyes, an other whyle: if the shulders shulde clayme eche
of them an eare: if the heles wold nowe go before, and the toes behind … what a
monsterous body shuld this be? God sende them suche a one, that shall at any tyme go
about to make as evil a comune welth, as this is a gody. It is not mete, every man to do,
that he thynketh best.” TR, 150.
75 Tyme of Rebellion, fols. 433–434.
76 A Copy of a Letter, in TR, 151–153.
77 31 Henry VIII, c. 14. After the accession of Edward in 1547 Parliament repealed

the conservative Henrician Act of Six Articles. See TR, 55.

140 chapter three

shalbe xxi. Of yeres, but when we wer of x. yeres: wee possesse our
Croune, not by yeres, but by ye bloud and descent, from our father kyng
Henry theight. You are our subiectes because wee bee your kyng, and
rule wee will, because God hath willed: it is as greate a faulte in us not to
rule, as in a subiect not to obeye.78

Divine ordinance and anointing constitute the king as head of the “cor-
pus politicum”, and since this body “never dies” it cannot be subject
to the limitations imposed by time on the “corpus naturale”.79 A clear
distinction in political theory between the king’s numinous and phe-
nomenal identities dovetails neatly with the newly embraced reformed
theology, i.e. with respect to the evangelical distinction between grace
and nature, faith and works, the gospel and the law. That the rebels
would insist upon the limitation of the king’s authority until he reach
the age of majority reflects an assumption concerning these soteriolog-
ical distinctions rooted more in the old religion than in the new. To
confuse the king’s political and constitutional identity with his natural
and human identity is tantamount to conflating the orders of grace and
nature. It is in such an interpretation of kingly power, its derivation and
the extent of its sway, that the intersection between the political and the
theological levels of discourse can be discerned.
If the gentry have indeed injured the commons through their acquis-
itiveness, is it not within the commons’ right to seek redress of these
wrongs committed against them, Vermigli asks rhetorically? Is resis-
tance not justifiable? “Is it the office of subiectes to take [436] upon
them reformation of the common wealth without the comaundement
of commen auctority?” His negative response to this question is hardly
surprising.80 Vermigli argues the standard Tudor case for passive obedi-
ence, even in the face of tyranny. It is necessary to “tarry for the magis-
trate” as the Israelites tarried until Joshua divided the spoils of the con-
quest of Canaan.81 Poverty is “no sufficient cause of their disobedience.
(440)” Indeed far from providing a remedy for poverty, sedition serves
only to increase the material suffering. According to one contemporary
observer the Devonshire rebels

78 A message sent by the kynges Majestie, to certain of his people, assembled in Devonshire

(London: Richard Grafton, printer to the Kynges Maiestie, 1549), STC 7506, Bv rº
and vº.
79 Kantorowicz, King’s Two Bodies, 314–336.
80 See Vermigli’s scholium “Of the induring of Tyrannie by godlie men,” CP 4.21,

fols. 328–331.
81 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 438.
 penitence and the duty of obedience 141

do in the meantime neglect your husbandry, whereby ye must live: your

substance and catall is not only spoiled and spent upon unthriftes, who
but for this your outrage know no mean nor way to be fedde: your houses
falle in ruin, your wives are ravished, your daughters defloured before
your own faces, your goods that ye have many long years laboured for
lost in an hour and spent upon vagabonds and idle loiterers. Your meat
is unpleasant, your drink unsavoury, your sleep never sound, never quiet,
never in any safety …82
The leaders of the insurrection, are dismissed by Vermigli as “ruffians,
and sturdy idill fellows” who “pretende that they meane nothing els,
but a reformation of thinges that be amisse” and “excuse their owne
outragiouse presumptione by charging the gentlemenne.”83 Such an
attempt by the rebels at self-justification is to be interpreted as a clear
case of seeking to pull out the mote in one’s brother’s eye while failing
to behold the beam in one’s own—depravity is universal, and neither
commons nor gentry can lay any claim to justice on their part. In
this approach Vermigli can be seen to link his analysis of the political
frictions of 1549 to the doctrinal critique of Demi-Pelagianism which
becomes a central soteriological theme in the Forty-Two Articles of Religion
whose formulation was then in progress under the direction of Thomas
Cranmer.84
Despite the radical equality of all humanity in the “fault and cor-
ruption” of original sin, good governance requires extensive experience
on the part of the governors, just as an apprentice must serve for seven
years before he can become qualified as a tradesman. While all may
be considered equal in “the following of Adam”, all are by no means
equal in the acquisition of the capacity to rule. In short, a distinction
must be made between “corrupt nature” and “nature,” that is between
the condition of the will and the “inner man” and acquisition of virtue
through habit in the capacities of the “outer man”. Such a distinction

82 See Philip Nichols’s “Answer to the Commoners of Devonshire and Cornwall” of

1549, BL Royal MS 18, B xi, fol. 1; TR, 154–155.

83 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 442.
84 Based on the second article of the Augsburg Confession (1530) and Cranmer’s Thirteen

Articles (1538), Article VIII reads “Originall sinne standeth not in the following of Adam
(as the Pelagians do vaynely talke) [which also the Anabaptists do nowadays renew] but
it is the fault and corruption of the nature of euery man, that naturally is engendered
of the ofspring of Adam, whereby man is very farre gone from [his former] originall
ryghteousness, [which he had at his creation] and is of his owne nature [given] enclined
to euyill, so that the fleshe [desireth] lusteth alwayes contrary to the spirite; and therefore
in euery person borne into this worlde, it deserueth Gods wrath and damnation.” See
MacCulloch, Tudor Church Militant, 99, 101.
142 chapter three

is crucial to Luther’s theological critique of the motivation underpin-

ning the Peasant Rebellion in Germany in 1525 and to other magiste-
rial reformers’ attacks on the utopian political excesses of the Anabap-
tists.85 Following in this tradition of political theology Vermigli asserts
that the accumulated experience of governance translates into a natural
distinction between ruler and ruled: “it is a commen, and a true saying,
that auctoritie shewith what every manne is, and a gentilmanne wille
ever shew hymself a gentilmanne, and a vilayne a vilayne.”86 “For take
away gentilmenne and rulers, and straite way alle order fallithe clerely
away, and followeth barbaricalle confusione.”87 The critique levelled
by Vermigli at both classes is complicated by the necessary theologi-
cal assumption originating in Reformed soteriology of their simultaneous
equality and inequality. They are equal in their common inheritance of
original sin in the “inner man” but unequal in their respective functions
in the body politic through the “outer man”. The failure of both classes
to recognize and observe the proper bounds of this distinction between
the inner and the outer man underlies the confusion of the uprising
itself. In short, for Vermigli the political and social turmoil of 1549 is
ultimately traceable to a deeper, underlying theological confusion.
Thus the antagonists in the insurrection find themselves caught in
manifest self-contradiction. The rebels opposed to the enclosure of
common lands invoke the Old Testament example of Ahab’s tyrannical
seizure of Naboth’s vineyard, yet refuse to imitate the patient example
of the latter “who woulde rather lose his vyne yarde, than he would
make any commotion or tumult among the people.” “They charge the
riche men that they inhaunce the prices, but in this unsemely commo-
tion, they take from the riche men what they liste without any price.”88
A faulty hermeneutics of scripture and lack of theological discernment
can lead to dire political consequences. Vermigli offers the traditional
magisterial reformer’s solution, namely for the “vilayne” to acknowl-
edge and submit to the authority of the “gentilmanne”. Gospel liberty

85 Martin Luther, Wider die Mordischen vn[d] Reubischen Rotten der Bawren (Wittemberg:

[Augsburg: Heinrich Stayner], 1525).

86 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 447.
87 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 456. Cp. Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, I.3.101–111:

Take but degree away, untune that string,

And hark what discord follows! each thing meets
In mere oppugnancy.
88 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 445.
 penitence and the duty of obedience 143

cannot be an excuse for “disobedience, sedition and carnall liberality,

and the destruction of those policies, kyngdomes and common weales
wheare it is receyved.”89 Obedience to the ruling authorities is explic-
itly commanded by scripture—as in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2—and is
also mandated by the example of Christ and the apostles. The employ-
ment of force, violence and sedition in the attempt to resist the ruling
authority is animated by a spirit Vermigli describes as “of the devill”,
an intrinsically pagan spirit such as “among the romaynes, Catelyne,
Cathegus and Manlius were inspired withall.”90 By comparing English
rebel leaders Jack Straw, Jack Cade, and Robert Aske to these ancient
pagan exemplars of sedition, Vermigli reveals again the deep influence
of Augustine’s political theology. For Augustine, the diabolical character
of the pagan Roman state was manifest preeminently in its assertion of
the divinity and immortality of the civitas terrena, as if peace itself could
somehow be realised under the aspect of temporality and history. The
Roman attempt to eternalize the temporal and to temporalize the eter-
nal was, for Augustine, founded on a deep confusion of fundamental
categories, of immanent and transcendent goods and ends, which were
in turn metaphysically epitomised (i.e. hypostatised) by the demons who
were “miserable like mortals yet eternal like the gods”.91 As Catiline
promised the plebs abolition of debts and the proscription of wealthy
citizens if they would support him in his attempt to seize power, so the
English rebels sought to dispossess the nobility of their enclosures by
force. Such sedition, whether ancient or modern, issues from a diabol-
ical confusion of immanent and transcendent goods and ends. And so,
for Vermigli, it is no excess of zeal on the part of the prophet Isaiah to
threaten such with “everlasting woo, and the cursse of god except thei
repent and ammende their lifes in tyme … what other rewarde canne I
promise to them, than the angre, and vengeaunce of god, whiche they
shall feele bothe in this life, and in the life to come bothe so[o]ner and
sorer than they loke for [453] except they acknouledge their faultes and
amend by tyme.”
This threat of damnation is evenly levelled against both gentry and
commons, the “covetuouse men” and “thies mutyners”. Both in their

89 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 449.

90 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 451. A likely source for this reference by Vermigli is Sallust’s
account of an oration in the Roman Senate by Marcus Porcius Cato Uticencis (Cato the
Younger), ‘On the punishment of the Catiline conspirators,’ in Catiline, ed. A.T. Davis
(London: Oxford University Press, 1967), cap. 51.
91 Augustine, De civitate Dei, Bk IX.13 and Confessions, Bk. II.
144 chapter three

injustice towards the other presume to “take the kinges power upon
them.” This confusion of the estates is crucial to Vermigli’s analysis
of the situation. Both the enclosure of the common land by the gentry
and the attempt by the rebels to be “hearers, iudges, and reformers, of
their owne causes” are unjust precisely because both encroach upon
the rightful jurisdiction of the Crown; both by their actions seek to
make their own proper, private good into an absolute, unlimited, and
universal good. Such a confusion of social and constitutional ends
is the undoing of both human and divine order. “Which,” Vermigli
asks, “is the more intollerable robbery? Which is the more pernicious
confusione? … Thefte is not amended with spoyle and ravine. Neither
is the common wealth stayed or made stronge by the breache of lawes
ordres and states.”92 The only solution is for both “gentillemenne” and
“vilaynes” to don sackcloth and repent of their idolatrous covetousness,
the very “roote of all evilles”. The turmoil plaguing political and social
life is founded upon a confusion concerning the right relation between
the public and the private goods. Such confusion is first and foremost
confusion within the soul, a discernment clouded by sin, and thus
the remedy is also to be sought within. If sin is the root source of
sedition and disorder, then repentance is the key to the recovery of
constitutional and social harmony.
The confusion of sin extends to turning upside down the proper
function of the three estates. Whereas the King’s public aspect is,
according to Solomon, to be “like the roring of a lyon” and the com-
mons properly “to be as gentill and meke as lambs” in their obedience,
the Rebellion has brought about an inversion of this natural order. The
Protector’s misplaced lamb-like “gentilness in suffering and pardonyng”
is appropriately answered by the rebels’ “outcryings like most cruell
lyons”.93 Vermigli traces this confusion to a “practical” rejection of the
evangelical teaching, to the holding of the truth in unrighteousness:
“we have receyved the wourde of god and yet our conversation is con-

92 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 454. See also fol. 459: “by thies seditions the maiestie of a

mooste hiegh and godly king is hurte, and wronged, forsomuche as thei take upon them
his office, and as it were pullithe the sworde out of his handes, for he is ordeyned of god
to have the hearing and decision of suche [460] causes, and to have the administration
and distribution of thies worldely goodes. But thei in their rage doo in a maner pull
hym out of his throne and chayre of estate, and cast hym downe to the grounde, who
is here in erthe goddes vicar and chief minister, and of whome only next unto god
dependith all the welthe of and felicite of this Realme.”
93 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 461.
 penitence and the duty of obedience 145

trary and ungodly.”94 As Vermigli sees it, setting straight this confusion
requires a reintegration of the will and the understanding. Sin (hamartia)
is a turning away from God, and results in a fracturing of the divine
imago; repentance (metanoia) is a returning again to God, and recon-
stitutes human identity through a reordering of the faculties.95 Action
must reflect knowledge, and the knowledge of ultimate significance in
the question is the knowledge of faith revealed in the scriptures. If our
words approve and our conscience receives the gospel “as a thing most
ernest and godly” then, Vermigli claims, it cannot be rejected in action.
And here his use of the first-person is altogether inclusive; “our” words
are the words of the whole realm, the complete “body politic”. And
indeed such a use of language is consistent with the logic of “Common
Prayer” where the whole realm prays, offers praise, makes intercession,
confesses, and is blessed in a single common, collective identity.96
Further evidence of the necessity of repentance to what Augustine
called “the tranquillity of order”97 can be discerned in the sacred his-
tory of Israel at the time of the Babylonian Captivity (473). It can also
be witnessed in the consequences of the Peasant Rebellion in Ger-
many.98 For Vermigli, both scripture and recent historical experience
unite in testifying to the key claim of his political theodicy: “all thies
seditions and troubles which wee now suffer, to be the veray plage
of god, for the reiecting and ungodly abusing of his moost hollye
wourde.”99 Repentance is to receive the gospel and to follow it. With-
out repentance the plague of god will follow inexorably. The plague of
sedition, in short, is the outward political manifestation of fragmented
human identity, both individually and collectively. Only repentance can
heal the fragmentation of souls, and thus only repentance can restore
the original political harmony. Vermigli concludes this proposition with
a list of biblical and historical examples of sedition, all of which are
followed by divine punishment: the children of Israel in the wilderness
persishing before reaching Canaan; the deaths of Corah, Dathan, and
Abiron; Miriam’s leprosy; the deaths of David’s sons Absalon and Ado-

94 A reference to Romans 1:18. Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 468.

95 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 486.
96 Ramie Targoff, Common prayer: the language of public devotion in early modern England

(Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 2001).

97 Augustine, De civitate Dei, XIX.13.
98 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 475. Peter Blickle and Wilhelm Abel, Bauer, Reich und Reforma-

tion: Festschrift für Günther Franz (Stuttgart: Ulmer, 1982).

99 Tyme of Rebellion, fol. 475.
146 chapter three

nias; and several others.100 Then there follows a brief concluding prayer
which invokes the divine gift of “hartes that we may understande”, and
then asks that the superior powers be granted “hartes to revenge goddes
cause, and to convert all offendours against goddes holly wourd.” For
Vermigli the role of the godly magistrate is to act “in erthe as goddes
chief vicar and minister” (460) in a twofold manner: first by outward
and coercive means, by the power of the sword, to suppress sedition
and maintain the peace; and secondly, by inward and religious means,
through the preaching of the Word and administration of the Sacra-
ments, to foster and nourish the spiritual integrity of his subjects. The
health of the living “body politic” depends upon the right exercise of
both powers. By the co-ordinated operation of these coercive and spir-
itual means, Vermigli prays that avarice may be moderated and order
restored. As sedition proceeds from sin, so ought good order to proceed
from penitence.
The sermon concludes with an extended exhortation to repentance
without delay. There is also a warning to his hearers not to fall into
blasphemy of Job’s wife or of his three “comforters” by accusing God of
sending the plague of suffering upon the realm out of cruelty or a lack
of mercy. Suffering brought on by the insurrection and disorder is to be
interpreted in this theodicy as the very means whereby God chooses to
demonstrate mercy. In this final claim, Vermigli returns to his point of
departure, namely the theodicy of the Book of Job.

Conclusion

Peter Martyr Vermigli’s autograph sermon composed at the time of

widespread rebellion in 1549 and publicly preached at St. Paul’s by
Thomas Cranmer at the very height of the unrest, speaks volumes con-
cerning Vermigli’s privileged place in the Edwardine establishment.
Not only had Cranmer invited him in the previous year to fill the
Regius Chair in Divinity at Oxford; in the relatively short period since,
he had clearly become a close advisor and confidant of the Arch-
bishop. Such was the level of trust confided by Cranmer in the Floren-
tine reformer that Vermigli became a pivotal player in the extraordi-
nary political and social upheavals of the early part of Edward’s reign.

100 Tyme of Rebellion, fols. 477–480.

 penitence and the duty of obedience 147

Within a few months of his arrival in Oxford Vermigli found himself

at the epicenter of a seismic shift in sacramental hermeneutics owing
to his lectures on the first epistle to the Corinthians, and consequently
a key advisor to Cranmer in the momentous revision of the liturgy
resulting in the Second Edwardine Prayer Book in 1552. Given that the
rebellion was instigated, at least in part, by popular reaction against the
introduction of the more conservative vernacular liturgy of the Book of
Common Prayer of 1549, Vermigli’s role as author of this highly profiled,
official public response is indicative of the eminent role he so swiftly
assumed in the task of reforming the Church of England.
Perhaps even more noteworthy is the subtlety (both theological and
political) of Vermigli’s carefully formulated response to the crisis. By
framing his sermon in the universal categories of theodicy, Vermigli was
able to rise above the petty (and not so petty!) irritants of mid-Tudor
social stratification. All three of the principal parties—government,
gentry, and commons—come in for some fairly sharp criticism in the
sermon. Vermigli’s highly respected international stature as a theolo-
gian and biblical scholar combined with his close association with
Cranmer enable him to speak truth to power in a prophetical spirit.
So well ensconced is Vermigli in the Edwardine establishment that he
can give utterance (plainly in concert with Cranmer) to sharp criticism
of Protector Somerset’s policy of leniency towards the rebels. At the
same time, he levels an equally strong critique against both the greed
and rapacity of the gentry as well as the sedition and violence of the
commons. By Vermigli’s account, none of the members of the body
politic has behaved well. Theologically this analysis highlights the doc-
trine of a universal sinfulness, the hallmark of the Reformed anthro-
pology.101 Since “all the ofspringe of Adam … deserueth Gods wrath
and damnation,” there is no good theological reason to let anyone off
the hook. On a political level, the argument of the sermon concerning
universal depravity serves to emphasize the unity of the body politic.
It is evident that Vermigli sees these theological and political angles as
interlocking. His assertion of the necessary subjection of all members
of the body politic—Protector, Privy Councillors, nobles, commons—

101 According to Art. VIII of the Forty-Two Articles of Religion of 1553 it is “the fault

and corruption of the nature of euery man, that naturally is engendered of the ofspring
of Adam, whereby man is very farre gone from his former ryghteousness, which he
had at his creation and is of his owne nature given to euyill, so that the fleshe desireth
alwayes contrary to the spirite; and therefore in euery person borne into this worlde, it
deserueth Gods wrath and damnation.”
148 chapter three

to the unique political identity of the simple and undivided will of the
Sovereign resonates with the radical subordination of “all the ofspringe
of Adam” before the power of the heavenly king. The political unifi-
cation of the realm owes something—possibly everything in Vermigli’s
view—to the assumptions of the reformers’ theological anthropology.
The intensified unification of the powers of the soul implied by the
reformers’ account of the radical sinfulness of humanity has a polit-
ical corollary in the hypostatic unification of the estates such that all
are culpable in the disorder afflicting the body politic. Vermigli finds
all the parties to the conflict to be at fault—affirming, thereby, a sort
of universal political depravity—and the proposed solution to public
disorder, as with the sinful individual, is penitence all round, “the reme-
die of all our plagues.” Just as no faculty of the soul can be exempt
from fault owing to the radical disorder of human sinfulness, so also
no estate of the realm can be exempt from blame when the turmoil
of sedition afflicts the body politic. There is nothing particularly origi-
nal in this political theology at the core. It represents an appeal to the
principles of political Augustinianism characteristic of so many of the
leading sixteenth-century Protestant reformers. Nonetheless, Vermigli
applies these principles in his “Sermon concernynge the tyme of Rebel-
lion” with a concerted attempt at a healing, irenical touch.
 text

PETER MARTYR VERMIGLI

A sermon concernynge the tyme of rebellion1

The commen sorrow of this present tyme deere beloved brethern in

Christe, if I shulde be more ledde thereby than by raison and zeale
to my contrey, it would move me rather to holde my peace than
to speake. For the great evils whiche wee now suffer at this present
tyme are to be bewailed with teares [another hand: and silence] rather
than with wourdes.2 And hereunto I might alledge for us the example
of Job, who whan he came to his extreme mysery, he lyving upon
a dong hill, and three of his freendes sitting upon the grounde by
hym, for the space of vij [seven] days for grete sorowe not one of
them opened his mowthe to speake a worde to another.3 If than the
miserable state of Job, like a mooste harde and sharpe bytt, stopped his
mowthe from [412] speaking, and the lamentable case of their freende
stayed those three menne,4 being of speche moost eloquent, that they
could not utter their wourdes, surely it seameth that I have muche
more cause to be still and holde my peace. For there was the pituouse
lamentation of [no mo but of] one man, or one householde, and
that only concerning temporall and worldely substaunce, but wee have

1 A MS translated from the Latin of Peter Martyr in the collection of the Parker

Library, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 102, no. 29, fols. 411–499. Title of
MS on fol. 409; text begins on fol. 411. See Montague Rhodes James, A Descriptive
Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1912), Vol. I, no. 102. A memorandum in the hand of
Archbishop Matthew Parker on the first page (fol. 410) of the MS reads “Hic Sermo
prius descriptus Latine a Petro Martyre.” The Latin original with Parker’s annotation
‘Sermo Petri Martir manu propria scripta in seditionem Devonensium’ (fol. 73) is in
the same collection, MS 340, no. 4, fols. 73–95. See James, Descriptive Catalogue, Vol. II,
no. 340. The foliation of both MSS is given in square brackets. The foliation of the
Latin text is preceded by “L”. Interpolations are also given in square brackets.
2 John Calvin employs the identical turn of phrase with reference to prayer in the

Institute 3.20.3 “For in most cases prayer consists more in groaning than in speaking, in
tears rather than words.”
3 See Job 2:12–13.
4 Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite.
150 chapter three

cause to bewayle, a hole realm, and a moost noble, whiche lately being
in that state that all other Realmes envyed our welthe, and feared our
force, is now so troubled, so vexed, so tossed, and deformed, and that
by sedition among our selfes, of suche as be membres of the same, that
nothing is lefte unattempted [413] to the utter ruyne and subversion
therof.5 And beside this the eternall punyshment of god threatenith
sore to come upon us for [another hand: as well the authors and
procurors of] thies seditions [another hand: and all others that ioyne
them selfes unto them] and without faile will fall ammonge us, except
wee cease in tyme from our discorde, and amende the same by godlye
concorde and godly repentaunce, so that wee be constryned day and
night to bewayle the decaye not only of a worldely kingdom, and moost
noble realme, but also the eternall damnation of innumerable soules.6
[L 74]
Furthermore if I shulde speake at this tyme, if my wourdes shulde
not flye abrode in the ayer, and be spent in vayne, it werr necessarye
that I shulde have good and favorable audience, whiche in this tumulte
and [414] horrible confusion, may happ is harde to be obtayned. As the
children of Israell when they were in their rage furor and tumulte they
woulde neither heare Moyses nor Aaron, whiche studied for nothing
els, but for their welthe and deliveraunce.7 Thes reasons perchaunce
might move some men to be quyitt and holde their peace, but me they
doo not somuche move, whiche knowe right well that our commen

5 In 1549 Cranmer’s new vernacular Book of Common Prayer was introduced in

replacement of the old Latin liturgies. This fundamental alteration of public worship
was not widely popular, and was especially resented in Cornwall and parts of Devon
where many of the people spoke little or no English. See Anthony Fletcher and Diar-
maid MacCulloch, Tudor Rebellions (Harlow: Longmans, 2004), 53–63; Ann Trevenen
Jenkin, Notes on the Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549 (Hayle: Noonvares Press, 1999). See also
John Sturt, Revolt in the west: the Western Rebellion of 1549 (Exeter: Devon Books, 1987); and
Phillip Caraman, The Western rising, 1549: the Prayer Book rebellion (Tiverton: West Country
Books, 1994).
6 In the Second Book of Homilies, in “An Homily against Disobedience and Wilful

Rebellion,” eternal damnation is said to be the consequence of Adam and Eve’s

“rebellion” against God’s “maiestie.” It is in this vein that Vermigli argues later in the
sermon (fol. 415) that “the generall cause of these commotions is synne.” See homily 21
in The seconde tome of homelyes of such matters as were promised and intituled in the former part of
homelyes, set out by the aucthoritie of the Quenes Maiestie: and to be read in euery paryshe churche
agreablye (London: Richard Jugge, 1563), first part.
7 For the rebellion of Korah against Aaron and Levitical privilege, and of Dathan

and Abiram with the tribe of Reuben against the civil authority of Moses, see Num-
bers 16:1–17:5. The south-western rebellion of 1549 is for Vermigli an analogous rebel-
lion against the power and jurisdiction of both the magistrate and the clergy.
 text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 151

sorrowe and lamentable state, can not be remedied with silence, nor by
good counsell can be geven withholding my peace.
Nowe therefore in this commen sorrowe, I knowe nothyng that is
more able to swage our greefes, and so comforte our heavyness, than is
the woorde of god. For as [415] the sonne many tymes with his beames
dispersith [dryveth away grete] thick and darke clowdes, and [stayeth
grete stormes of wyndes,] dryvith them cleane away, so dothe the light
of goddes wourde, staye godly [mennys] myndes, bryngyth them from
trouble to quyetness, from darkeness to brightnes, from heaviness and
desperation, to gladness, ioy, and comforte. And that I may doo the like,
[L 75] I mooste humbley beseche allmyghtie god, to graunte me by his
spirite, that out of holy scripture I may playnely sett out before your
eyes the princypal causes of al these tumults and seditions. For if the
causes be once knowne, it shalbe the more easye to provide remedye
therefore.
The generall cause of these commotions is synne, and under chris-
tian profession unchristian lyving.8 But there be also [416] speciall
causes of the whiche some pertayne both to the higher and lower sorte,
aswell to the governours as to the common people, some appertaining
only to the people, and some agayne, only to the governors and rulers
and of the whiche [and of them] I will first begynne to speake.

Prima causa: Remisseness of correction in the governours9

The Governours and rulers be ordeyned of god, (as Sainte Paule de-
clarith in his epistell to the Romanes) for the intent and purpose, that
they should be goddes officers and ministers here in erthe, to encour-
age and avaunce them that be good and to punyshe and converte those
that be evill.10 And for this cause god gyves them the sworde that they

8 This attribution of civil disorder to sin as primary or “general” cause expresses

Vermigli’s adherence to one of the key assumptions of Augustinian political theology,

namely that civil disorder is ultimately grounded upon personal disorder of the soul, on
sin.
9 This heading is in Thomas Cranmer’s hand.
10 Romans 13:1 ff. Vermigli later published his full-length commentary on the epistle

to the Romans based on lectures begun at Oxford and continued at Strasbourg after his
departure from England in 1553 at the accession of Queen Mary. In Epistolam S. Pauli
Apostoli ad Romanos … Commentarii (Basle: P. Perna, 1558). See his commentary on this
passage in the text appended to chapter II above. For a modern translation of this
commentary on Romans 13 with notes, see W.J. Torrance Kirby, “The Civil Magistrate:
152 chapter three

shulde avenge goddes quarell, by ponysshing the [417] transgressors

of his lawes and commaundementis. But (O good Lorde) be mercifull
unto us, for wee have been to slacke [remise] in punysshing offend-
ers, and many thinges wee have wynked at. We have suffred periury,
blasphemy, and adultery, slandering and lying, gluttony and drunken-
ness, vagabonds, and ydle performers and other haynouse offendours,
[L 76] lightly punysshed, or els clerely pardonned [not punished at al],
either thinking this clemency for the tyme expedient for the common
wealthe, or els not duely waying how grevouse those offences [be in
the sight of God] were and how much they offended god.11 And whilst
wee lacked this right iudgement of goddes wrathe againste synne, loo,
[418] sodenly cometh upon us this scourge of sedition, the rodde of
goddes wrathe, to teache us how sore god hateth all wickedness [and
is displeased with his ministers that wynke thereat]. For except wee be
duller than stockes and stones, wee muste needes feele that this plage
is the grevouse scourge of god for our offences [that we have suffered
to moch theym that have offended against his most holy name] and
must needs lament the ruyne of our selfes, and of our realme, whan

Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Commentary on Romans 13,” in The Peter Martyr Reader, ed.
J.P. Donnelly, Frank James III and Joseph C. McLelland (Kirksville, MO: Truman
State University Press, 1999): 221–237. Compare the Intercessory prayer in the Book of
Common Prayer of 1549: “Speciallye we beseche thee to save and defende thy servaunt
Edwarde our Kyng, that under hym we maye be Godly and quietly governed. And
graunt unto his whole counsaile, and to all that he put in auctoritie under hym, that
they maye truely and indifferently minister justice, to the punishemente of wickednesse
and vice, and to the maintenaunce of Goddes true religion and vertue.”
11 In a letter to the Duke of Somerset dated 7 July 1549 at the height of the uprising,

Sir William Paget warned of the dangers of the Protector’s notorious leniency towards
the rebels: “I told your Grace the trouthe, and was not beleved: well, now your Grace
seithe yt. What seythe your Grace? Mary, the King’s subjects owt of all discipline, owt
of obedience, caryng neither for Protectour nor Kings, and much lesse for any other
menae officer. And what is the cause? Your owne leytie, your softnes, your opinion to
be good to the pore … . Yt is pitie that your so muche gentlenes shuld be an occcasion
of so great an evell as ys now chaunced in England by these rebelles … Consider, I
beseeche youe most humbly, with all my harte, that societie in a realme dothe consiste,
and ys maynteyned by meane of religion and law …” SP 10/8/4 (Calendar of State Papers
Domestic, Edward VI, revised edn., no. 301); TR, 160. For a thoughtful reconsideration
of the relation of Somerset to the rebels of 1549 see Ethan Shagan, “Protector Somerset
and the 1549 Rebellions: New Sources and New Perspectives,” English Historical Review
114.455 (Feb. 1999), 34. Shagan discusses nine letters in order to highlight Somerset’s
deliberate policy of appeasement and concludes that “the Protector’s strategy involved
an elaborate courting of public opinion and a stunning willingness to commit the
regime to fundamental changes in policy at the initiation of the commons.” Shagan,
47.
 text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 153

we have subiectes so disobedient, whan wee perceave that the people

be so wanton, that they fourme against their owne realme the armor
which they ought to use againste the enemy. Yf wee feel our selfes
somuche offended with this outragiouse behaviour of mysordred per-
sonnes [agaynst their own realme], that wee would wisshe it [419] to be
pacified by the sworde, if it cannot otherwaies be brought to passe, wee
may lerne than by our selfis how grevously god is displeased with the
same, and how muche it pleasith hym that his ministers shulde strike
with the sworde (whiche he hath geven unto them) all suche as be tran-
gressors against hym.12 But we have dissimuled the mater, we have been
colde in goddes cause, and have rather wynked at then ponnyshed the
contempt bothe of god and his lawes, therefore now wourthily wee suf-
fer all that wee suffre.13
Wee woulde that [L 77] god shulde revenge our quarrells and ini-
uries, and why then do we not take iuste vengeaunce on them, that
daily blaspheme, and do iniury to god? [420] And surely for this cause
we suffer worthily this plage of god. Heli suffered his children to[o]
muche, and was to[o] softe in chastising of them, when they synned
against god, but that his softenes was the destruction of hym, his chil-
dren, and [of a grete nombre also of the] people of Israell.14 David
because in tyme he did not converte his three sonnes Amnon, Absolon,
and Adonias, he lost them all three, and was in greate daunger to be
destroyed by them hymself.15 And if the parrells of this mooste chosen
king of god, doo litell move you [us, let us] call to your remembraunce

12 This expresses the received Augustinian trope that the coercive authority of the

civil magistrate is given by God as “both a penalty and a remedy for sin” (pœna et
remedium peccati). See Augustine, De civitate Dei, Bk. XIX.
13 In a letter to Somerset John Calvin advises him to “hold the bridle shorte,” for

“insomuche as menne pardoneth suche enormities, it must followe that GOD must
take vengeaunce.” An epistle both of Godly consolacion and also of aduertisement written by Iohn
Caluine the pastour & preacher of Geneua, to the right noble prince Edvvarde Duke of Somerset, before
the tyme or knoweledge had of his trouble, but delyuered to the sayde Duke, in the time of his trouble,
and so translated out of frenshe by the same Duke (London: Edward Whitchurche, 1550), D7r°.
Quoted by John Holstun, “The Spider, the Fly, and the Commonwealth: Merrie John
Heywood and the Agrarian Class Struggle,” English Literary History 71.1 (2004), 88.
14 1 Samuel 1:12–4:18.
15 Amnon, one of David’s sons, committed incest / rape against his half-sister, Tamar

(2 Samuel 13:7–14), and, as a consequence, was murdered later by the order of Absalom,
Tamar’s full brother (2 Samuel 13). Absalom’s fratricide (2 Samuel 13:39), rebellion, and
death (2 Samuel 14–18) caused David shame and sorrow. The last days of his thirty-
three years’ reign in Jerusalem were disturbed by the ambition of Adonias to prevent
the succession of Solomon, his son by Bethsabee (1 Kings 1:1–53).
154 chapter three

I pray you the plage of god against the hole tribe of Beniamyn, because
they lett passe unponyshed the abominable abusing of the Levites wife,
that [421] dwelt at Effrata [Ephraim], wherof followed that manye of
the other tribes perished. And the hole tribe of Beniamyn was almooste
utterly destroyed [for there was slayne of them above xxx thousande,
and there was left a lyne of the hole tribe no mo but vj (six) hundreth].16
Consider I praye you by this example, how certayne and [L 78] present
destruction cometh to comon weales, because offendours against god
are unponysshed. And whensoever the magistrates be slacke in doing
their office herein, let them loke for none other but that the plage of
god shall fall in their necks for the same, whiche thinge not only the
foresaide examples, but also experiences with our selfes dothe playnely
teache us, for whensoever any member of our body is deseased or
sore, yf wee suffer it long to contynue and fester, doo wee not [422]
see that at length it dothe infecte the whole body, and in processe of
tyme utterly corrupteth the same.17 But for what purpose brethren doo
I speake somuche of this matier. Verily for none other intent, but that
when wee knowe one of the causes of these evilles, wee may duly repent
and amende the same.
But peradventure some will say, if the governours offende, because
they doo not iustly ponysshe offendours, what dothe that pertayne to
us the vulgar people, which have not offended? Let them repent that
have offended, Let them be sorye for their remissness [slackness] in
ponyshement, and more sharpley converte from hensfurthe suche as by
their horrible [423] offences provoke goddes indignation against us all.
Nay not so my freendes, [L 79] Let not man charge the governours and
excuse them selfes. Wee have offended god, both hieghe and lowe. Wee

16 Judges 19–22, esp. 20:29–48. See also Flavius Josephus, Antiquitatum Iudaicarum libri

XX (Basel: Froben, 1548), 5.2. The obstinacy of the tribe of Benjamin in harbouring
criminals who had brutally violated and slain the concubine of a Levite was the
foundation of their war with Israel. The Israelites sustained a vast loss in carrying on
the war, and although they were ultimately victorious, the war resulted in the almost
utter extirpation of the tribe of Benjamin. That this happened shortly after the arrival
of Joshua in the promised land serves to highlight Vermigli’s melancholy implication of
the historical analogue with the recent accession of Edward VI as the backdrop of the
horrors of the west-country rebellion.
17 The analogy between the health of the natural body and that of the “body politic”

was a commonplace of sixteenth-century political thought. See David George Hale,

The Body Politic: A Political Metaphor in Renaissance English Literature (The Hague: Mouton,
1971), and E.M.W. Tillyard, The Elizabethan World Picture (Harmondsworth: Penguin,
1972), on the epistemological relationship between human and political bodies in early-
modern England.
 text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 155

have deserved this plage at goddes handes and muche more. Therefore
let every man serche his owne conscience, and (like as Danyell did)
let every man confesse, and bewayle aswell his owne synnes, as the
synnes of the heddes and rulers.18 And let every man for his owne
part converte and amende hym self, forasmuche as he knowith that
our offences be the causes not only of private, but also of publick and
common calamities. [424]

Secunda causa: Avaritia

Now the tyme requirithe to declare another cause of our seditione,

which is the gredy desire, and as it were wourshipping of riches [and
so make thies a god], wherewith bothe the highe and lowe parte being
so much blynded have bronge our Realme to this poynte. And surely
no thing more hathe caused greate and puisaunt armyes, Realms, and
Emperors to be overthrowen, than hathe doon the insatiable covetu-
ousnes of worldely goodes. For hereby as by a moost stronge poisone,
hole realms many tymes have comme to ruyne, which semed els to have
endured forever, sundry common welthis which before were conserved
in unitie, have by incurable discorde been divided and seperated into
many partes. [425]
This manner of vice if it be unseemly unto any other people, to
them surely that professe Christe it is utterly shamefulle and detestable,
which above all nations, shulde be the true estemers [L 80] and lovers
of pure godly thinges, which be eternall and immortalle, and oughten
to seeke for righte iudgement [and estimation of thyngs] only at their
owne profession. For as many of us as be truly called Christians of
Christe, doo confesse that wee be redeemed by hym, not through the
vayne and uncertayne riches of this world, but throughe the stronge
and parfitt obedience, whereby he submitted hym self unto his father,
to be obedient even unto the deathe of the crosse; Worldely wise men
esteem worldely riches and welthe [426] above all other thynges, but
the wisdome of god estemets obedience above alle thynges, that is to
say that a man should submitte his wille to goddes wille, that he shuld
not desire to use any thing in this world, no not his owne life; but as it
shalle please god [and be to his glory], And that every manne shulde

18 Daniel 9:1–19.
156 chapter three

be content with that state place and degree, that god the author of all
good thinges, hath called hym unto.19 With this sacrifice of obedience
Christ did reconcyle us unto his father, humbling himself to his father’s
wille, even to the deathe of the crosse, and he hathe commaunded alle
them, that professe to be his disciples to followe this his example.
But alas [427] how farre be alle they from this rule and example,
whiche comme with force of armes in the king’s ma[jes]ties Realme
without his license and auctority, mustering them selfes in unlawfull
assemblies, and tumultes to the disorder and disquietness of the whole
realme [and of a gredy and covetouse mynde to spoyle and robbe
and take from others]. Or they also whiche throughe covetuousness
of ioyning lande to lande, and enclosures to enclosures have wronged
and oppressed a great multitude of the kinges faithefull subiectes?20 I
speke of bothe thies sortes of people togither, because bothe of them be
deseased with a like seekness.
But are they so ignoraunt in godly religion, that thei knowe not that
god is the distributor and gever of the goodes [428] of the worlde?
And if they knowe this, why then doo thei goo aboute to gett goodes
of this worlde by unlawfull meanse, contrary to goddes wille and com-
maundement? Wherin what other thing els doo they then forsake their
maister Christe, and yielde them selves unto Sathanne, wourshipping
hym for their god, because he promisith to geve them the landes and
goodes of this worlde. But allmightie god I beseeche thee opyn the
eyes of these blynde personnes that they may once see, and perceave,

19 Cp. Ulysses’ famous speech in Wm. Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, I.3.101–111:
O, when degree is shaken,
(Which is the ladder to all high designs)
The enterprise is sick! How could communities,
Degrees in schools, and brotherhoods in cities,
Peaceful commerce from dividable shores,
The primogenitive and due of birth,
Prerogative of age, crowns, sceptres, laurels,
(But by degree) stand in authentic place?
Take but degree away, untune that string,
And hark what discord follows! each thing meets
In mere oppugnancy.
20 On the common people’s objection to the enclosures, see the first article of

“Kett’s demands being in Rebellion”: “We pray your grace that where it is enacted
for inclosyng that it be not hurtfull to suche as have enclosed saffren groundes for they
gretely chargeablye to them, and that frome hensforth noman shall enclose eny more.”
BL Harleain MS 304, fol. 75; TR, 156.
 text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 157

that the true riches of Christian men be not golde silver or great pos-
sessions, but those thinges which neyther the eye hathe seen nor the
ear hathe hearde, nor [429] mans harte can comprehende. Is it not
a great wounder that the devill shulde so robbe these men of their
wittes that either oppresse the power [poor] or styrre these commo-
tions, [L 81] that they doo forgett death? How if they did call to their
remembraunce, that deathe every day and hower hangeth over their
heades, they woulde not be so gredy of worldely goodes, that for the
same they woulde either doo iniurye to their neighbour or confounde
all thinges upsy downe with sediciouse uprores and unquietness: seeing
that of alle the goodes in the worlde, they shall carry with them out of
this worlde [whan they die], not the value of one farthing. No, he that
dieth in the [430] displeasure of God, were he never so riche, shall not
in the worlde to comme be able to buye one drop of water to quenche
the flames of everlasting fyer wherewith he shalbe tormented in hell.
Wee camme naked into this worlde, and naked we shall departe hence
agayne.21
What madness is it therefore so to labor and toyle bothe day and
nyght, yea to adventure bothe bodye and soule for thies thinges that be
so transitorye, whiche wee be sure wee shall not possesse after this life,
and be unsure whether wee shall kepe them so longe or no? For wee see
by commen experience that many whiche have had greate possessions
and riches, are sodenly [431] by diverse chaunces brought to greate
lacke and extreme poverty.22 For the whiche cause sainte Paule doth
teache us that wee put not our confidence in riches, which are uncer-
tayn, and unstable, for riches be like an untrusty servant that ronneth
from his maister, when he hathe mooste need of hym.23 The wretched
manne saith the prophete David, dothe horde up greate treasures, but
he cannot tell for whome,24 Wee see by daily experience, that menne
be so madde when they ones geve them selfes to covetuousness, that
they lesse esteme the losse of their honnestye, common welth, liberty,
religion, yea of god hym self [432] and everlasting life, than the losse of
their riches.25

21 Job 1:21.
22 Again, the the biblical exemplar is Job.
23 1 Tim. 6:17.
24 Psalm 49.
25 On “covetousness” as a chief cause of rebellion see Hugh Latimer’s last sermon

preached before King Edward VI, Lent 1550: “Take heed and beware of covetousness.”
158 chapter three

Against them that pretend that they rose

to relieve the poor and the commonwealth

But heere me thinketh I heare some of thies unlawfull assemblies to

mutter and say that it is truthe that you have said, Covetuousness is it
that undoeth all this realme, and this was the cause of our assemblies to
have the covetuousness of the riche menne and gentelmen refourmed;
and that the poore myghte be provided for. But to these I aunswer on
this wise: That gentelmenne were never poorer than they be at this
present for the more party.26 And in what case soever the gentylmen
be in, yet who gave subiects auctority to levye armyes in a kings
[433] Realme without his leave and consent?27 Or whan had ever any
suche commotion good successe, or came to good ende? Who did
ever see the feete and legges devide themselfes from the hedd, and
other superior partes?28 Dothe it than become the lower sorte of the
people to flocke to gither, against their heades and rulers? And specially
now at this tyme29 in the kinges maiesties minority [tendre age] whan
wee be rounde aboute environed with other ennemyes? Outward with
Scottes and frenchemenne, and amonge our selfes with subtill papistes,
who have persuaded the symple and ignoraunt Devonshire menne
under [434] pretense and cullour of religion to withstand all godly
reformatione.30 Shall we now distroye our Realme and make it a pray to
our adversaries? Remember the fable of Esop, that whenne the frogge

27 sermons preached by the ryght Reuerende father in God and constant matir [sic] of Iesus Christe,
Maister Hugh Latimer (London: John Day, 1562), fol. 110 v° [misprinted 109].
26 I.e., for the most part.
27 In the margin: “Subditis non licet accipere gladium.”
28 Compare Richard Morison, A remedy for sedition: wherin are conteyned many thynges,

concernyng the true and loyall obeysance, that comme[n]s owe vnto their prince and soueraygne lorde the
Kynge (London: Thomæ Berthelet 1536), sigs B3v.
29 Margin: “A tempore.”
30 Leading a large army into Scotland in September 1547, Somerset won a notable

victory over an even larger Scottish force at the Battle of Pinkie. His efforts to garrison
Scotland provoked intervention by France, Scotland’s “auld ally” against England. In
June 1548 a French army landed at Leith, attacked English positions, and seized control
of positions sought by the English. In the summer of 1549 the French launched fresh
attacks on the English garrison at Boulogne. Beer, “Edward Seymour,” ODNB. See
William Patten, The expedicion into Scotla[n]de of the most woorthely fortunate prince Edward,
Duke of Soomerset, vncle vnto our most noble souereign lord ye ki[n]ges Maiestie Edvvard the VI.
goouernour of hys hyghnes persone, and protectour of hys graces realmes, dominions [and] subiectes
(London: Richard Grafton, 1548).
 text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 159

and the mowse did fight togither, the puttock31 camme and snatched
them up bothe.32
What greater pleasure canne wee do to the Scottes and french-
menne, than to be at variance with our selfes [and so make our realme
a pray for them]?33 What ioy is this to the bisshopp of Rome to heare
that the blud of englisshe menne, (for the whiche he hath so longe
thursted) is now like to be shedde by their owne brithren and con-
treymenne! But let us be ioyned togither like membres of one body, and
then we [435] shall have lesse need to feare our forreyn enemy. It is
an easy thing to breake a hole fagott, when every stick is losed from
another, but it is hard to break the fagott, whan it is fast bound tog-
ither. An horse tayle, if a manne pulle away one heare after another, is
easily losed, but it is no small labor to pull away the whole horse tayle
altogither from the horsses body.34

Non est plebis abusus reformare

[L 82] But peradventure som wille say, the gentilmenne have doon the
comyns greater wronge, and thinges muste needs be redressed.35 But
is this the way I pray you to refourme that is amysse, to redresse one
iniurye with another? Is it the office of subiectes to take [436] upon
them reformation of the common wealth without the comaundement

31 Another hand has inserted “stork” here. The puttock is a marsh harrier or hawk.
32 Aesopi Phrygis et vita ex maximo Planude desumpta & fabellæ iucundissimæ (London:
Wynkyn de Worde, 1535), STC (2nd ed.), 171.
33 For an expression of a similar sentiment on the part of the government, see a

letter from the Privy Council to Sir Thomas Denys, Peter Courteney and Antony
Harvy, Justices of the Peace of Devon, dated 26 Jun 1549: “Whatt dyshonor and
onsuertie to the hole realme may grow by these attemptates. What courage the hear-
ing therof shall administer to the Frenchmen, Scots our enemyes, to putt hem in
remembraunce thatt the partes of good and obedient subjectes hadd byn ffyrst to
have sued for remedie att the handes of ther soveraign lord, and nott to take uppon
them selfs the swerd and authoritie to redresse as they list, especially those maters
which being allredye establisshed by a law and consent of the hole realme can nott
(if anything was to be reformed) bee otherwise altered then by a law agayn.” State
Papers 10/7/42 (Calendar of State Papers Domestic, Edward VI, revised edn., no. 289); TR,
155.
34 “Caudæ pilos equinæ paulatim vellere.” Quoted from Desiderius Erasmus, Adagio-

rum opus (Basle: Froben, 1528), adagia 795, I.8.95.

35 See “Kett’s demands being in Rebellion,” BL Harleain MS 304, fol. 75; TR, doc.

17, 156–159.
160 chapter three

of commen auctority? [in another hand: “To whom hath god gyven
the orderynge and reformation of realmes? To kynges or to subiects?”]
Herkyn and feare the saying of Christe, he that taketh the sworde shall
perrishe with the sworde.36 To take the sworde is to drawe the sworde
without auctoritie of the prince. For god in his scriptures expressely
forbiddeth all private revenging, and hathe made this order in common
weales, that their shulde be kinges and governours, to whome he hath
willed all men to be subiect and obedient.37 Those he hathe ordeyned
to be common revengers correctours and refourmers of all common
[another hand: “and private”] thinges that be amysse. And he hathe
forbidden alle [437] private personnes to presume to take any suche
thinge upon them. And this he hathe doon so ernestlye, because he
would not that this godly ordre (wherof he hymself is the author)
[sholde] be broken or troubled of any man.
Christe refused to devide the inheritaunce betwene twoo brithren,
because he would not entermedill with that office unto the which
he was not sent of his father.38 How presumptuous than be they that
enterprise to be iudges in the limites and bandes of landes, not being
called therunto neither having any commission to doo it? Amonge the
Israelites, when thei had entred into the land of Canaan, [438] none
durst be so bold as to usurpe unto hym selfe either house citie or
lande, but they tarryed till Josue their governor had devided the same,
and evry man was contented with his appointement.39 And whi then
doo not our people paciently tarry till our Josue, that is the kynges
ma[jes]tie, and his Counsaill doo make iust reformations as thei intende
to doo, but will take upon them selfes to be refourmers and iudges of
their owne causes, and so by uprores and tumultes hynder the moost
godly purposes and proceadinge of hym and his Counsaill?

36 Matt. 26:52.
37 The most frequently cited biblical texts are Rom. 13 and 1 Pet. 2. Letters addressed
by Council to the rebels in July 1549 appeal to the traditional political theology of
hierarchy and subordination and condemn the risings as both treason against the
King and sin against God. The rebels are warned by Somerset that those who profess
“Christ’s doctrine in words do now in deed show the contrary fruits thereof, and forget
the chief and principal lesson of the scriptures touching you and your vocation, which
is obedience to us your sovereign lord.” See BL, Add. MS 48018, formerly Helverton
MS XIX, fol. 389v, qu. Shagan, 38.
38 Luke 12:13.
39 Joshua 13–21.
 text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 161

But poverty they say constrayned them to doo, as they have doon.40
Soo might the thefe say, that poverty constrayneth hym [439] to robbe
if that would excuse hym. But this is no sufficient cause of their disobe-
dience, for our Savior Christe was so poore, that he saith of hymself
foxes have beries,41 and birdes of the ayer have nestis, But the sonne of
manne hath no place wheare he may lay his hed.42 And Peter also for-
soke all that he had and followed Christis poverty. And yet thei bothe
paid quietly tribute to Cesar.43 And we reade not that they made any
besynnes [i.e. business], or gathered nombres of people to gither to
styrre a commotion, trying as heaven and earthe shulde go togither,
that is was not iustly ordered, that they whiche were moost godly had
no possessions [440] and yet were compelled to pay tribute to Cesar.
They said no suche wourdes, but paid their tribute without murmuring
or grudging.
Thei to whome god hath sent poverty in goodes, let them also be
poore and humble in spirite, and then be they blessed in heaven,
howsoever thei be here in erthe. Christ hym self saith: Blessed are
the poore in spirite, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.44 For no
poverty canne move them [such men] to doo any thing against goddes
commaundement, or to disquiet the common wealth. [441]
But also they pretend that poverty constrayneth them thus to doo,
bee they so blynde that they cannot see that this sedition dothe not
remedy but encrease [their] poverty.45 Be their eyes so hard shutte in
their hedde that they cannot see what evill they have doon to their
owne common welth? What victuailles they have consumed? [L 83]
How thei have hindred the harvest upon the grounde, which god sent
them to be their lyving the next yere. So they destroye their own
livinges them selfes, They nothing consider how many men they have
undoon, how many they have spoyled and robbed, how many children
they have caused to be fatherless, and wifes to be widowed, and what
be they the better therefore, what have they gotten thereby, but only
[442] loded them selfs with the burden of the spoyle and robbery of

40 Margin: “Paupertatis prætextu non debet tumultuari populus.” See “Kett’s de-

mands being in Rebellion,” BL Harleain MS 304, fol. 75; TR, 156–159.

41 i.e. burrows or lairs.
42 Luke 9:58.
43 Matt. 22:15–22.
44 Matt. 5:3.
45 Margin: “This sedition doth not relieve but increase poverty.”
162 chapter three

other menne?46 Whome thei be never able to satisfye. And yet they may
be assured that god wilbe satisfied of them for their evill doinge even
unto the uttermost farthing. And although their offences be as greate as
may be thought, thus to consume and annoye their owne contray, their
own freendes and neighbors, yet the mercy of god is never consumed
to them that wille repent and amende. Wherefore, let us pray god for
them, that he wille geve them eyes to see, and eares to heare, and hartes
to understande their owne misdemeanour and foly.47

Quales sunt hujus seditionis præcipui auctores

But the great parte of them that be the chief styrrers in thies insurrec-
tions, be ruffians, and sturdy idill fellows [443] whiche be the causes
of their owne poverty commonly resorting to typling, and to alehouses,
muche drinking and litill working, muche spending and litil getting,
and yet will they be clad gorgiously, fare deyntiously, and lye softly
whiche neither caring for god, nor man, seeke now nothing els, but
to get somthing by spoyle, and robbing of other menne. These fellowes
make all this hurly burly in every place, and whan the rage of the peo-
ple is whetted in one place, than they rome to another, never quiett
them selfes, nor ceasing to disquyet others, untill at length they hoope
to com to their prey; happy is that place where none suche be, and in
great daunger be they where many suche be.48 This realme had never
so many, and that evidently appereth at this present tyme. All the holie
scripture exhortith to pity and compassion upon the poore and to help
them.49 But such poore as be [444] oppressed with children or other
necessary charges or by fyre, water or other chaunce come to povertie,
or for age, seeknes or other causes be not hable to labor, but to suche
as be poore by their owne foly that be able to labour and wille not,
The scripture comaundeth in nowise to ayde them, or help them, but

46 On the desolation the rebels have brought upon themselves, see Philip Nichols’s

“Answer to the Commoners of Devonshire and Cornwall” of 1549, BL Royal MS 18,

B xi, fol. 1; TR, 154–155.
47 Mark 4:23.
48 See the account of Nicholas Sotherton of the 1549 rebellion in Norfolk, BL

Harleian MS 1576, fols. 252–253; B.L. Beer, “‘The Commoyson in Norfolk, 1549’: a
narrative of popular rebellion in sixteenth-century England,” Journal of Medieval and
Renaissance Studies 6 (1976), 83–85.
49 Margin: “Otiosis nebulonibus nihil est dandum.”
 text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 163

chargith utterly all menne to abhorre them. But these men repugnyng
against [Christe] god, gape at nothing els, but uniustly and by force to
take from other men that whiche god hathe geven unto them by their
iust labor. And yet thei pretende that they meane nothing els, but a
reformation of thinges that be amisse, and they complayne muche of
riche men and gentilmen saying that thei take the comens from the
poore, that they rayse the [445] prices of all maner of thinges, that thei
rule to the[ir] poverty, and oppresse them at their pleasure. Thus thei
excuse their owne outragiouse presumptione by charging the gentle-
menne. But whilest they loke so ernestly at other mens faultes, they doo
not see their owne.
They speake muche against Achab, that toke from Naboth his vyne
yarde, But thei followe not thexample of Naboth, who woulde rather
lose his vyne yarde, than he would make any commotion or tumult
among the people.50 They make exclamations against Ahab, and yet
followe hym, rather than the pacience of Naboth. Wee never reade, that
any iust man which [446] is praised in the scripture did take swoorde
in his hande as againste his prince or nobility although he suffred
never somuche wronge or oppression. And yet now thei accuse the
gentilmenne of taking of commons,51 whiche take from the gentilmenne
both the common and propre.52
They charge the riche men that they inhaunce the prices, but in
this unsemely commotion, they take from the riche men what they liste
without any price. They say that the gentilmenne rule the poore and
oppresse them at their pleasure. But they so say that be out of all rule
and ordre, and rule the gentilmen as pleasith them except they wille
[447] have their goodes spoyled, their houses brent, and further be in
daunger of their lifes.
They saye gentilmenne have ruled aforetyme, and they will rule now
another while. A goodly Realme shall that be, that shalbe ruled by
them, that never had experience to governe, nor cannot rule their
selfes.53 A prentyse must lerne vij yeres before he canne be a good

50 1 Kings 21.
51 See “Kett’s Demands being in Rebellion,” articles 3 and 11: “we pray your grace
that no lord of no monnor shall comon uppon the Comons”; and “We pray that all
freholders and copie holders may take the profightes of all comons, and ther to comon,
and the lordes not to comon nor take profightes of the same.” BL Harleain MS 304,
fol. 75; TR, 157.
52 Margin: “Quod sit falsa horum nebulonum querela.”
53 Margin: “Quod miserum esset rebnum si ab iis nebulonibus gubernaretur.”
164 chapter three

merchaunt. No lesse tyme were requyred to be a good governor. But

if god were so offended with our Realme, and by our ingratitude
and wickedness were somuche provoked to indignation against us, that
he would make them governours and rulers over us, O Lorde, what
a Realme shulde this be! What frute [448] shulde wee se of their
governaunce? What ende, or measure would be of their covetuousness?
What iustice shulde be loked for at their handes if they were rulers,
whiche now being but private personnes without lande or iustice toke
from every man at their pleasure? How would they temper them selfes
being in auctoritye, that now without auctority be ruled by their owne
affections without the feare of god, or respecte to raison or country?
It is a commen, and a true saying, that auctoritie shewithe what every
manne is, and a gentilmanne wille ever shewe hymself a gentilmanne,
and a vilayne a vilayne. We see daily by experience that a gentilmanne
in auctority [449] hathe a respecte to his reputatione and wourshippe,
but a villayne called to office and auctority, comonly regardeth neither
god, wourshippe, nor honesty, but to catche what he canne, by righte
or by wronge. For unto hym all is fisshe that cometh to the nette.54
[L 84] And yet it is reported that there be many among these unlaw-
full assemblies that pretende knouleadge of the gospell,55 and will needs
be called gospellers, as though the gospell were the cause of disobedi-
ence, sedition and carnall liberality, and the destruction of those poli-
cies, kyngdomes and common weales wheare it is receyved. But if
they will be true gospellers, let them then be obediente, meeke [450]
pacient in adversitie, and long suffering and in nowise rebell againste
the lawes and magistrates.56 These lessons are taughte in the gospelle
bothe by evident scriptures, and also by the examples of Christe, and
his appostilles. Christ hym self was power (i.e. poor), and pronounceth
hym self to be blissed, that patiently [did] suffer poverty. The appos-
tilles’ forsoke alle that thei hadd and folowed Christe. The prophetes
often tymes refused great riches offered unto them, And canne they say
that they have the spirite of the prophetes and the appostilles, whiche
having no possessions of their owne, goo about by force violence and

54 Sir John Cheke, The Hurt of Sedicion howe greueous it is to a commune welth (London:

John Day and William Seres, 1549), sig. Avi v°. “The other rable of Norfolke rebelles, ye
pretende a commonwelth, how amende ye it? by killynge of Gentilmen? by spoylynge
of Gentilmen? by enprisonynge of Gentilmen? a mervelous tanned commonwelth, why
should ye thus hate them? for their riches or for their rule?”
55 Margin: “Quod sunt impii qui in his sceleribus prætexunt evangelium.”
56 Cp. Cheke, Hurt of Sedicion, sig. Aiiii v°.
 text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 165

[451] sedition to gett other mens. Noo this spirite is not of Christe, but
of the devill. And suche a spirite as among the romaynes, Catelyne,
Cathegus and Manlius were inspired withall.57 And here in England
Jacke Strawe, Jacke Cade the black smyth, Capitaine Aske and diverse
other rebelles,58 who have suffred iust ponyshment after their deserv-
ing, and althoo here I seame only to speake against thies unlawfull
assemblies, yet I cannot allowe those, but I must needes threaten ever-
lasting damnation unto them, whiche whether they be gentilmenne, or
whatsoever they be whiche never cease [L 85] to purchace and ioyne
house [452] to house, and lande to lande, as though they alone ought
to possesse and inhabite the earthe. For to suche Esai the prophite
threateneth everlasting woo, and the cursse of god except thei repent
and ammende their lifes in tyme. But yet their fault excusith not those
whiche without the commaundement of the kinge and his lawes, have
taken harnesse upon their backs and refused to lay it downe when they
wer by the kinges auctority comaunded so to doo. What other rewarde
canne I promise to them, than the angre, and vengeaunce of god,
whiche they shall feele bothe in this life, and in the life to come bothe
so[o]ner and sorer than they loke for [453] except they acknouledge
their faultes and amend by tyme.
But let us now compare these twoo distructiones of the commen
weale together.59 The covetuouse men (which as they say doo enclose
and possesse uniustly the comones) and thies mutyners whiche rasshely
and without all reason wilbe both the hearers, iudges, and reformers,
of their owne causes, and that is moost uniustice of all and against all
mans lawe, and goddes lawe, this they will doo, the other parties neither
h[e]ard nor called. And therunto thei take the kinges power upon them,
the auctority of the magistrate and the sworde which they never had by
no lawe. [454] Which of thies twoo is the greater iniurye? Whiche is the
more intollerable robbery? Which is the more pernicious confusione? Is
this a remedy to their greefes? Is this to bringe in iustice? I suppose [am

57 See Sallust’s account of the oration in the Roman Senate by Marcus Porcius Cato

Uticencis (Cato the Younger), ‘On the punishment of the Catiline conspirators,’ in
Catiline, ed. A.T. Davis (London: Oxford University Press, 1967), cap. 51.
58 Jack Strawe was one of the leaders of the Great Rising of 1381, also called Wat

Tyler’s Rebellion. In 1450 Jack Cade led a rebellion in Kent. When rebellion broke out
in York against Henry VIII, Robert Aske, a barrister and member of Gray’s Inn, took
up the leadership of the Pilgrimage of Grace. He was hanged in 1537. R.W. Hoyle, The
pilgrimage of grace and the politics of the 1530s (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). TR,
chap. 4.
59 Margin: “Multo deteriores sunt rebelles et seditiosi quam avari.”
166 chapter three

sure] them selfes being nowe quyett from their furor and rage, cannot
so thinck folyshenes is not healed by madnes. Thefte is not amended
with spoyle and ravine. Neither is the common wealth stayed or made
stronge by the breache of lawes ordres and states. Wherefore let both
parties lay away this so furiouse and excessive desire of vayne and
worldely thinges, whiche as wee have now lerned [455] by experience,
as the appostill saithe is the roote of all evilles.60
But now I wille goo further to speake somwhat of the greate hatred,
which diverse of thies seditious personnes doo beare against the gentil-
menne,61 which hatred in many is so outragiouse, that thei desire noth-
ing more, than the spoyle, ruyne and destruction of them that be riche
and welthy.62 For this thynge many of them doo crye, and opinly pro-
fesse a goodly prupose and benefite to [L 86] the realme. This declareth
what spirite thei be ledd withall. If thies divillisshe spirites might have
their willes what destruction [456] shulde hang over this realme, what
miserable state shulde the common weale comme unto? This noble
Realme whiche yet is feared of all nations, shulde than be a pray to all
nations, to the Frenchmenne to the Scottes, and to every realme, that
woulde spoile them, and among our selfes shulde be suche confusion,
that every manne shuld spoile other if he were able [stronger].63 [L 87]
For take away gentilmenne and rulers, and straite way alle order fallithe
clerely away, and followeth barbaricalle confusione.64 Oh how farre be
thies menne from all feare of god. [another hand: For god commaun-
deth al inferiors most redely to obey their superiors but they, more like
bests than men, bende theyr selfs thereby agaynst god not only to dis-
obey, but also to destroy their superiors which god hath apoynted over

60 1 Tim. 6:7.
61 Margin: “Odium nebulonum in nobiles et divites.”
62 Cheke, The hurt of Sedicion, sig. Avi v°.
63 Fletcher and MacCulloch, Document 15, Tudor Rebellions, 155.
64 In his response to the Pilgrimage of Grace of 1536, Richard Morison wrote as

follows: “Whan every man wyll rule, who shall obeye? Howe can there be any common
welthe, where he that is welthyest, is mooste lyke to come to woo? … An order muste
be hadde, and a waye founde, that they rule that beste can, they be ruled, that mooste
it becommeth so to be. This agreement is not onely expedient, but also most necessary
in a common welthe, those that are of the worser sort, to be content, that the wyser
reule and governe theym, those that nature hath endewed with synguler vertues, and
fortuen without breache of lawe, set in hyghe dignitie, to suppose this done by the great
provydence of god, as a meane to engender love and amitie, betwene the highe and the
lowe, the small and the great, the one eynge so necessary for thothers safegarde welthe
and quietnes.” A remedy for sedition, second edn. (London: Thomas Berthelet, 1537), sig.
A2rv; TR, 149–150.
 text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 167

them.] The scripture saith he that hatith his brother is a murtherer

before god.65 [457] But thies menne not only mortally hate, but also
threaten the distruction, not of one manne, but of one hoole state,66
and that [next the kyngs maiestie] the chiefe state of the whole realme.
And not only this, but that whiche is more wonderfull, and to be
lamented, parte of them doo dispise and opinely refuse the kinges
maiesties pardon.67 He is lothe to shedde his subiects bludde [another
hand: although they be unworthy the name of his subiects] but they
seeke [to shed] the bludde of them, whiche have hitherto defended
their blud from shedding. He like a moost mercifull Prince, is lothe
to cutte of the membres of his body, althoo many of them arr so rotten
and corrupt that they, if the[y] might, they would imfecte the [458]
whole body. And what madness is it that deseased membres refuse to be
annoynted with the moost softe and gentill oyntement of his maiesties
mercy? He is as carefull for their helthe and life as it were possible if
they were his childrenne. There is nothing that he desireth more than
to save their lifes. They have their soveraine lorde and kinge set before
their eyes as an example of pacyence lenitye and gentilnes, who hathe
graunted to them life, that deserved deathe. Whi then doo they refuse
to followe his mercifulness, whi will not they forgeve their [459] wrong
doing, as he dothe forgeve them?
Althoo by thies seditions and uproris [L 88] he hathe been more
grevously offended, than the gentilmenne haue offended them, with
whome thei be angry.68 For the gentilmen (in case thos thinges be true
wherewith they be charged) yet they have only doon wronge to the
poore commons in their encloasures and such like matiers, But by thies
seditions the maiestie of a mooste hiegh and godly king is hurte, and
wronged, forsomuche as thei take upon them his office, and as it were
pullithe the sworde out of his handes, for he is ordeyned of god to
have the hearing and decision of suche [460] causes, and to have the
administration and distribution of thies worldely goodes. But thei in

65 1 John 3:15.
66 I.e., the “estate” of the gentry.
67 Margin: “Against them that refuse the King’s pardon.” Many pardons and a wide

range of concessions were offered by the government. Shagan, 39–45. Robert Kett
refused the offer of a pardon conveyed by a royal messenger to the Norfolk rebels at
Mousehold Heath on 20 July 1549 on the ground that just and innocent men had no
need of one. See TR, chap. 6.
68 Margin: “Gravius peccarunt isti seditiosi in regem et regnum, quam quæ con-

queruntur illi de nobilibus.”

168 chapter three

their rage doo in a maner pull hym out of his throne and chayre of
estate, and cast hym downe to the grounde, who is here in erthe goddes
vicar and chief minister, and of whome only next unto god dependith
all the welthe of and felicite of this Realme, as it would soone appere
if he were myssing, whiche god forbid, and all the Realme shulde
bewayle.69
Verily when I consider with my self their uniust desire in reveng-
ing, and the kinges maiesties gentilness in suffering and pardonyng,
methinke I see the accustomed ordre of things to be cleane formed
and chaunged [upside down]. For Salamon saith, A kings angre is like
the roring of a lyon.70 But their soveraine lorde dothe not rore against
them (which notwithstanding have grevously offended and provoked his
angre). But rather dothe fawne upon them, and use them very gentilly.
Contrary wise they whiche ought to be as gentill and meke as lambes,
(whose parte it were rather to holde their peace, and not to open their
mowthes, or els to speake very myldely and loly) doo nowe rore and
make outcryings [462] like most cruell lyons. The whiche thinge how
iustely they doo it goddes vengeaunce (except thei take heede) will
spedely declare.
[L 89] One thinge there is which (after all) I thinke necessarye to be
added hereunto and that in myn opinion is the heade and begynnyng
of all thies tribulations.71 For the gospell of god now set furthe to the
hole Realme, is of many so hated, that it is reiected, refused, reviled,
and blasphemed, and by those whiche have receyved the same, and
woulde be counted to be great favorers therof, yet it sustayneth muche
iniury and reproche, and by their occasion is ill spoken of.72 [463] For
the greate nombre of them pretending a zeale thereto in their lippes,

69 In distinguishing the sedition of the commons as the more grievous offence,

Vermigli draws a distinction between “high and low” politics. According to Fletcher
and MacCulloch, “high politics was about who should run the country, low politics was
about how the country should be run.” Tudor Rebellions, 128. See also Stephen Alford,
Kingship and politics in the reign of Edward VI (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2002), 40–41, 189, 190.
70 Prov. 19:12.
71 Margin: “Præcipua causa omnium malorum est contemptus aut abusus evan-

gelii.”
72 According to Sir William Paget, close advisor to Protector Somerset, “The use of

the olde religion is forbydden by a lawe, and the use of the newe ys not yet prynted
on the stomackes of the eleven of twelve partes in the realme, what countenance soever
men make outwardly to please themn in whom they see the power restethe.” SP 10/8/4
(Calendar of State Papers Domestic, Edward VI, revised edn., no. 301); TR, 160.
 text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 169

and not in their hartes, counterfaiting godlyness, in name, but not in

dede, lyve after their owne pleasure, like epicures, and so ungodly as
though there were no god. And what is it that sainte Paule callith,
the having of godly truthe in unrightuousnes,73 if this be not it? This
having more knowleadge of God than thei had before, and retreaving
a taste of the heavenly giftes, notwithstanding retayne their olde vices
in their corrupte maners and dissolute conversacion, being nothing
amended, but rather payred. Whiche thing being in this case, what
other thing shulde wee loke for, [464] then the severe and terrible
iudgement of god, to make us an example, to all them that abuse
his worde (sithe by repentaunce we woll not be amended, nor by the
pure wourde of god be healed) that theirby all menne may lerne how
abhominable it is before god, his name to be so dishonored, and the
doctrine of the gospell so lightly estemed. The heathen poet coulde
not wincke at suche menne, but with his penne rubbed them on the
galle, whiche pretending hollynes, so dissolutely did lyve:74 and shall
godley iudgement leave them unponnysshed, which alwaies having in
their mouthe the gospell, the gospell, reasonyng of it, bragging of it,
and yet their [465] conversation, lyve after the worlde, the flesshe, and
the devill? Whiche as saint Paule wrote unto Titus confessing god with
their mowthe, denye hym in their deedes.75 But suche as reioyce and
bragge in such thinges, utterly deceave themselfis.
Whoso liftith to reade the histories of the heathen people and great-
est idolaters, [L 90] he shall not funde among them all, any region,
people, or nation that was to scourged by god. So ofte brought into
servitude, so ofte carryed into captivitie, with so diverse straunge and
many calamities oppressed, as were the childre of Israell. And yet they
bragged [466] and gloryed, that none other nation but they only had
the lawe of god, their rites, and ceremonyes of god, goddes promises
and his testamentes. And so was it in dede, nevertheles Saint Paule
writing to the Romanes dothe mooste sore rebuke and reprove them

73 Rom. 1:18.
74 The translation of the sermon omits the line from Juvenal’s Satires quoted by
Vermigli in the Latin text: “Qui Curios simulant, et Bacchanalia vivunt.” Ivnii Ivvenalis
Satyræ XVI. A. Persii Satyræ VI (Lutetia [Paris]: Robert Stephanus, 1544), Satyra 2, v. 3.
“I long to escape when I hear / high-flown moral discourse from that clique in Rome
who affect / ancestral peasant virtues as a front for their lechery.” Juvenal, The Sixteen
Satires, transl. Peter Green (Harmondsworth: Penguin, Books, 1985), 75. See ‘Sermo
Petri Martir manu propria scripta in seditionem Devonensium,’ CCCC MS 340, no. 4,
fol. 89.
75 Titus 1:16.
170 chapter three

saying:76 Thou art called a Jewe, and doe trust in the lawe, and makist
thi bost of god, and knowest his wille, and allowest the thinge that be
best and art enformed by the lawe, and thinkest that thou arte a guyde
to the blynde, a light to them that are in darkenes, a teacher of them
that be ignoraunt, a doctor to them that be [467] unlerned whiche
hast the true fourme and knowledge of the truthe by the lawe. But
yet thou whiche teachist another teachest not thi selfe. Thou preach-
est that a manne shulde not steale, yet thou stealest, thou saiest that
a man shulde not commyt adultery but thou breakest wedlock. Thou
abhorrest ymages, and yet thou dost commyt ydolatrie by honoring
of them. Thou that makest thi boost of the lawe, through the break-
ing of the lawe dishonorest god, for the name of god is ill spoken
of among the heathen by your meanes. Thus the appostill saint Paul
charging the Jewes, chargith us also, whiche with our mouthes say
[468] that we have receyved the wourde of god and yet our conver-
sation is contrary and ungodly. Whi than doo we marvaill if wee suffer
thies ponyshementis for our dissimulation and hipocrisy? For god usith
first to begynne and converte his owne famyly. Then if he shulde suf-
fer this amongest us unponisshed, shulde not he be thought to approve
synne, to be a favorer of the wicked, and the god of unthriftes and lewd
people? The churche of god, [L 91] moost derely beloved brithren,
ought not to be reputed and taken as a common place, wherunto men
resorte only to gaase and to heare others for their solace or for their
pastyme.
But whatsoever is there declared of the wourde of god [469] that
shulde wee so devoutely receave, and so ernestly printe in our myndes,
that wee shulde both beleve it as moost certayne truthe, and moost
diligently endevor our selfes to expresse the same in our minds and
lyving. If wee receave and repute the gospell as a thing moost ernest
and godly, whi doo wee not lyve according to the same? Yf we counte
it as fables and trifles, whi doo wee take upon us to geve suche credibt
and auctority unto it? To what purpose tendeth suche dissimulation
and hipochrasy? Yf wee take it for a Caunterbury tale, whi doo wee not
refuse it, whi doo wee not laugh it out of place, and [470] whistill at it?
Why doo wee with wourdes approved, with our conscience receave and
allowe it, geve credibt unto it, repute and take it as a thinge moost true
holsome and godly, and in our lyving clerely reiecte it?

76 The following passage is a paraphrase of Romans 8: 17–24.

 text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 171

Brethren, god will not be mocked, for this cause did god so severely
and grevouslye ponysshe the Jewes above all other nations. And sith
our cause is the like and the same, the self same ire and displeasure
of god is now provoked and kyndeled against us. The empier of Rome
never appered to be in worse case, or in a more troublouse and unquyet
state, than whan Christes [471] religion was preached, and receaved
among them. Whereuppon arrose neither fewe nor small complaintes
of the heathen, ascribing all their adversities unto the receaving of the
gospell and the religion of Christe. To whome the godly and learned
fathers and martyrs made aunswere, that it was not long of Christis
doctrine and religion, whiche teache thinges mooste vertuouse and
godly, that suche calamities did ensue, but it was long of the corrupt
execution and negligent observation of the same relligion.77 For our
lord did say: the servant whiche knowith his maisters commaundement,
and doth [472] it not, shalbe [L 92] sorer ponysshed, than he whiche
knowith not his maisters will and offendith by ignoraunce.78 Whereby it
is evident, as the wourde of god (if it be godly receaved, and with all the
harte embraced) is moost comfortable, of mooste efficacy strength and
vertue. So otherwise if it be troden underfoote, reiected and dispised or
craftily under the cloake of dissimulation and hipochrisy receaved, it is
a compendiouse and a shorte way unto distruction, it is an instrument
wheareby the ponyshement and displeasure of god is bothe augmented,
and also accelerate and sooner brought upon us, as wee have moost
iustly [473] deserved.
Yf wee will consider the histories of the bookes of the kinges, wee
shall no tyme fynde mo prophetis among the people of Israel, nor
the light of the wourde of god more spredde abrode every wheare,
than it was a litill before the captivity and distruction of the same
by the Babilonians.79 A manne would thincke that even at that same
tyme god had set upp a scole of holly scriptures and doctrine, then
were the heavenly prophetis in all places and to all men deceaved. But
because so great knowledge of god and of his doctrine, no good frutes
did followe, but dailye their lyving and conversation went backwarde,

77 See, e.g., Aurelius Augustine, De civitate Dei, Bk. I.

78 Luke 12: 47.
79 Vermigli lectured extensively at Strasbourg on the books of Samuel and Kings.

See In duos libros Samuelis Prophetæ qui vulgo Priores libri Regum appellantur D. Petri Martyris
Vermilii Florentini, professoris diuinarum literarum in schola Tigurina, Commentarii doctissimi, cum
rerum & locorum plurimorum tractatione perutili (Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1564) and Melachim,
id est, Regum libri duo posteriores cum Commentariis (Zurich: Christopher Froschauer, 1566).
172 chapter three

and [474] wourse, the saide miserable destruction and captivity did
ensue. And yet a wourse captivity and misery fell upon the same
people, whan moost parfite knouleadge of god was offred unto them
by the coming of Christe, what tyme the lorde Jesus Christe himself
did preache there, his appostiles did preache there, yea many other
disciples, Evangelistes, and doctours did preache there, [L 93] whose
preachinges and doctrines when they would not receave, nor frutefully
and condignely accomplishe and execute then sprange upp so many
dissentions tumultes and commotions, that at the last they were brought
unto utter subversion and destruction [475] in the tyme of Vaspasion
and Titus.80
Of the chaunces [i.e. fortunes] of the Germaines which in a maner
have suffred the same (because it is so lately doon) I neede not muche
to speake.81 It is yet before our eyes, and in present memory, so that it
nedith no declaration in wordes. Thies thinges before rehersed have I
for this intent and purpose spoken, that wee shulde acknowledge and
repute all thies seditions and troubles which wee now suffer, to be the
veray plage of god, for the reiecting or ungodly abusing of his moost
hollye wourde, and so provoke and enlist every man [476] to true and
frutefull repentaunce and to receave the gospell (whiche now by godly
mercy and the good zeale of the kinges maiesty and his counsaill is
every wheare set abrode) not faynedly and fayntly as many have doon,
nor stubbournly and contemptuously to reiecte it, and forsake it, as
many others doo now adayes, not knowing what it is, but thankfullye
to take and embrace it at godly hands and with all humbleness and
reverence to followe and use the same to goddes glory and our benefite,
Ye have herd nowe as I suppose the chief and principall causes of these
tumultuations whiche being declared unto you I might right well and
[477] conveniently have made an ende. Save that I thought it neither

80 Flavius Josephus was commissioned by the Emperor Vespasian to write a history

of the great Roman-Jewish war (66–70 CE) which resulted in the destruction of the
Second Temple and the great diaspora of the Jewish nation. See The Jewish War; with
an English translation by H. St. J. Thackeray (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1997), bk. 6.
81 Perhaps Vermigli refers to the German Peasants’ Rebellion of 1525, or to the

Anabaptist insurrection of 1535 led by Jan Matthys and John of Leyden in Munster,
Westphalia. On the former see Martin Luther, Wider die Mordischen vn[d] Reubischen
Rotten der Bawren (Wittemberg: [Augsburg: Heinrich Stayner], 1525). J.M. Porter, ed.,
Luther: Selected Political Writings (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974). See also Sigrun Haude, In
the shadow of “savage wolves”: Anabaptist Münster and the German Reformation during the 1530s
(Boston: Humanities Press, 2000).
 text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 173

disagreing, nor unprofitable to this purpose if I somwhat by certaine

examples admonisshed suche as be ready to stirre up such seditions
[shall showe you by examples of tymes passed] what plages of god,
remayneth for them [that stirr up seditions] onless they repent in tyme,
and cease from their shamefull and ungodly enterprises.
The children of Israill in the deserte did often tymes seditiously use
themselfes against Moses.82 But alwaies did followe great plagues of
death. So that this was the ende of it, that of vj and xx [thousands]
which came out of [L 94] Egipt all dyed and were slayne, and no moo
camme to the [478] Land of Canaan but twoo personnes only.83 How
miserably Core Dathan and Abiron perrisshed making of sedition, the
holly bible, manyfestly and at large declareth.84 Mary [i.e. Miriam]
sediciously used herself against her brother Moyses, and was she not
suddenly stricken with a leprosy of the which she had perrished, if
Moyses for her had not made intercession to god.85 Absolon againste his
father king David was seditiouse, but was not he miserably hanged by
the heare in a woodd by the ponyshement of god? Seba and Adonias,
for their sedition lost they not bothe their lyves?86 [479] In the rebellion
made against Nabugodonosor in the tyme of the prophete Hieremy,
which instantly diswaded them from their furye, they litill regarding
his admonition went downe unto Egipt, wheare at the last they wer all
destroyed.87 Did not the tribe of Effrata88 make a commotion against
Jepthe their iudge, but were they not all miserably slayne therfore?89 If I
woulde recite and adde hereunto the histories of the heathen which
declare the miserable end of seditiouse personnes and rebellions, I
shulde be more prolixe and tediouse, than this resent tyme [480] dothe
suffre, Wherefore I shall thinke it sufficyent for this tyme to bringe unto
your remembraunce the greate destruction of the rude and homely
people whiche not many yeres agoo chaunced to ryse in Germany, by

82 Margin: “Quomodo Deus semper affligere solebat seditiosos.”

83 Joshua and Caleb were alone among their generation to enter the Promised Land.
All the rest had persished in the wilderness. Numbers 13:1–14:38.
84 Numbers 16. CCCC MS 102, no. 34, “Heads of a discourse against Rebellion,”

fol. 532.
85 Numbers 12: 1–16.
86 1 Kings 1: 5–53 and 2:13–25. Adonijah (spelling in KJV) attempted to seize the

throne from his brother Solomon. The latter passage relates his treason and death.
87 Jeremiah 28 and 40–44.
88 I.e. “Ephraim”.
89 Judges 12:5, 6. The rebellious Ephraimites were identified in battle by their

accents; they pronounce the Hebrew word “shibboleth” as “sibboleth”.

174 chapter three

and by after that the wourde of god began there to shyne and florishe,
of the whiche were slayne within the tyme of three monnethis about an
hundred thousand personnes, And what followed further therof greate
derthe of victualls greate hungre and penury.90 [L 95] Then onlesse
repentaunce be the meane, what lett canne there be, what thing els
may our seditiouse and rebelliouse personnes loke for than the same
myserable ende that thei hadd? Is not the same Lorde and judge now
that was than? Is not our offence the same (if it be not worse) then
theires was? Is not goddes iustice allwaies the same that it was before?
Doo wee not allwaies heare that there is no acceptation of personnes
before god?
God of his abundant mercy geve us eares that wee may heare,
and hartes that we may understande. God by his holly spirite and
mercyfull favor graunte to the superior powres hartes to revenge goddes
cause, and [482] to converte all offendours against goddes holly wourd.
God graunte that insatiable covetuousnes may be with moderation
ordered and abated, and that hatred and mallice may be appeased
and repressed, and that the holly gospell of god may take place and
be receaved, and that wee every manne for his power so reverently
and godly may use and exercise our selfes in the same, that all menne
evidently seying our good conversation, thereby may be allured and
encouraged to folowe, and to geve laudes and thankes to god whiche
lyveth and reignith worlde without end. Amen. [483]91
And now with this humble prayer let us make an end.92

90 James M. Stayer, The German Peasants’ War and Anabaptist community of goods (Mon-

treal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1991).

91 This is the conclusion of the translation of the Latin sermon of Vermigli.
92 The following prayer appears twice in CCCC MS 102, no. 29, fol. 483. Thomas

Cranmer’s autograph version appears at this point in the text, i.e. immediately fol-
lowing the concluding prayer of Vermigli’s Latin sermon. A second draft, corrected in
Cranmer’s follows the English version of the sermon on a leaf by itself, fol. 501. Accord-
ing to Strype, “An office of fasting was composed for this rebellion, which being allayed
in the West, grew more formidable in Norfolk and Yorkshire. For I find a prayer com-
posed by the Archbishop, with these words preceding; ‘The exhortation to penance or
the supplication may end with this or some other like prayer.’ And then the prayer
followeth … After this follow some rude draughts, written by Archbishop Cranmer’s
own hand, for the composing, as I suppose, of an homily or homilies to be used for
the office aforesaid.” Strype, Memorials of the most reverend father in God Thomas Cranmer
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1812), 188. For the “rude draughts” or sermon notes, see
also Henry Jenkyns, ed., The Remains of Thomas Cranmer, D.D. (Oxford: University Press,
1833), 245. While Jenkyns ascribes these to Cranmer, they are nonetheless based on a
Latin MS in Vermigli’s hand annotated by Matthew Parker as “Cogitationes Petri Mar-
 text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 175

O Lorde whose goodnes farre excedith our noughtynes, and whose

mercy passith all measure, wee confesse thi Judgementes to be moost
just, and that wee wourthily have deserved this rodde wherewith thou
has now beaten us; Wee have offended the Lord god, wee have lyved
wickedly, wee have goon out of the way, wee have not hard thi proph-
etis, which thou hast sent us, to teache us thi wourde, now have doon
as thou hast commaunded us; Wherefore wee be most wourthy to
suffre all this plage;93 Thou has doon iustly and we be worthie to be
confounded, but wee prevoke unto thi goodnes, wee appell unto thy
mercy, we humble our selfes, we knowleadge our faultes, wee tourned to
thee o Lorde, with out hole hartes, in praying, in fasting, in lamenting
and sorrowing for our offences, have mercy upon us, cast us not away
according to our desertes, but heare us, deliver us with spede; and call
us to the[e] agayne according to thi mercy that wee with one consent
and one mynde may evermore glorify thee worlde without end. Amen.
[484 blank]
[485] Hitherto have wee touched how undecent a thing it is for chris-
tian men to excitate and stirre up sedicions under the pretense of the
common weale, as it chaunced now almost every wheare, to the great
trouble, detriment and impoverisshing of same common weale.94

The remedie of al our plags is onely penaunce95

But methincke that I have doone my office and duetye, untille I have
shewed also the remedies to appease [goddes wroth and to avoide his
plags] theis tumultes and tribulations. And to shewe you the same in
fewe wourdes, the only help and remedy is repentaunce, for other
medicine and preservative can I geve you none by goddes wourde but

tyris contra seditionem.” CCCC MS 102.31, fol. 509. See Montague Rhodes James, A
Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912), vol. I, no. 102.
93 The prayer evokes the central conceit of the sermon, namely the providential

manifestation of divine justice in history. “Thou has doon iustly and we be worthie to
be confounded”—the “plague” of sedition is a just punishment for injustice on the part
of both rebels and gentry.
94 The sermon continues with penance as the proposed “remedie” of the plague.
95 The remainder of the sermon, i.e. fols. 485 through 499, constitutes a translation

of a second Latin sermon by Vermigli, with Mathew Parker’s epigraph, “Alter eiusdem
sermo in seditionem,” CCCC MS 340.6, fols. 115–131.
176 chapter three

that whiche Christ duth duly preache and declare unto the world, and
which also his faithfull messenger John the Baptist (comyng before to
prepare his wais)96 [486] did teache saying: Repent you and amend,
that the kingdome of heaven shall comme unto you.97 And on this
wise did our lord Jesus Christ instructe his disciples, to whome he gave
commaundement specially to preache repentaunce and remission of
synnes, when he sent them furthe into all the world to preache in his
name. The effecte of synne is to put us away from god, the very welle
springe of all goodnes.98 But by penaunce wee retourne agayn to hym
from whome we wer goon and departed by synne that as we went from
god and ranne after worldely thinges, being inflamed with insaciable
desires thereof, so by penaunce wee retourne from worldely creatures,
unto god the creator [487] of all thinges.99 And what mutation and
chaunge can be more comfortable or more to be desired than this. By
repentaunce wee be sory for those thinges which greatly pleased us
before, wee forsake those thinges which wee muche made of before not
without great contempt of god and violation of his moost holly lawes,
Wherefore sith repentaunce dothe bring so many benefites that thereby
wee be refourmed unto god, that we are altred unto a better mynd,
that wee bewayle those thinges which wee before unwisely loved who
dothe not manifestly perceave that it is the only refuge and anker of
our helth and salvation. And for this cause is penaunce [488] so muche
commended unto us bothe of Christe hymself and of saint John, and of
Christes appostilles.
And whi do you thinck that this great iustice of god dothe forbeare
and so long differre to make ponyshement uppon synnes?100 Surely
because he would have us to repent and amend. And whie dothe he
many tymes stryke so sore at length if god did not tarry for us loking
for our repentaunce and amendement [L 118] we shuld have perrished
by goddes rygtuouse judgement long before this tyme. Yf god by and
by shule have ponyshed offences, wee shuld not have had Peter among
the appostilles. Yf the churche shuld [489] have lacked that elect vessell
Paule, yea wee all long agoo had been destroyed. And if god shulde

96 See Vermigli’s extensive allusion to the canticle Benedictus in his Epistle to the Princess

Elizabeth (1558) in the following chapter, pp. 187–189 below.

97 Matt. 3:2.
98 Margin: “Effectus peccati”.
99 Margin: “Effectus pœnitentiæ”. See CP, 3.8., fol. 204b.
100 I.e. “so long defer …” Margin: “Cur Deus differt statim punire delinquentes.”
 text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 177

have suffred us any lenger being so evill as wee wer, peradventure wee
shuld have forgotten god and dyed without repentaunce.
Wherefore that thing that god somuche desireth of us, and hath
provoked unto first by long-suffering, and now by sore ponysshing,
that is true and godly repentaunce.101 Let us receave it quyckly without
longer delay. Let us consider well in our myndes how many waies god
doth calle and allure synners to penaunce. Our first parentes Adam
and Eve, after they had [490] transgressed goddes comaundement,
he called them unto hym, he rebuked them, he sharpely ponnyshed
them. And after whan all thinges in the erthe were corrupted by the
synnes of manne God commaunded Nohe to buyld an ark, to save hym
and all that were rightuouse, that only the wicked might be drowned
throughout all the world. And for what purpose was the Arche so long
in making, but for a long preching and warnyng of the world to repent
and amend. How ofte is it redd in the book of Judges that the children
of Israell were geven over unto the handes of heathen princes that they
shuld be ponysshed by them, and by ponyshement repent and amend.
[491]
It is an extreme impiety and madnes to thincke that god is cruelle
and delightith in the ponyshment of his people, but for their amend-
ment. For so did the marcionistes and the maniches blaspheme god,
which for this purpose did accuse hym of cruelty and unmercyfulnes,
that thereby they myght tak away all cruelty [credit] from the olde tes-
tament.102 But wee doo acknowledge that god did therin shew his great
mercy that the Israilites admonyshed by assertions, whome no speaking
nor writinge could move, might by repentaunce [L 119] retourne agayn
to god. Also the great slaughter, that the other tribes of Israell suffred of
the tribe of Beniamyn [492] camme of none other cause, but that they
being convicted by penaunce might at the last obtayne the victory.103
Furthermore the prophetis sent of god, did moost ernestly persuade
all men to repentaunce. The godly king David was no other waies

101 Margin: “Cur tandem gravius animadvertit.”

102 Once among the most popular of sects but from the outset condemned as heretics,
the followers of Marcion (excommunicated 144 CE by the Church of Rome) held to a
sharp antithesis of the Old and New Testaments. By exalting the Pauline teaching
on grace, the Marcionites—considered to be Gnostics together with the Manichees—
held that the law was opposed to the truth of the gospel. Vermigli, along with other
magisterial reformers, linked sixteenth-century anti-nomianism to early-church heresy.
103 Judges 20. See Flavius Josephus, Antiquitatum Iudaicarum libri XX (Basel: Froben,

1548), V.2.
178 chapter three

healed than by repentaunce, And to call hym to repentaunce was the

prophete Hely sent to Achab, king of Israell.104 And by the same Man-
asses king of Juda did obtayne remission.105 By the self same repen-
taunce did his father Ozechias obtayne prolongation of his life. The
king of Nynyve with all his people by the meanes of repentaunce
had god mercifull unto them.106 The great king Nabugodonozar [493]
after that he had repented receaved not only his former state, being
chaunged from a best to a manne, but also was restored to his empire
and kyngdome which before he had lost.107 By the same means did
Peter obtayne remission of his abiuration and deniall of Christe, by
the same Paule of a persecutor becamme an appostille. Mary Mag-
dalene at the feete of the lorde taking repentaunce was absolved and
remitted, and the thefe on the crosse by his same remedy obtayned
salvacion. This did the appostilles persuade unto them that receaved
their preaching as it apperith in the actes of the appostilles. This did
Peter propound unto Symon magus. This did Paule commend unto the
Corinthians.108 [494] and almost to all other to whome soever he wrote
[L 120], and did bothe often and diligently beate it into mens heddes.
This wee must receave as the first part of the gospell. This god
requirith of all offendurs, if they wilbe reconcyled unto hym. Wherefore
now let us repent while wee have tyme. For the axe is layd nearly at
the roote of the tree to fell it downe, Yff we will harden our hartes, and
will not now be repentaunt of our mysdoinge, god will surely strike us
cleane out of his book.

Pœnitentia quid sit

Hitherto ye have herd of the profite and commodyty of repentaunce,

now shall ye heare what it is, and of what partes it consisteth.109 And
to declare it plainely and grossely unto you, It is a sorrow conceaved
[495] for synnes committed, with hope and trust tobtayne remission
by Christe, with a firme and effectuall purpose of amendment, and
to alter all things that hathe been don amisse. I have described unto

104 1 Kings 21.

105 Chron. 33:11–18. See also the Prayer of Manasses in the Septuagint.
106 Jonah 3:1–9.
107 Daniel 4:1–3.
108 2 Corinth. 7:10.
109 Cp. Vermigli’s very similar definition of repentance in CP 8.3, fol. 204b.
 text: vermigli, tyme of rebellion 179

you this heavenly medycine which if wee will use, god hathe promised
by his prophete that if our synnes were as redde as scarlet they shalbe
made as white as snowe. But goddes wourd hathe thus muche prevayled
among us that in the start of sorrow for our synne is crept in a great
loseness of lyving without repentaunce. In the stead of hoope and trust
of remissionne of our synnes, is comme in a great boldness to synne
without the feare of god. In search [496] of amendement of our lyves
I see daily every thing wayith wourse and worse so that it is muche to
be afrayde that god will take away from us his vyneard, and bestowe
it to other husband menne, which will till it better than it shall bring
furth frute in due season. Wee be comen to the point almost that
Hieremy spake of whan he said, the people spake not that was right,
no manne would repent hym somuche of his synne, that he wold only
say, What hav I doon, Every manne ranne after his owne way as a
hoste ronnith hedlong in batelle. They have committed abhominable
mistchief, and yet are they nothing ashamed nor know the way to be
[497] abasshed.110 Thies wourdes of Hieremy may well be spoken of us
this present tyme, but let us repent us in synne without further delay for
wee have enough and overmuche alredy provoked goddes wrath and
indignation against us.
Wherefore let us pray and fall down and lament before the lord
our maker, for he is the Lord our god, and wee are the people of
his pasture, and the sheepe of his fold. Today if wee feare his voyce,
Let us not harden our harte as the people did in the desert.111 Be
of contynuaunce in evill lyving, there is none other end to be loked
for than eternall [498] damnation. But of repentaunce and perfect
coundision unto god the end is perpetuall salvation. And if wee doo not
repent in tyme, at the last wee shalbe compelled to heare this horrible
voyce of damnation. Goo ye wicked into everlastyng fyer whiche is
prepared by the devill and those that be his.112 Then there shalbe
no remedy, than no intercession shal serve, than it shalbe to late to
come to repentaunce, Let us rather repent and tourne in synne, and
make intercession unto the lord by his sonne Jesus Christ. Let us [499]
lament for our synnes, and call for goddes mercy. That whan Christ

110 Jeremiah 6:10.

111 A paraphrase of Psalm 95. According to the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer
(1549) this psalm of repentance was to be recited daily at the beginning of the Office of
Morning Prayer.
112 Matt. 25:41.
180 chapter three

shall comme at the last day wee may heare thies wourdes of hym:
Comme to me you that be blessed of my father and take possession
of the kyngdome which my father hathe prepared for you.113

113 Matt. 25:34.

 chapter four

‘A HOLY DEBORAH FOR OUR TIMES’:

VERMIGLI’S PANEGYRIC TO ELIZABETH

In his Epistle to the Princess Elizabeth1 written at Zurich shortly after her
accession to the throne of England on 17 November 1558, Peter Martyr
Vermigli addresses a panegyric to the young Queen containing both
fulsome praise and some fairly pointed advice. In an invocation of the
Song of Zechariah from the Gospel of Luke, Vermigli evokes a striking
comparison of Elizabeth’s accession to the scriptural trope of redemp-
tive kingship. By means of an appeal to a host of Old-Testament and
early-Church examples of kingship he goes on to advise Elizabeth on
her duty of religious reform in England. Vermigli extends the metaphor
of anointed kingship to the point of identifying England as an “elect
nation.” It is Elizabeth’s divinely appointed task to “redeem” England
through the restoration and establishment of her “godly rule.” As in the
case of King David, successor of Saul and chief Old-Testament exem-
plar of the anointed godly ruler, Vermigli counsels Elizabeth that the
restoration of true religion in the realm of England will rest upon her
royal shoulders. In the formulation of his advice, Vermigli maintains
that Elizabeth’s life will involve a “double service” to God as both ser-
vant and ruler: arguing, in effect, that the Queen has “two bodies.”2

1 Peter Martyr Vermigli, “To the Most Renowned Princes[s] Elizabeth, by the

grace of God Queene of England, France and Ireland,” published in Martyr’s Divine
Epistles, an appendix to the English edition of Common Places, transl. Anthony Marten
(London: Henry Denham, 1583), part V, 58–61. For the original Latin version of the
letter, see Martyris Epistolæ Theologicæ, appended to Loci communes, ed. Robert Masson
(London: Thomas Vautrollerius, 1583), 1121–1124; first edition (London: John Kingston,
1576). For an excellent modern English translation, see Peter Martyr Vermigli, Life,
Letters, and Sermons, vol. 5 of the Peter Martyr Library, translated and edited by John
Patrick Donnelly (Kirksville, MO: Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1999), 170–177
[cited hereafter as LLS]. Donnelly’s translation is employed in the notes below.
2 LLS 174: “It is necessary for a king to serve God twice, once as a human being

by believing and living with faith, once as a king by ruling over the people, sanctioning
with appropriate enforcement laws which command just and godly acts and which
likewise prohibit the contrary.” On this notion of the “double existence” of the prince
see Ernst H. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediæval Political Theology
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957).
 vermigli’s panegyric to elizabeth 183

In his peroration he begs the Queen “never to agree with those who
pretend that having a care for reforming religion does not pertain to
princes.”3 One possible constitutional paradigm for Vermigli’s recom-
mendations concerning the authority of the civil magistrate to exercise
the so-called “cura religionis” is Heinrich Bullinger’s Zurich whence Ver-
migli’s letter to Elizabeth is sent.4 The letter provides evidence of the
importance of the “Zurich connection” in shaping the institutions of
the Elizabethan religion settlement.

Theodicy of the Marian Exile

Vermigli opens his letter with an Augustinian theodicy of the Mar-

ian persecution of English evangelicals during the period 1553 to 1558:
“The whole world is something of a school and training ground for
our good God where he teaches and trains his people through their
performing various labours, occasionally through afflictions, and some-
times through experiencing different sorts of perils.”5 While the sun
shines and the rain pours on both the elect and non-elect, God does
not permit those whom he loves to “struggle with perpetual afflictions,”
but rather his providence contrives their deliverance from these dan-
gers “so that he may declare that it is he who leads them up to and
brings them back from the gates of death.”6 Moreover, Vermigli con-
tinues, God ensures that the image of Christ shines in his “adopted
children.” According to Vermigli’s interpretation of the doctrine of pre-
destination, election is understood to be “in Christum,” and therefore
his elect, consistent with the divine prototype, “are destined to be con-

3 LLS 175.
4 See the first chapter above, “The Civil Magistrate and the ‘cura religionis’.”
5 Compare, e.g., Aurelius Augustine, The City of God against the Pagans, ed. and transl.

by R.W. Dyson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), I.8, p. 12: “If every
sin were visited now with evident punishment, nothing would be reserved for the
last judgment. On the other hand, if no sin were punished now by a clearly divine
intervention, it would be believed that there is no divine providence. So too in the case
of prosperity: if God did not grant it to some who pray as the clearest possible proof of
His bounty, we should say that such things are not His to give. On the other hand, if
He were to grant it to all who pray, we should judge such things to be no more than
the due reward of our service, and such service would make us not godly, but, rather,
greedy and covetous.” See also XX.2, 967–968.
6 LLS 170.
184 chapter four

formed to his example, to die before rising.”7 The typological pattern of

Christ’s suffering followed by rising again is exemplified by some emi-
nent examples from the biblical narrative of salvation history: the exo-
dus of the Israelites from Egypt, their deliverance from the wilderness
into the land of Canaan, and their eventual return to Jerusalem out
of the Babylonian captivity.8 In the person of Elizabeth herself, “most
mighty Queen,” God’s “ancient custom” is reconfirmed and made even
more manifest. According to this conceit Elizabeth is to be likened to
Moses, Aaron, Joshua, and even to Christ himself for, as we shall see,
the whole realm is understood by Vermigli as in some mystical sense
embodied by or rather hypostasized in the person of the godly Prince.
Thus the nation’s election is to be interpreted as both a mystical “insitio
in Christum” and an analogous political “insitio in regem,” for the Prince,
like the ancient kings of Israel, is also an “anointed one.” Thus in the
salvation history of Vermigli’s panegyric, the typology of Christ works
in both historical directions, that is to say, both as prefigured in Old
Testament kings and as recapitulated in Elizabeth herself. Through
her experience of the vicissitudes of the reign of her sister Mary, the
princess Elizabeth was “preserved by divine power and not by human
help … for the salvation of Christ’s Church and for the restoration of
the English Commonwealth.”9
According to a hermeneutic such as this, Vermigli is able to pull
out all the stops in the development of his encomium. He quotes
Psalm 118, a verse reputedly uttered by Elizabeth herself when she
received the news of Mary’s death and her own accession to the throne:
“This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvellous in our eyes; the stone which
the builders rejected has become the head of the corner.”10 Vermigli
follows the usual interpretation of this Messianic psalm by applying the
verses to Christ and then adds “but since godly persons are counted
among his members I think these statements can be applied to them
as well, for … other members of his body are honoured and enjoy the

7 LLS 170; citing Rom. 8:29.

8 LLS 170.
9 LLS 171.
10 LLS 171; qu. Ps. 118:23, 22. See Matt 21:42 where Jesus cites this Messianic psalm

in the presence of the chief priest and Pharisees in the Temple. See also Paul’s appeal
to the Psalm in Ephesians 2:20. On the significance of Elizabeth’s accession as a “new
day” in the life of the English church, see Gary Jenkins, “Peter Martyr and the Church
of England after 1558,” in Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations: Semper
Reformanda, ed. Frank James III (Leiden and Boston: E.J. Brill, 2004), 47, 48.
 vermigli’s panegyric to elizabeth 185

distinctions and dignity of their Head. This clearly should be taken as

applying especially to those members in the Lord’s body whom he has
at last wished to appear conspicuously among his people such as Your
Majesty.”11 The mystical analogy of sacred kingship between Christ and
the anointed Queen is echoed by Shakespeare in the words of King
Richard II:
Not all the water in the rough rude sea
Can wash the balm from an anointed king;
The breath of worldly men cannot depose
The deputy elected by the Lord.12

Mystical Headship

For Vermigli, just as the gift of the divine grace is communicated

through the mediation of Christ for the benefit of his invisible, mystical
body, so also the gift of God in the elevation of Elizabeth to her throne
for the salvation of the visible, external Church “is so great that it
cannot be shut up in you [i.e. Elizabeth] alone but flows out through
you to a great number of the faithful.”13 By analogy with the operation
of the mystical headship of Christ in the life of his mystical body the
Church, Elizabeth herself is interpreted by Vermigli as a mediator of
political benefits to her own body politic, both civil and ecclesiastical:
And kings maie be called the heads of the Commonweale … For even
as from the head is derived all the sense and motion into the bodie, so
the senses by good lawes, and motions, by edictes and commandements
are derived from the prince unto the people. And this strength exceedeth
not the naturall power … For vertue springeth of frequented Actions. So
when as princes by lawes and edictes drive their subiects unto actions,
they also drive them unto vertues. But the spirit of God and regeneration
are not attained by manie actions, but onelie by the blessings of God.14

11 LLS 171.
12 William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of King Richard II, Act 3, scene 2, 54–57. See
Kantorowicz, King’s Two Bodies, 24–41. Kantorowicz points out that the deposition
scene in Richard II “though performed scores of times after the first performance in
1595, was not printed, or not allowed to be printed, until after the death of Queen
Elizabeth” owing to the fact that “the conflict between Elizbeth and Essex appeared
to Shakespeare’s contemporaries in the light of the conflict between Richard and
Bolingbroke.” See esp. 40.
13 LLS 171.
14 CP 4.3.1, 2, fols. 35, 36.
186 chapter four

Elizabeth is “God’s substitute … anointed in his sight.”15 The ben-

efits of Elizabeth’s accession flow from her to her subjects. And con-
sequently “for all those in that kingdom [i.e. England] who are either
born as citizens or wish it well [e.g. Vermigli himself and the Church of
Zurich] and those who are seeking nothing except the glory of Christ
seem to themselves to be raised from the dead along with you.”16 By
her accession / resurrection Elizabeth has become by this interpretation
“the first fruits of them that slept,” that is of those who had endured
persecution, punishment, and exile under the rule of Elizabeth’s sister
Mary.17
Just where one might have thought that the panegyric had reached
its zenith Vermigli extends the metaphor of the Prince as Christus and
outdoes himself with an invocation of the prophetical Song of Zechariah
from the Gospel of Luke. Zechariah is described by Luke as being
“filled with the Holy Spirit” when he uttered a song of thanksgiving
on the occasion of the birth of his son John, later called “the Bap-
tist,” whose own prophetical task was to “go before the face of the
Lord to prepare his ways,” viz. to announce the imminent coming of
Christ. This canticle, known to the church as the Benedictus, so-called
from the first word of the Vulgate translation, the song is traditionally
construed as being in ‘form’ an Old Testament prophecy and in ‘con-
tent’ a Christian thanksgiving for the realization of the Messianic hopes
of the Jewish nation, a celebration of the advent of the Redeemer, and
thus the fulfilment of God’s covenant with Abraham.18 In this sense the

15 Richard II, Act I, scene 2, 37.

16 LLS 171.
17 I Cor 15:20.
18 Luke 1:68–79. For a contemporary account of the canticle, see Anthony Anderson,

An exposition of the hymne commonly called Benedictus: with an ample & comfortable application of
the same, to our age and people (London: Henry Middleton, for Raufe Newbery, 1574).
Since the time of St. Benedict the Benedictus had been sung in the Office of the western
Church at Lauds and it was incorporated by Thomas Cranmer into the Order for
Morning Prayer in the Book of Common Prayer (1549 and 1552); see Oxford Dictionary
of the Christian Church, third edn., ed. E.A. Livingston (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1997) 187. Verse numbers are inserted in Vermigli’s text for the purpose of
comparison:
68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his people;
69 And hath raised up a mighty salvation for us in the house of his servant David,
70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world
began:
71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
72 To perform the mercy promised to our forefathers, and to remember his holy
covenant;
 vermigli’s panegyric to elizabeth 187

prophecy constitutes a bridge of sorts between the Old and New Tes-
taments. Within the analogy of the panegyric Vermigli casts himself in
the prophetical role at the critical juncture between the old dispensa-
tion of Queen Mary and the new order under Elizabeth.
Therefore the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ should be praised
for having visited his people who were almost dead and for having
opened to the preaching of the Gospel of god’s Son a path which had
too long been blocked [v.68]. See, the horn of salvation is again raised in
the kingdom of England [v.69] so that the elect of God by the invincible
power of our Saviour Jesus Christ might be delivered from the hand of
their enemies [v.70] and so that they might worship the holy God in
a holy way according to what is prescribed in the divine letters [v.73].
Now may there be glory in the highest, peace in the Church, and God’s
good will toward the English people so that by the guidance and good
government of this godly queen her subjects, adorned with justice and
holiness, may always live innocently before him [v.74]. May he give them
so much divine light that those who almost again fell into the darkness
and shadow of death during the preceding night may walk his paths
without any offense now that the day of peace has arisen [v.79].19

The accession of Elizabeth “whose people were almost dead” under the
rule of her sister Mary is thus likened to the advent of the Redeemer.
England under the “shadow” of the papacy is in need of a restora-
tion of the “evangelical Religion.” And consequently, with Elizabeth’s
accession the “horn of salvation is again raised in the kingdom of
England.”20 In this passage Vermigli draws a correspondence between
the realm of England and the house of David. Christ is the scion of
David’s line while Elizabeth inherits the throne of her Tudor forbears.

73 To perform the oath which he sware to our forefather Abraham, that he would
give us,
74 That we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without
fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest,
for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people for the remission of their sins,
78 Through the tender mercy of our God, whereby the dayspring from on high hath
visited us;
79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,
and to guide our feet into the way of peace.
19 LLS 171, 172.
20 The horn (‘qaran’ in Hebrew) is a sign of strength and dominion; see I Sam

2.1 and Psalm 18.2. Horn is translated as “mighty” in this passage in the Authorised
Version.
188 chapter four

As through the mediation of Christ the hope of humanity is restored

inwardly and mystically, so also through mediation of Elizabeth the
hope of England is restored politically and historically. That this horn is
raised “again” recalls the reign of Elizabeth’s “dear brother,” and Ver-
migli’s erstwhile patron, King Edward VI.21 The consequence of this
“mighty salvation” of Elizabeth’s accession is the prospect of the wor-
ship of God according to the authority of sacred scripture. The flow
of Vermigli’s adaptation of the Benedictus is then briefly punctuated by
an invocation of the hymn of the angels, Gloria in excelsis, nearly verg-
ing upon the ecstatic: “Now may there be glory in the highest, peace
in the Church, and God’s good will toward the English people.” By
her “guidance and good government” her subjects, “adorned with jus-
tice and righteousness,” are to be brought to live “innocently” before
God. In a final eschatological flourish, Vermigli then prays for divine
illumination “now that the day of peace has arisen.” It lies in Eliza-
beth’s hand, “after God,” to ensure that this gift of illumination will be
brought to fulfillment.

Some Pointed Practical Advice

Following this extraordinary rhetorical flight, the tone of the Epistle

now takes a more didactic, practical turn. In a manner comparable to
Eusebius in his Oration to the Emperor Constantine, Vermigli takes pains to
remind Elizabeth that she holds her station solely by divine gift.22 Just as
to Eusebius the emperor is in some respect a power comparable to the
divine Logos, yet not the divine Logos itself, so to Vermigli Elizabeth
is a servant of Christ though in her anointed office she functions as
the head of her body politic. “It is necessary for a king to serve God
twice,” Vermigli states, “once as a human being by believing and living
with faith, once as a king by ruling over people.” In the former role

21 LLS 175.
22 See Eusebius, Oration in Praise of the Emperor Constantine, V.1, in Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers, Series 2, vol. 1, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, repr. (Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 1999), 585: “In this hope our divinely-favored emperor partakes even in
this present life, gifted as he is by God with native virtues, and having received into
his soul the out-flowings of his favor. His reason he derives from the great Source of
all reason: he is wise, and good, and just, as having fellowship with perfect Wisdom,
Goodness, and Righteousness: virtuous, as following the pattern of perfect virtue:
valiant, as partaking of heavenly strength.”
 vermigli’s panegyric to elizabeth 189

she is herself a subject and servant; in the latter she is God’s own vice-
gerent, one anointed to rule in God’s place. By way of instruction and
illustration of her role, Vermigli counsels Elizabeth to model her rule
on the “unique and noble example of David … illustrious for his royal
power and famous for outstanding holiness.”23 David’s first and most
important task on becoming king was to return the Ark of the Covenant
to its former honours, and thus to restore true religion to Israel.24 The
priests failed to perform the task properly until driven to do so by
David. Continuing the analogy, Vermigli observes that “this same work,
most illustrious Queen Elizabeth, God has handed over to your trust
along with the kingdom. For it is your duty to restore to its own place
the holy Gospel of Christ, which has lain neglected … by the injury of
the times and importunity of our adversaries during the past years.”25
Vermigli signals his strong approval of the institution of the Royal
Supremacy.26 The priests are to take their direction from the godly
prince. By pointing out that the priests in David’s time failed to fulfil
their duty, Vermigli plainly indicates his view that the existing Marian
bench of bishops, not yet reconstituted by Elizabeth, “may go astray in
the work of restoring the Church.” Just as the priests once neglected to
carry the ark upon their shoulders “as the divine law prescribed” and
permitted it to be borne upon a cart, Vermigli advises the Queen to
“be on guard lest such things happen so that, while church leaders fall
into error or seek to avoid work and a just discipline, they try to carry
the ark of the Gospel not by the word of God or the example of a pure
life but by the carts of useless ceremonies …”27 He exhorts her to follow
David’s example who “corrected the error of the priests, distributed the
Levites into certain ranks … these are the things that all godly men are
expecting of you, most holy Queen.” By her exercise of the sovereign
power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction as Supreme Governor of the Church
of England, Elizabeth was to realize Vermigli’s hopes for the Settle-
ment in the distribution of ecclesiastical offices.28 In a scholium titled

23 LLS 172.
24 LLS 173; 2 Sam 6:3.
25 LLS 173.
26 W.J. Torrance Kirby, “‘The Charge of Religion belongeth unto Princes:’ Peter

Martyr Vermigli on the Unity of Civil and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction,” Archiv für Refor-
mationsgeschichte 94 (2003): 131–145. See chap. 2 above.
27 LLS 173.
28 After an only partially successful attempt under Queen Mary to dismantle the

royal headship, a new Act of Supremacy was passed in 1559 with a change of the title
“Supreme Head” to “Supreme Governor,” I Eliz. I. c. 1, “An acte restoring to the
190 chapter four

“Whether there may be two heads of the Church, one visible, the other
invisible,” Vermigli argues that while the exercise of spiritual headship
belongs properly to Christ alone, terrestrial headship of the Church is
the office of the Prince: “… this perhaps is it, why the king of Eng-
land would be called head of his own Church next unto Christ. For he
thought that that power which the Pope usurped to himselfe was his,
and in his owne kingdome pertained to himselfe. The title indeed was
unwonted and displeased manie godlie men: howbeit if we consider the
thing it selfe, he meant nothing else but that which we have now said.”29
Following the deprivation of the Marian bishops in 1559, new ap-
pointments to the bench of bishops were made by the Queen’s author-
ity.30 Several of Elizabeth’s new prelates had been close associates of
Vermigli during his tenure of the Regius chair of divinity at Oxford in
the reign of Edward VI and had subsequently fled along with him to
the continent after the accession of Queen Mary. Vermigli had been
treated rather better than most in that he had been allowed safe con-
duct.31 A number of them visited Zurich and enjoyed the hospitality of
Heinrich Bullinger during their period of exile.32
Testimony to the role of Princes in establishing religion and wor-
ship is to be found according to Vermigli in the examples of Hezekiah,
Josiah, Jehoash, and the king of the people of Nineveh who is men-
tioned in the Book of Jonah; Darius and Nebuchadnezzar are cited as
well. Constantine, Theodosius, and Charlemagne as well as Elizabeth’s
brother Edward are identified as further exemplars of this royal office.
By embracing the cura religionis Elizabeth will “restore Christ’s Church
which has almost completely collapsed; [she] will win the satisfaction
of those in [her] nation who are godly; and [she] will clearly show to

crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual and abolishing
all foreign power repugnant to the same.” See Claire Cross, The Royal Supremacy in the
Elizabethan Church (London: Allen and Unwin, 1969), 128–129.
29 CP 4.3.6, fol. 38. See Marvin Anderson, “Royal Idolatry: Peter Martyr and the

Reformed Tradition,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, Jahrgang 69 (1978), 163.

30 Of the twenty-three Elizabethan bishops, fourteen were returned exiles, three

had been appointed in the reign of Edward of whom just one, Thomas Kitchin of
Llandaff, had conformed under Queen Mary. See Scott Wenig, Straightening the Altars:
The Ecclesiastical Vision and Pastoral Achievements of the Progressive Bishops under Elizabeth I,
1559–1579 (New York: Peter Lang, 2000), 23.
31 For Vermigli’s description of his flight from England after the death of Edward VI,

see his letter to Heinrich Bullinger dated 3 November 1553 at Strasbourg, LLS 126;
Epistolæ Tigurinæ 332.
32 These include John Jewel, Richard Cox, Robert Horne, John Parkhurst, Edmund

Grindal, Edwin Sandys, and James Pilkington.

 vermigli’s panegyric to elizabeth 191

foreign princes by [her] illustrious example a sound and godly pattern

for ruling.”33 Scripture demonstrates and both tradition and philosophy
confirm that it is the task of the godly magistrate to defend both tables
of the law. For
if the bishops and ministers of the churches have not performed their
duty, if in handing down dogmas and administering the sacraments they
forsake the just regulation of the divine letters, who will recall them to
the right path unless it be the godly prince? Your Majesty should not
expect in the current situation that they will be impelled to these things
by themselves; unless royal spurs move them they will not rebuild the
ruins of God’s temple.34
Vermigli then invites Elizabeth to “play the role of holy Deborah for
our times” and bring her own elect nation, having been oppressed by
the rule of her sister, “into the sincere and pure liberty of the Gospel.”
The examples of Jael and Esther both offer encouragement to the
young Queen. By way of continuing the balance between scriptural
and non-scriptural authorities, Vermigli adds to these the examples of
Artemesia who fought at the Battle of Salamis “with a manly heart”
and Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, who ruled over the eastern Roman
Empire and defeated the army of the Emperor Gallienus in the latter
half of the third century.35 Vermigli’s recollection of Xerxes’s remark
that “the men in that battle were women, and the women showed
themselves the bravest men” presages Elizabeth’s famous speech to her
troops at Tilbury on the eve of the fight against the Spanish Armada
in 1588.36 He concludes by urging the Queen to gird herself “for the
holy work” before her.37 Vermigli ends the epistle by returning to his

33 LLS 175.
34 LLS 175.
35 LLS 176. On Artemesia’s distinguished role at Salamis see Herodotus, The History,

8.87–88.
36 See The Norton Anthology of English Literature, ed. M.H. Abrams, 6th edn., vol. 1

(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1993), 999: “Let tyrants fear, I have always so
behaved myself, that under God I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in
the loyal hearts and goodwill of my subjects; and, therefore, I am come amongst you
as you see at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the
midst and heat of battle, to live or die amongst you all—to lay down for my God, and
for my kingdoms, and for my people, my honour and my blood even in the dust. I
know I have the body of a weak, feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a
king—and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any
prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which, rather than
any dishonour should grow by me, I myself will take up arms—I myself will be your
general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.”
37 LLS 176.
192 chapter four

opening theme of salvation history: “the heavenly Father has the hearts
of kings in his own hands, and kings reign through him. By his own
decision he transfers empires to whomever he wishes.”38 He prays that
“the English church and nation” will be guided by God’s Spirit and
that the Queen herself will be kept “safe for a very long time by his
saving grace.” Elizabeth was to continue on the throne for forty-five
more years until her death in 1603.

38 LLS 177.
 text

PETER MARTYR VERMIGLI

An Epistle to the Most Renowmed Princes[s] Elizabeth by the grace of

God Queene of England, France and Ireland, Grace and everlasting
happinesse from God the Father through Jesus Christ our Saviour.1

That the whole worlde (most renowmed Queene) is a schoole or a

certain place of warfare of the Almercifull and Almightie God, where
he through sundrie laboursome exercises, sometimes by afflictions and
sometimes by diverse perils teacheth and instructeth them that be his: I
suppose that of Godly men it is iudged most certaine and undoubted.
Yet for all this, the heavenly father doth not so deale, as he hath
determined that those whom he leaveth shal perpetually be troubled
with afflictions, and bee pressed with everlasting griefes, but sometimes
helpeth to overcome evils, and at such oportunitie as he hath deter-
mined with himselfe, suffereth them to escape out of the floods and
whirlepittes of daungers, to the intent he may declare that it is he that
leadeth them to the gates of death and bringeth them back againe,2
while hee taketh care that in his adopted children may shine the image
whom he naturally begate unto himselfe before all eternitie.3 For the
same our first begotten brother Jesus Christ dyed first before hee should
be raised up by his owne and his fathers power. Therefore it behooveth
that we also which are appointed to be made like his image, shoulde
first die before we rise againe. After this sort the Israelites were in a man-
ner deade while they were pressed under the most grievous tyrannie of
Pharao in Egypt: but they being delivered by Moses and Aaron, were
after a sort plucked away from death. Moreover they seemed again to
have perished in the manifold daungers and sundrie mischances of the

1 Published in Martyr’s Divine Epistles, an appendix to the English edition of Common

Places, transl. Anthony Marten (London: Henry Denham, 1583), part V, fols. 58–61. For
the original Latin version of the letter, see Martyris Epistolæ Theologicæ, appended to Loci
communes, ed. Robert Masson (London: Thomas Vautrollerius, 1583), fols. 1121–1124;
first edition (London: John Kingston, 1576).
2 1 Samuel 2:6.
3 Romans 8:28.
194 chapter four

wast wildernesse, who afterward revived by entering into the lande of

Chanaan. To conclude, they being ledde into captivitie, were thought
utterly consumed: who neverthelesse returning after 70 yeares, flour-
ished againe, and were then restored unto life. The verie which thing,
O most mightie Queene Elyzabeth, seeing God hath done unto you,
he hath not departed from that his olde manner of custome, but hath
rather confirmed the same, and made it more manifest. For while his
workes are executed in the meaner and baser sort of men, they indeed
appeare the lesse. But on the other side, when they be shewed in men
and woemen of noblest and highest estate, then are they made in a
manner famous in the eye of al men.
Wherfore since you (most noble Queene Elizabeth) are advanced to
the kindome not in verie deede by a gentle, easie and pleasant way but
for certain yeares now passed, you have appeared to be scarse a foote
from death: (For so great and deepe have bin the daungers as the ship
of your life was now welneere soonke) you are preserved by the power
of God, not by the helpe of man, and are promoted as we now see to
the possession of that famous kingdome. Wherefore by the mercie and
goodnesse of the sonne of God, in whom you did put your trust, you
are revived by the good helpe of God to inioy the kingdome of your
father and grandfather, and that to the safetie of the Church of Christ,
and to the restitution of the common weale of England falling in decay.
Therefore fitlie doth that saying sounde in the mouthes of all Godlie
men at this time which is most ioyfully pronounced in the Psalme: This
is the Lords doing and it is marueilous in our eyes. The stone which the builders
refused is become the head stone of the corner.4 I confesse indeede that these
wordes appertaine unto Christ. But seeing Godly men are accounted
for his members, I iudge they may be applied unto them also. For that
the other members of the bodie are both garnished and have profite by
the ornaments and honour of the head, Paul the Apostle of Christ doth
aboundantly testifie,5 which in verie deede must be specially understood
of those members which are so eminent in the Lords bodie as it pleased
God that your maiestie should at length excellently appeare among his
people. Now this is so great a benefite of God, as it cannot be shut
up in you onely, but through your own selfe is derived unto a great
number of the faithfull. For so manie as either are borne subiects in
the kingdome, or wish well thereunto and which seeke nothing else but

4 Psalm 118:28.
5 Ephes. 5:27.
 text: vermigli, epistle to princess elizabeth 195

the glorie of Christ, all these seeme to themselves to be raised together

with you from death.6 Amongst whom because I neither am nor wilbe
the last, even as I perceiued my selfe by these welcome newes to be
made exceeding and marveilous ioyfull, so I thought it meete, that first
of all we should give thanks unto our most mighty and mercifull God,
secondly that we shoulde reioyce on the behalfe of your maiestie, and
also of the Church and Realme of England. Wherfore let us praise God
and the father of our Lorde Jesu Christ which hath visited his people
being almost deade, and hath opened the way which a long time was
shut up from preaching of the Gospel of the sonne of God.7 Beholde
nowe againe is the horne of salvation lifted up in the kingdome of
Englande, whereby the chosen of God by the inuincible power of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, are delivered out of the hand of their enemies,
and doe most syncerelie worship the blessed G O D, according to the
prescript rule of the holie Scriptures. Glorie be nowe to G O D on
high,8 Peace in the Church, and the good will of God towards the

6 This resurrection analogy is central to Vermigli’s conception of a messianic king-

ship. Vermigli proposes that the accession of Elizabeth is nothing less than a resurrec-
tion of the entire “corpus politicum.” As the “body” of the faithful are raised up by virtue
of their participation in Christ their common mystical “head”, so also by analogy the
“politique bodie” that is the realm of England is raised through participation in Eliza-
beth who is their royal or political head. The logic of the invisible, mystical, and inward
community heavenly kingdom is transferred and applied to the visible, political, and
external body of the earthly realm. The Queen is in this analogy the political “type” of
Christ.
7 Here Vermigli launches into his panegyric based upon the hymn in Luke 1:67–79.
8 This passage invokes the ancient liturgical hymn Gloria in excelsis deo. The hymn

was sung from the early centuries of the church in the liturgy of the Eucharist, and was
retained by Thomas Cranmer in the vernacular liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer,
both in the first version of 1549 and in the major revision of 1552 in which Vermigli
himself assisted. In the former liturgy, the Gloria in excelsis held its traditional place at
the beginning of the mass, immediately following the the Kyrie eleison. In the revision
of 1552, the Gloria was transferred to the post-communion thanksgiving. The opening
line is derived from Luke’s account of the song of the angels at Christ’s Nativity. Im-
portant theological significance is attached to the re-positioning of this hymn in the
revised liturgies of 1552 and 1559. It is arguable that this liturgical alteration reflects
Vermigli’s own substantive contribution to the revised theology of a Sacramentarian
“real presence” based upon his celebrated disputation on the Eucharist held at Oxford
in 1549. According to Vermigli’s theology of “instrumental realism” participants in
the eucharist would be enabled to “sing the song of the angels” only after they had
“participated” the body and blood of Christ, hence the liturgical repositioning of the
Gloria. For a discussion of Vermigli’s influence on Cranmer’s revision of the Prayer-
Book liturgy, see McLelland’s “The Second Book of Common Prayer,” in The Visible
Words of God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of Peter Martyr Vermigli (Edinburgh,
Oliver and Boyd, 1957), 28–40.
196 chapter four

people of England, that by the guide and good gouernement of this

godlie Queene, her subiects being adorned with righteousnesse and
holinesse,9 may walke always and innocentlie before him, and that hee
will so lighten them from above, as they which through the night that
went before were againe fallen into darkenesse, and into the shadowe
welneere of death, now the daies of peace being sprung up, may walke
their waies safelie without any offence. And that this may be done most
mightie Queene, it is in your hand next unto God.10 Neither doe I
doubt but for your auncient faith sake, your godlinesse and fauour of
God, which hath protected, defended and gouerned you from your
childehood unto this daie, you wil give the due honour unto God and to
his worde. God keepe from your sincere and religious heart the blemish
of an ungratefull minde, which though in every sort of man it be most
fowle, in you which by the benefite of Christ are in this place, it would
be altogether intolerable.11 Howbeit I am wholly perswaded that your
Maiestie is both of a readie minde and will to restore the Euangelicall
Religion. And albeit that you are sufficientlie prepared and learned of
your selfe this to doe, and that you have no want of the holie counsels
and godlie exhortations of others, which daily sound in your eares, Yet
have I also thought good for the verie great bounden duety that I owe
unto your Maiestie, with no lesse brevitie than modestie to put you
in minde of some things which principallie belong hereunto. Which
thinges I humblie beseeche you, may bee no otherwise taken of you
than I have written them. For that which I speake with a sincere faith,
I would also to be taken in good part. I knowe how tender be the eares
of the Princes of this world: Howbeit as touching yours I have a verie
great hope, since you are of Christ, not of this world.

The Example of Dauid in restoring the Religion of God

Wherefore setting aside the reasons of the Ethnickes,12 I will leade you
a while to the singular and notable example of David. For he, while he

9 Here Elizabeth is likened to Christ as an agent in the sanctification of her subjects.

10 In this passage the messianic hope placed upon Elizabeth’s accession reaches full
pitch.
11 Vermigli brings the rhetoric back down to earth, as it were. Elizabeth, though a

“Christus” figure, is also mortal and fallen. Thus there is a theological transition from
the panegyric to the didactic mood of what follows in the Epistle.
12 Vermigli’s common name for the pagan poets, philosophers, and historians.
 text: vermigli, epistle to princess elizabeth 197

liued, was both famous in princelie power, and greatlie renowmed in

excellent holinesse. Wherefore if I be desirous to have you become such
a one as he was, I desire nothing contrary either to your dignitie or
godliness. He when hee should be appointed to the gouernement of
the kingdome in Israel, before he could attaine to the same, suffered
euen as you have dooen most greeuous troubles, but when he was
come thereunto, he thought nothing ought to be done before he had
restored Religion now ruined: whereof the principal point and summe
in that age herein consisted, that the arke of the couenaunt being the
principall token of God, might bee reduced unto the former estimation,
which by the negligence of king Saul laie without regard had thereunto
in the priuate house of one Aminadab in Gibea. This the godlie king
could not suffer, wherefor he determined to conueigh the same unto
the kinges Court.13 Howbeit in that wherein hee indeuoured to deale
godlie, the Priestes did not rightlie exercise their office. Wherefore the
godlie king in a maner despaired of that he looked for. Howbeit he
within a while after gathering his wittes together, both draue them to
doe their office rightlie, and he himselfe also with incredible ioie, and
with singular gladnesse of the people, most happily brought home the
arke of the mightie God into Sion. Even this same worke (most noble
Queene Elizabeth) is together with your kingdome, committed to your
trust. For it behooueth that you restore againe into his place the holie
Gospell of Christ, which through iniurie of the times and importunitie
of the adversaries, hath lien some yeeres past neglected, I will not say
trodden under foote. This if you shal performe, all things shall happen
prosperouslie unto you, no lesse than they did unto most godlie king
Dauid. For if it be saide unto euerie Christian man, that he shoulde
first seeke the kingdome of God, then other thinges should easily be
supplied, shal we not thinke that the same is commaunded unto kings?
Certes, if it be commanded all men to worship God most sincerely,
kings are not exempted from the precept: nay rather the greater estate
they beare amongst men, the more are they bounde to that law of God.
Howbeit there is no need to admonish your maiestie in many words,
whom the heauenly father hath inspired with a principall spirite as he
did Dauid.

13 2 Sam 6:3.
198 chapter four

A danger in the Church as concerning Pastors

But this daunger is like to happen, namely least those which at this
day be called Priests, should erre in the worke of restoring the Church:
euen as it came then to passe not without great trouble when the Lord
smote Oza.14 For the Arke of the Lord shoulde not have beene carried
in a carte, but borne upon the shoulders of the Priestes, euen as the
law of God had prescribed. Wherefore we must now take speciall care
and heede lest such thinges doe happen that while the gouernours of
the Church either be deceiued by error, or indeuor to shun labours and
iust discipline, they goe about to beare the Arke of the Gospel, not by
the word of God, and example of a more pure life: but upon the Carts
of unprofitable ceremonies, and foule labours of hyred servants.15 This
if you shall consider (most noble Queene) that it came so to passe, you
shall not as Dauid was, be mooued more than is requisite, neither will
yee intermit the worke begun as he for a time did, but will doe the
same out of hande, as we reade that he a while after did: He corrected
the error of the Priestes, he disposed the Levites into certaine orders,
and commaunded all things to be done by the strickt rule of the lawe.16
These be the things which all Godly men (most blessed Queene) do
expect of you. Hitherunto the kings of the earth (which is very greatly
to be lamented) agree together and withstande God and his anointed.17
From whose socitie euen as your maiestie is a straunger, so must you
heare what is saide unto you and to the rest of kings: Vnderstande nowe O
yee kings, be learned O yee that iudge the earth, serue the Lord in feare.18 But you
will say: shewe mee what religious worship that shalbe which is required
towards God? Uerilie no other but with Godly seueritie to prohibit
and correct especially in worshipping of him those things which be
committed against the law of God. For it is necessarie that a king serue
God two manner of wayes, first in respect that he is a man, by faithfull
beleeuing and liuing: then in that he is a king which gouerneth the
people, by establishing in force conuenient, such lawes as commaunde
iust and Godly thinges, and forbid the contrarie.19

14 2 Sam. 6, 7.
15 On Vermigli’s contribution to controversy over the prescribed ceremonies of
divine worship, see the following chapter ‘Relics of the Amorites’.
16 1 Chron. 23–26.
17 Psalm 2:2.
18 Psalm 2:10.
19 The king’s two-fold service of God, namely as a man and as the wearer of the
 text: vermigli, epistle to princess elizabeth 199

The Example of Godly Kings

This did Ezechias when he destroyed the groues, ydoll temples, and
those high places which were erected against the commaundement of
God, although that sometimes they did not sacrifice amisse in them.20
The selfe same thing did godly Iosias bring to passe with great diligence,
zeale and incredible godlinesse.21 This did the king of the Niniuites
not foreslowe to doe, which compelled the whole citie to pacifie the
wrath og God.22 This did Darius performe unto the true God as it
is written in Daniel.23 This also did Nabucadnezer fulfill when by a
most seuere lawe he bridled the tongues of them that dwelt in his
kingdome from blaspheming the liuing God.24 I might easily shewe
of verie manie kings and mightie Emperours after Christ that did
the same: I meane Constantine, Theodosius, Charles the Great and many
others. But because I wil not goe either from the memorie of our times
or from your own most honourable progenie, this did your most noble
brother Edwarde king of England endeuour to his power and more
than his age would give leaue, whose reigne our sinnes and intolerable
ingratitude suffered not any longer to be continued: Onely God woulde
shewe unto the worlde the singular virtues and passing Godlinesse of
that ympe, secondlie that hee might somewhat chasten us according as
our ill desertes required, hee the sooner called him out of the earth
unto him.
Howbeit the case goeth wel, because he after a certaine fatherly
correction used, hath taken pitie upon us, seeing he hath at this time
placed you his dearest sister in his roume, who maie perfourme many
moe things than he could, and shall the more fully answere the opinion
conceiued of you, in that you are the elder, and therefore shall gouerne

divine mask of rulership, reveals a duality of nature which has significant theological
implications. The king has “two bodies”—a natural and therefore mortal body as a
man, and an immortal “politique” body as sovereign. This is another way in which
Vermigli conveys a messianic analogy. The king as the anointed of God, as “christus”,
unites two distinct natures in the simple identity of his person. This might reasonably
be described as a kind of “political Chalcedonianism.” See Ernst Kantorowicz, The
King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1957).
20 2 Kings 18:4.
21 2 Kings 13:4.
22 Jonah 3:7.
23 Daniel 6:26.
24 Daniel 3:95.
200 chapter four

the kingdome not by the will of others, but by your owne iudgement.
Wherefore you haue (most gracious Queene) most liulie examples of
the auntient and also of the latter kings, and finallie of your most deere
brother,25 in whose steps if you be willing religiously to walke, (and
willing thereunto you ought to be) you shall obtaine many and singular
great commodities. First you shall doe an acceptable thing unto God,
by ioining your selfe unto his word: you shall restore the Church of
Christ which is almost utterly decaied: you shal satisfy the godlier sorte
of your owne nation: By your noble example you shal shew to foreine
princes a sounde and sincere patterne of gouernment.

That the state of Religion belongeth unto kings

And I beseech you neuer hearken unto them, which faigne that the
regard of the reformation of religion belongeth not unto Princes. For
the good kings whome I before remembred did not so iudge. The holy
Scriptures doe not so instruct us, neither did the verie Ethnickes and
Philosophers themselues so iudge. Is it the office of a godlie Magistrate
to defende onely one, and that the latter table of the lawe diuine? Shall
the Prince take upon him the care of all other businesse, that they bee
doone rightlie and without fraude, and shall cast awaie the respect of
Religion onelie? God forbid. If Bishops and Ministers of churches shall
not doe their duetie, if in handling of doctrine and administering of
the sacraments they forsake the iust rules of the holy Scriptures: who
but a godlie Prince shall reuoke them into the right way? Let not your
Maiestie expect, (as things nowe be) that those men are stirred up to
these things of themselues: unlesse they be moved thereunto by princely
authoritie, they will not repaire the ruine of the Temple of God. Ioas a
king of the Iewes, when he perceiued that the Preestes perfourmed not
this, took unto him the charge to amend the decayed buildings of the
Temple.26

25 King Edward VI ruled 1547–1553.

26 2 Kings 52:1.
 text: vermigli, epistle to princess elizabeth 201

The manlie courage of godlie women

Go forward therefore O holie Debora of our times. Ioine unto you some
godlie Barac.27 The Israelites which are diuers waies oppressed, deliver
you to the sincere and pure libertie of the Gospell. Bee not afraide,
for God is not woont to leaue these enterprises destitute of his fauour.
Him you shall haue with you: that you, like valiaunt Iahel may strike
the head of Iabin with the hammer of your power, and fasten it to the
ground whence it came, whereby he may cease to be troublesome unto
your good nation.28 We haue verie great hope, that you shall bee the
same Hester which shall driue Haman unto hanging, which thirsteth for
the slaughter and blood of the people of God.29 Let these holie women
be an incouragement unto you Maiestie: and suffer not your selfe to
faint for this cause that you are not borne a man but a woman. For
where doth the power of God rather discouer it selfe than it dooth in
weakenes?30 Neither he used the strong things of the world to spread
the kingdom of Christ: but by weake and base men he subdued to the
Gospell the wisedome of man, and the loftie reasons of the flesh. And
in that warre which Xerxes waged against the Gretians (if we shal regard
the Ethnicke affaires) the men of Persia were slaine, and gaue them
selues to shameful flight, when in the meane time Artemisia the most
renowmed Queene, with a manly minde fought most stoute battailes.
Which thing being understood, Xerxes saide that the men in that battaile
were women, and that the women had shewed themselues to be most
valiant men.31 Also Zenobia defended the Empire of Rome much more
valiantly than did Galienus.32 Albeit thankes be to God, there is nothing
sauing woman kinde that can iustly bee noted in your Maiestie either
woman like or weake. But least I should be thought to speake to please
your eares, I am minded to passe ouer the incomparable learning, the
knowledge of tongues, the clemencie, virginitie, wisedome, and aboue
all other the godlinesse and other virtues wherewith you being adorned
by the benefite of God are not onelie called but are in verie deede most

27 Judges 4:6.
28 Judge 4:21.
29 Esther 7.
30 1 Corinthians 1:28.
31 Herodotus, The History, VIII. 68.
32 In AD 270–272, Zenobia “Augusta”, Queen of Palmyra, took control of Roman

Egypt, Arabia, and parts of Asia Minor. See Zosimus, Historiae novae libri VI (Basel:
Petrus Perna, 1576) I. 14–40.
202 chapter four

famous. Wherefore girde your selfe with a good courage unto that holy
worke which all good people doe expect of you, feare nothing at all
the deceits of the divell, the impediments of wicked persons, nor yet
the weakenesse of woman kind. God shall put awaie all these thinges
with one breath of his mouth. In the meane time verilie it shall be my
part and such as I am to desire of God in our daily deuoute praiers
that he will first graunt unto your Maiestie that you may thoroughly
perceiue all that good is by your own wit and understanding, secondly
that wholesome and profitable counsels may by others be suggested
unto you; further that you may receiue those things that shall be rightly
shewed you: and finally that in whatsoeuer you shal undertake, God
will graunt you fortunate and happie successe. These praiers doe I
dailie make unto God for you most gratious Ladie, and doe promise
that while I liue I will neuer cease from these prayers. But the heauenly
Father which hath the heartes of kings in his owne hand,33 by whom
kings doe raigne,34 and who at his owne pleasure transferreth Empires
to whom he will,35 euen he by his spirit direct your Maiestie, together
with the Church and nation of England and by his comfortable grace
long continue the same in safetie. At Tigure 22 of December, 1558.

Your Maiesties most humble Oratour,

Peter Martyr.

33 Proverbs 21:1.
34 Proverbs 8:15.
35 Daniel 2:21.
 chapter five

‘RELICS OF THE AMORITES’: THE CIVIL

MAGISTRATE AND RELIGIOUS UNIFORMITY

Item her maiestie beyng desyrous to haue the prelacye and cleargye of
this Realme to bee hadde as well in outwarde reuerence, as otherwyse
regarded for the worthynesse of theyr ministeries, and thynkynge it nec-
essarye to haue them knowen to the people, in al places and assembles,
bothe in the Churche and without, and thereby to receaue the hon-
our and estymation due to the specyall messengers and mynysters of
almyghtie Godde: wylleth and commaundeth that all Archebyshoppes
and byshoppes, and all other that bee called or admitted to preachynge
or ministerye of the Sacramentes, or that be admitted into anye voca-
tion Ecclesiastycall, or into any societie of learning in eyther of the uni-
uersities, or els where, shall use and weare suche semely habytes, gar-
mentes, and such square cappes, as were moost comenly and orderly
receyued in the latter yeare of the raygne of kynge Edwarde the vi. Not
thereby meanyng to attrybute any holynesse or special worthynesse to
the sayde garmentes, But as as Saint Paule wryteth: Omnia decenter et secun-
dem ordeinem fient. I. Cor. 14. Cap. [Let all things be done decently and in
good order.]1

In the years immediately following the enactment of the Elizabethan

Settlement of 1559, the threat of schism loomed over the Church of
England with respect to provisions governing uniformity of church
ornaments and ecclesiastical dress—the so-called ‘Vestiarian Contro-
versy’. A number of leading lights of the new Protestant establish-
ment—especially among those who had been in exile on the continent
during the reign of Elizabeth’s sister Mary, and who had seen first-hand
the visible state of religious reform in Strasbourg, Basle, Zurich, Frank-
fort, and Geneva—were in doubt about the deliberate policy enunci-
ated in the Act of Uniformity of 15592 which provided for uniformity of

1 Iniunctions geven by the Quenes Maiestie (London: Richard Jugge and John Cawood,

Printers to the Quenes Maiestie, 1559), item 30, Cii recto.

2 An Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and Service in the Church and Administration

of the Sacraments (1 Elizabeth, c. 2) was passed. The first effect of this statute was to
repeal the Act of Mary as and from 24 June 1559, and to restore the Book of Common
Prayer from that date. The Second Prayer-book (1552) of Edward VI with certain
204 chapter five

clerical dress and the retention of the oranments of the Church which
had been in use “in this Church of England, by authority of Parlia-
ment, in the second year of King Edward VI,” that is, by implication,
consistent with the First Edwardine Act of Uniformity of 1549.3 Were
these more traditional vestments and ornaments of worship the equiv-
alent of ‘relics of the Amorites’ whose use was not only evidence of an
incomplete reformation of ecclesiastical order, but could be regarded as
the very presence of the Antichrist?4 Or, alternatively, were the tradi-
tional vestments and ornaments to be viewed rather as ‘adiaphora,’ that
is ‘things indifferent,’ and therefore to be tolerated? Numerous appeals
by both parties to the dispute were made to Peter Martyr Vermigli,
now settled in Zurich, for his judgement of the matter. Although Ver-
migli’s authority was cited by both sides, he emerges a staunch defender
of the Settlement. Consistent with his intervention of 1550 in John

additions and alterations was thenceforth to be used. Severe penalties culminating in

the forfeiture of all goods and chattels and imprisonment for life were decreed against
all persons who spoke against the Book of Common Prayer. Attendance at church service
on Sunday at the parish church was rendered compulsory, and any person absent
without reasonable cause was to pay a fine of twelve pence.
3 3 and 4 Edward VI, c. 10, An Act for the abolishing and putting away of diverse books

and images. The preamble of the Act recites that the King had recently set forth and
established by authority of Parliament an order for common prayer in The Book of
Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the Church,
after the Church of England (1549). The First Prayer-book was subsequently revised in a
more thoroughly Reformed direction and replaced by a new order in 1552 which also
received the sanction of parliamentary authority with a new statute, viz. 5 and 6 Edw.
VI, c. 1. An Act for the Uniformity of Service and Administration of Sacraments throughout the realm.
4 The expression “relics of the Amorites” is an allusion to Joshua 7 which recounts

the transgression of the covenant by Achan. Israel, under the command of Joshua, has
just been defeated in battle by the Amorites, and it emerges that the source of this
loss was the secret possession of “an accursed thing,” i.e. spoils previously taken from
the Amorites against Yahweh’s command. 7:20, 21: “Achan answered Joshua, and said,
Indeed I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and thus have I done: When
I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of
silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them
…” The strength of Israel is thus linked with the avoidance of all contact with these
“relics”. Joshua punishes Achan with death by stoning and he, the relics, and all his
property are burned in the valley of Achor. Jewel refers to the “relics of the Amorites”
as Vermigli’s own expression for the “theatrical habits” and “comical dress” of the
Romish practice, ZL 1, 52. Vermigli refers to the “mere relics of Popery” in a letter
to Sampson of 4 November 1559, ZL 2, 32. See also Thomas Sampson to Martyr, 2
January 1560, ZL 1, 64. Laurence Humphrey refers again to the “relics of the Amorites”
in a letter to Bullinger of 9 February 1566 complaining about Archbishop Matthew
Parker’s enforcement of conformity in the matter of ecclesiastical habits through his
Advertisements. See ZL I, 151–152.
 the civil magistrate and religious uniformity 205

Hooper’s brief period of resistance to the Edwardine vestments rubric,

Vermigli counselled conformity with careful nuance. Vermigli’s stance
in the vestiarian controversy in turn raises important questions about
the ‘Reformed’ identity of the Elizabethan Church.
In the days and months following the accession of Elizabeth Tudor
to the throne of England, correspondence exchanged between Peter
Martyr Vermigli and various disciples of his among the Marian exiles
reveals the spectre of schism looming within evangelical ranks of the
Church of England. In letters to Vermigli, Thomas Sampson articulates
the uncertainty felt by many of the returning exiles concerning the
eventual shape of the expected new religious settlement. Sampson,
who in exile had visited both Zurich and Geneva before his return
to England in 1559, was a clear candidate for appointment to the
bench of bishops.5 He addresses Vermigli as “my excellent father”
and “most faithful father”, he bemoans the prospect of an episcopal
appointment, and asks for advice on how to proceed: “I am quite
ready to undertake the office of a preacher, in whatever place she [the
Queen] may choose; but I cannot take upon myself the government
of the church, untill, after having made an entire reformation in all
ecclesiastical functions, she will concede to the clergy the right of
ordering all things according to the word of God, both as regards
doctrine and discipline, and the property of the church.”6 Vermigli
advises a cautious and moderate course, and encourages Sampson not
to “let go any opportunity of directing things in a proper manner.”7 A

5 Surviving anonymous correspondence reveals that he was in fact considered for

the See of Norwich. Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series 1559–1560, 138 (no. 323).
6 In a letter to Vermigli dated 17 December 1558, just a few weeks after the acces-

sion, Sampson expresses doubt whether an episcopal appointment can be accepted in

good conscience: “I cannot take upon myself the government of the Church until, after
having made an entire reformation in all ecclesiastical functions, she [i.e. the Queen]
will concede to the clergy the right of ordering all things according to the word of God,
both as regards doctrine and discipline …” [ZL 1, 1–2].
7 Peter Martyr Vermigli to Thomas Sampson, 15 July 1559, ZL 2, 25–27. In a

subsequent letter to Sampson of 4 November 1559, ZL 2, 32–34, Vermigli writes: “But

although I have always been opposed to the use of ornaments of this kind, yet as I
perceived the present danger of your being deprived of the office of preaching, and that
there will perhaps be some hope that, like as altars and images have been removed,
so this resemblance of the mass may also be taken away, provided you and others who
may obtain bishopricks, will direct all your endeavours to that object, (which would
make less progress, should another succeed in your place, but would rather defend,
cherish, and maintain them;) therefore was I the slower in advising you rather to refuse
a bishoprick, than to consent to the use of those garments.”
206 chapter five

year later, after the enactment of the Settlement statutes, John Jewel,
close associate of the Italian reformer from Oxford days, fellow exile
in Zurich, and soon to be appointed bishop of Salisbury, writes to
the master lamenting the continued use of the “scenic apparatus of
divine worship”8 and the “theatrical habits” of the clergy: “These are
indeed, as you very properly observe, the relics of the Amorites. For
who can deny it? And I wish that sometime or other they may be taken
away, and extirpated even to the lowest roots.”9 In a subsequent letter
to Vermigli dated 2 January 1560, Sampson sounds the alarm of the
coming vestiarian strife: “O my father!” he writes,
What can I hope for, when the ministry of Christ is banished from court?
While the crucifix is allowed, with lights burning before it? … What can
I hope, when three of our lately appointed bishops are to officiate at
the table of the Lord, one as a priest, another as deacon, and a third
as subdeacon, before the image of the crucifix, or at least not far from
it, with candles, and habited in the golden vestments of the papacy …
What hope is there of any good, when our party are disposed to look for
religion in these dumb remnants of idolatry, and not from the preaching
of the lively word of God? I will propose this single question for your
resolution … Should we not rather quit the ministry of the word and
sacraments, than that these relics of the Amorites should be admitted?
Certain of our friends, indeed, appear in some measure inclined to
regard these things as matters of indifference: for my own part, I am
altogether of opinion, that should this be enjoined, we ought rather to
suffer deprivation.10

In his response of 1 February 1560, Vermigli exhorts Sampson very

firmly against schism “for if you, who are as it were pillars, shall decline
taking upon yourselves the performance of ecclesiastical offices, not

8 John Jewel to Peter Martyr, from London, no date, ZL 1, 23.

9 Jewel to Martyr, 5 Nov. 1559, ZL 1, 52. Jewel reports to Peter Martyr in 16 Novem-
ber 1559, ZL 1, 55, that “religion among us is in the same state which I have often
described to you before. The doctrine is every where most pure; but as to ceremonies
and maskings, there is a little too much foolery. That little silver cross, of ill-omened ori-
gin, still maintains its place in the Queen’s Chapel. Wretched me! This thing will soon
be drawn into a precedent. There was at one time some hope of its being removed;
and we all of us diligently exerted ourselves, and still continue to do, that it might be so
… There seems to be far too much prudence, too much mystery, in the management
of these affairs; and God alone knows what will be the issue. The slow-paced horses
retard the chariot.” Those slow-paced horses were seen to be those in authority who
had not been in exile, e.g., bishops Richard Cheyney of Gloucester, William Downham
of Chester, Edmund Guest of Rochester, and Thomas Davies of St. Asaph. See Wenig,
Straightening the Altars, 23.
10 ZL 1, 63.
 the civil magistrate and religious uniformity 207

only will the churches be destitute of pastors, but you will give place to
wolves and anti-Christs.”11 Vermigli is hopeful that some of the defects
of the Settlement may be corrected, though perhaps not all.
With an echo of an argument made by Thomas Cranmer during the
Edwardine vestiarian disputation between John Hooper and Nicholas
Ridley, Vermigli urges Sampson to conform to the vestments rubric:
“As to the square cap and episcopal habit in ordinary use, I do not think
that there is need of much dispute, seeing it is unattended by supersti-
tion, and in that kingdom especially there may be a political reason for
its use.”12 Among the bishops present at the liturgy in the Chapel Royal
so vividly described by Sampson were the recently consecrated Marian
exiles Edmund Grindal, Richard Cox, and Edwin Sandys.13 Together
with them, many returned exiles of evangelical persuasion, including
Jewel, affirmed their decision to conform to use of the “Babylonish gar-
ments” required by the Act of Uniformity despite the objections many
had made in the early days of the new regime. Others, including Samp-
son, remained in dissent.14 Throughout the mounting controversy over
the continued use of distinctive clerical attire and traditional forms of
ceremonial, the so-called “relics of the Amorites,” Peter Martyr Ver-
migli was frequently consulted by both sides of the dispute, and appeals
to his authority, as we shall see, continued by members of both the
conformist and non-conformist parties long after his death in 1562.

11 ZL 2, 38–39.
12 Vermigli to Sampson, 1 February 1560, ZL 2, 39. In a letter written to Martin
Bucer concerning Hooper’s non-conformity, Cranmer puts the question “Whether he
that shal affirme that it is unlawfull or shal refuse to weare this apparel, offendeth
against god, for that he saieth that thing to be uncleane that God hath sanctified: and
offende against the magistrate, for that he disturbeth the politike order?” Whether it
be mortall sinne to transgresse civil lawes which be the commaundementes of civill magistrates. The
judgement of Philip Melancton in his Epitome of morall Philosophie. The resolution of D. Henry
Bullinger, and D. Rod[olph] Gualter, of D. Martin Bucer, and D. Peter Martyr, concerning thapparel
of Ministers, and other indifferent things (London: Richard Jugge, Printer to the Queenes
Maiestie, 1566), 47. See also Edmund Cox, ed., Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas
Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the PS,
1846), 428.
13 Parker, Grindal, Sandys, and Cox were consecrated on 19 and 21 December 1559.
14 According to John Strype, “Cox, Grindal, Horne, Sandys, Jewel, Parkhurst, and

Bentham [all of them returned exiles and appointed bishops under the Settlement of
1559] concluded unanimously after consultation not to desert their ministry for some
rites that were but a few, and not evil in themselves, especially since the doctrine of
the gospel remained pure and entire.” See Annals of the reformation and establishment of
religion, and other various occurrences in the church of England, during Queen Elizabeth’s happy reign
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1824), I.i.263.
208 chapter five

By 1563, the divergence of views is plainly reflected in the tone of

two letters sent to Heinrich Bullinger by Jewel and Sampson respec-
tively. According to Jewel, things “are going on successfully both as to
the affairs of religion, and of state”15 while to Sampson, writing just a
few months later, “affairs in England are in a most unhappy state; I
apprehend worse evils, not to say the worst: but we must meanwhile
serve the Lord Christ.”16 By the mid-1560s, controversy over the pro-
visions of the Elizabethan Act of Uniformity had begun to reach a
higher pitch. In 1564 the Queen wrote to Archbishop Parker deploring
that “diversity, variety, contention, and vain love of singularity, either
in our ministers or in the people, must needs provoke the displeasure of
Almighty God, and be to us, having the burden of government, discom-
fortable, heavy, and troublesome; and finally must needs bring danger
of ruin to our people and country.”17 Elizabeth chastises the Primate
that “these errors, tending to breed some schism or deformity in the
church, should have been stayed and appeased.” Perceiving that the
causes of schism have begun to increase, Elizabeth declares her royal
purpose:
We, considering the authority given to us of Almighty God for the
defence of the public peace, concord and truth of this his Church, and
how we are answerable for the same to the seat of his high justice, mean
not to endure or suffer any longer these evils thus to proceed, spread, and
increase in our realm, but have certainly determined to have all such
diversities, varieties, and novelties amongst them of the clergy and our
people as breed nothing but contention, offence, and breach of common
charity, and are also against the laws, good usages, and ordinances of
our realm, to be reformed and repressed and brought to one manner

15 5 March 1563, ZL 1, 123–125.

16 26 July 1563, ZL 1, 130–131.
17 See Correspondence of Matthew Parker, D.D., Archbishop of Canterbury, comprising letters

written by him and to him, 1535–1575, ed. by John Bruce and Thomas Perowne, PS
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1853), 223–227. The Queen further charges
her metropolitan with the task of ensuring that “the clergy observe, keep, and maintain
such order and uniformity in all the external rites and ceremonies, both for the Church
and for their own persons, as by laws, good usages, and orders, are already allowed,
well provided, and established. And if any superior officers shall be found hereto
disagreeable, if otherwise your discretion or authority shall not serve to reform them,
We will that you shall duly inform us thereof, to the end we may give indelayed order
for the same; for we intend to have no dissension or variety grow by suffering of persons
which maintain dissension to remain in authority; for so the sovereign authority which
we have under Almighty God should be violate and made frustrate, and we might be
well thought to bear the sword in vain.”
 the civil magistrate and religious uniformity 209

of uniformity through our whole realm and dominions, that our people
may thereby quietly honour and serve Almighty God in truth, concord,
peace, and quietness …
The controversy over vestments and the ornaments rubric proved to be
a breaking point for English Protestantism largely because the Queen’s
insistence upon conformity prompted prominent figures like Sampson
openly to question their submission to the Supreme Governor of the
church and to propose seeking further reforms by other means.18 By
March 1566, with the publication of Matthew Parker’s Advertisements in
direct response to the Queen’s reprimand, the threat of schism had
become considerably more palpable. In a letter to Bullinger Samp-
son puts the question of the Elizabethan Vestiarian Controversy with
great clarity.19 He begins by alluding to the Edwardine “contest about
habits, in which Cranmer, Ridley, and Hooper, most holy martyrs of
Christ were formerly wont to skirmish” and follows up with twelve key
questions: (1) Should a distinctive clerical habit be required in a truly
reformed church? (2) Is such prescription consistent with Christian lib-
erty? (3) Are “things indifferent” subject to coercion and (4) may new
ceremonies be introduced? (5) Were Jewish “sacerdotal” practices not
abolished by Christ; (6) can rites be borrowed from idolaters for use
in the reformed church; (7) can conformity to such rites be a matter
of necessity? (8) what if the ceremonies occasion offence? (9) What if
they are unedifying? (10) May such ceremonies be prescribed by the
Prince without the assent of the clergy? In the final two questions the
immanent threat of schism comes to the fore. Sampson contemplates
separation with the summary inquiry (11) “whether a man ought thus
to obey the decrees of the church; or on account of non-compliance,
supposing there is no alternative, to be cast out of the ministry?” And
(12) “whether good pastors, of unblemished life and doctrine, may right-
fully be removed from the ministry on account of non-compliance with
such ceremonies?”
Bullinger’s reply landed like a bomb-shell.20 In response to every one
of Sampson’s twelve questions, and to another similar set of questions

18 See Scott Wenig, Straightening the Altars: The Ecclesiastical Vision and Pastoral Achieve-

ments of the Progressive Bishops under Elizabeth I, 1559–1579, New York 2000, 111 ff.
19 Sampson to Bullinger, 16 February 1566, ZL 1, 153–155.
20 Heinrich Bullinger to Laurence Humphrey and Thomas Sampson, 1 May 1566,

ZL 1, 345–355. For a full discussion of the letter see Walter Phillips, “Henry Bullinger
and the Elizabethan Vestiarian Controversy: An Analysis of Influence,” Journal of
Religious History 2 (1981), 363–384.
210 chapter five

put by Sampson’s colleague Laurence Humphrey, President of Mag-

dalen College, Oxford,21 Bullinger sided unequivocally with Parker and
the Queen, both in his own name and also on behalf of Rudolph
Gualter. He affirms that clerical habits are acceptable “for the sake
of decency, and comeliness of appearance, or dignity and order,”22 that
they are allowable as “a matter of indifference and of civil order,”23
quotes Vermigli in support of their being “agreeable to the light of
nature,”24 and points out that the habits are retained “not by any popish
enactment, but by virtue of the royal edict”25 and that the Queen has
complete authority in the matter.26 Bullinger dismisses any suggestion
that separation or schism might be justified on the grounds of opposi-
tion to the provisions of the Act of Uniformity:
Since the Queen’s majesty only enjoins the wearing a cap and surplice,
which, as I have often repeated, she does not in any way make a matter
of religion; … I could wish that pious ministers would not make the
whole advancement of religion to depend upon this matter, as if it were
all in all; … For if the edifying of the church is the chief thing to be
regarded in this matter, we shall do the church a greater injury by
deserting it than by wearing the habits … I exhort you all, by Jesus
Christ our Lord, the Saviour, head, and king of his church, that every
one of you should duly consider with himself, whether he will not more
edify the church of Christ by regarding the use of habits for the sake of
order and decency, as a matter of indifference, and which hitherto has
tended somewhat to the harmony and advantage of the church; than
by leaving the church, on account of the vestiarian controversy, to be

21 See Laurence Humphrey to Henry Bullinger, 9 Feb. 1566, ZL 1, 151–152 where

seven points on the question are formulated. This discussion had been developing for
some considerable period. See Humphrey to Bullinger, 16 Aug. 1563, ZL 1, 133–134
where he requests Bullinger’s opinion “whether at the command of the sovereign, (the
jurisdiction of the pope having been abolished,) and for the sake of order, and not of
ornament, habits of this kind may be worn in church by pious men, lawfully and with
a safe conscience.”
22 ZL 1, 346–347.
23 ZL 1, 348, 349 “It is a matter of civil ordinance, and has respect only to decency

and order, in which things religious worship does not consist.”

24 ZL 1, 347. Bullinger notes at the outset that he had addressed the vestiarian

question “in a letter to the reverend master doctor Robert Horne, bishop of Winchester,
and briefly repeated the words of master Martyr.” See ZL 1, 341–344.
25 ZL 1, 348.
26 ZL 1, 353 “I can easily believe that wise and politic men are urgent for a

conformity of rites, because they think it will tend to concord, and there may be
one and the same church throughout all England; wherein, provided nothing sinful
is intermixed, I do not see why you should oppose yourselves with hostility to harmless
regulations of that kind.”
 the civil magistrate and religious uniformity 211

occupied hereafter, if not by evident wolves, at least by ill-qualified and

evil ministers.27
For Bullinger, certainly no friend of popish ceremony and other such
“relics of the Amorites,” the necessary requirement of preaching the
gospel nonetheless takes unconditional priority over the retention or
abolition of things “of themselves” indifferent. Separation is a greater
injury than the burden of conformity. In addition, the constitutional
right of the sovereign to determine such matters indifferent is to be
respected as pertaining to “civil regulation and good order”. In obser-
vations directed specifically to a question on the necessity of conformity
raised by Thomas Sampson, Bullinger replies that “Wise and politic
men are urgent for a conformity of rites, because they think it will tend
to concord, and that there may be one and the same church through-
out all England; wherein, provided nothing sinful is intermixed, I do
not see why you should oppose yourselves with hostility to harmeless
regulations of that kind.”28
Bullinger sent copies of his letter to the former exiles who had been
resident in Zurich and had since become bishops. Edmund Grindal saw
to it that the letter was published in Latin and English for benefit of the
lower clergy.29 Moreover, according to Grindal and Horne, owing to
Bullinger’s strong endorsement of vestiarian conformity
Some of the clergy, influenced by your judgment and authority, have
relinquished their former intention of deserting their ministry. And many
also of the laity have begun to entertain milder sentiments, now that they
have understood that our ceremonies were by no means considered by
you as unlawful, though you do not yourselves adopt them; but of this,
before the publication of your letter, no one could have persuaded them.
There are nevertheless some, among whom are masters Humphrey and
Sampson, and others, who still continue in their former opinion. Nothing
would be easier than to reconcile them to the Queen, if they would but
be brought to change their mind; but until they do this, we are unable to
effect any thing with Her Majesty, irritated as she is by this controversy.30

27 ZL 1, 351, 353, 355.

28 ZL 1, 353.
29 Grindal to Bullinger, from London, 27 August 1566, ZL 1, 168.
30 Grindal to Bullinger, 27 Aug. 1566, ZL 1, 168. See also Grindal and Horne to

Bullinger and Gualter, dated at London, 6 Feb. 1567, ZL 1, 175. “Your erudite letter to
Humphrey and Sampson, so well adapted for allaying both our diversities of opinion
respecting the habits, and our erbal altercations and disputes, we received with the
greatest satisfaction … [it] has persuaded some of the clergy who were thinking of
withdrawing from the ministry on account of the affair of the habits, (which was the
212 chapter five

The letter goes on to lament that some of the clergy had been
deprived owing to their non-conformity, although “not many in num-
ber; and though pious, yet certainly not very learned. For among those
who have been deprived, [Thomas] Sampson alone can be regarded
as a man whose learning is equal to his piety.”31 In early Septem-
ber Bullinger and Gualter wrote to Bishops Grindal and Horne32 and,
in the week following, to Francis Russell, Earl of Bedford, to express
their regret owing to the publication of their response to Sampson’s
and Humphrey’s questions: “Indeed it is a cause of most just grief,
that godly brethren, to whom we desired rather to afford counsel and
consolation than to occasion any trouble, are weighed down by the
authority of our names.” They entreat Bedford to employ his influence
“with the Queen and the nobility of the realm, that the reformation of
the Church of England, begun with the great admiration of the whole
world, be not disfigured by new filth and the restored relics of wretched
popery. For should that be the case, not only will the mark of inconsis-
tency be branded upon many in your most flourishing kingdom, but the
weak will also be offended; and to the neighbouring churches of Scot-
land, France, and Flanders, who are yet suffering under the cross, will
a scandal be afforded, the punishment of which will doubtless redound
to the authors of it.”33
At several points in his letter, Bullinger appeals directly to the author-
ity of Vermigli. Indeed the arguments mounted are for the most part
derived from a letter written by the Italian reformer to John Hooper
sixteen years earlier.34 During the crisis stemming from his refusal to

only occasion of controversy and cause of contention among us,) not to suffer the
churches to be deprived of their services on so slight a ground; and it has established
and brought them over to your [viz. Bullinger’s] opinion … As to the morose, and
those who cannot endure any thing but what they have themselves determined upon,
although your letter has not satisfied them, it has been so far of use, that they are either
less disposed or less able to load the godly with invectives.”
31 ZL 1, 176.
32 ZL 1, 357–360.
33 Henry Bullinger and Rodolph Gualter to Francis Lord Russell, dated at Zurich,

11 Sept. 1566, ZL 1, 138.

34 The original of Vermigli’s letter to Hooper, 4 November 1550, is in the MSS

of John More, Bishop of Ely, Cambridge University Library, Mm 4.14, Art. 2. It

was published in Petri Martyris Epistolæ Theologicæ, ed. Robert Masson (London: John
Kingston, 1576), fol. 1085; translated by Anthonie Marten in Peter Martyr, Divine Epistles
(London: John Day, 1583), fo. 116, col. 2. See also John Strype, Memorials of the Most
Reverend Father in God Thomas Cranmer, sometime Lord Archbishop of Canterbury: wherein the
history of the church, and reformation of it …, are greatly illustrated (London: Richard Chiswell,
 the civil magistrate and religious uniformity 213

be consecrated Bishop of Gloucester according to the prescribed cere-

monies and wearing the canonical dress, Hooper had himself requested
Martyr’s counsel on the question of his nonconformity.35 It should be
remembered that Hooper had lived at Zurich in the late 1540s where
he became a friend of Bullinger. After returning to England, where he
was hailed as “England’s future Zwingli,” Hooper was made chaplain
to Protector Somerset and nominated to the bishopric of Gloucester in
1550.36 After engaging in an extended disputation with Nicholas Rid-
ley on the lawfulness of “those Aaronic habits” and being confined for
almost three weeks in the Fleet Prison by order of the Privy Coun-
cil, Hooper submitted unconditionally and was duly consecrated to his
See.37 In a letter to Martin Bucer, Vermigli relates how he had met
with Hooper on three separate occasions at Lambeth Palace and how
he “exerted every effort to break down his determination” to resist
the habits and to secure his conformity.38 Against this background of
Edwardine vestiarian strife antagonists on both sides of the Elizabethan
debate of the mid-1560s honed their polemics.
Vermigli’s importance in all of this is underscored by the wider use
made of his writing on the vestiarian question by proponents on both
sides. In The Unfolding of the Pope’s Attyre, the first salvo in a furious

1694; new edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1812), I:304–307. The text of the letter in
English translation is also printed in Goreham, Gleanings of a Few Scattered Ears, during the
period of the Reformation in England and of the Times immediately succeeding; AD 1533 – AD 1588
(London: Bell and Daldy, 1857), 187–196.
35 See Hooper to Bullinger, 29 June 1550, OL 87, where he explains his refusal “both

by reason of the shameful and impious form of the oath, which all who choose to
undertake the function of a bishop are compelled to put up with, and also on acct
of those Aaronic habits which they still retain in that calling, and are used to wear,
not only at the administration of the sacraments, but also at public prayers.” For a
full account of the episode see J.H. Primus, The Vestments Controversy: An Historical Study
of the Earliest Tensions within the Church of England in the Reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth
(Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1960), chap. 1. For Hooper’s account of his reasons for vestiarian
nonconformity, see Constantin Hopf, “Bishop Hooper’s Notes to the King’s Council,”
Journal of Theological Studies XLIV (Jan. – April 1943), 194–199.
36 Letter from Micronius to Pellican, Simler Collection of MSS, S. 70, 136, Zentral-

bibliothek Zurich. See Primus, Vestments Controversy, 5.

37 Hooper was committed to the Fleet on 27 Jan 1551 “Upon a letter from tharche-

busshop of Canterbury, that Mr. Hoper can not be brought to any conformytie, but
rather persevering in his obstinacie coveteth to prescribe order and necessarie lawes of
his heade, it was agreed he shulde be committed to the Fleete.” Acts of the Privy Council,
199–200. Nearly three weeks later Hooper wrote a letter of submission. See Bishop
Hooper to Archbishop Cranmer, 15 February 1550, in George C. Gorham, Gleanings,
233–235.
38 Vermigli to Bucer, 10 January 1551, in Gorham, Gleanings, 231–233.
214 chapter five

spate of polemical tracts published in response to Parker’s Advertise-

ments, Robert Crowley invokes the Florentine’s authority in a full-frontal
assault on the ceremonies.39 Crowley points out quite correctly that
Vermigli was willing to endure the “remnaunts of the Amorites” for
a season, but nevertheless looked forward to their eventual abolition.40
Crowley even cites Ridley and Jewel in support of his nonconformity.
In a tract published shortly afterwards intended to refute Crowley, both
Martyr’s and Bucer’s letters to Hooper of 1550 are reprinted.41 On 3
May 1566, just two days after their reply to Sampson and Humphrey,
Bullinger and Gualter sent a blind copy of the letter to Bishop Robert
Horne and asked that it be sent on to Grindal, Jewel, Parkhurst, San-
dys, and Pilkington, all of whom had been Bullinger’s guests as exiles
in Zurich, and all of whom were now sitting side by side on the Eliza-
bethan bench of bishops.42 The letter was published, somewhat to the

39 Robert Crowley, A briefe discourse against the outwarde apparell and Ministring Garmentes

of the Popishe Church ([Emden: Egidius van der Erve], 1566). See sig. Cii verso: “And Peter
Martyr, whose iudgement hath in this matter bene oftentimes asked, dothe more than
once in his writings call [the ceremonies] Reliquias Amorræorum, leavings or remnaunts of
the Amorites. And although he do in some case thinke that they maye be borne with
for a season: yet in our case, he would not have them suffered to remaine in the Church
of Christ.” See Strype, Annals of the Reformation, I.ii.163.
40 This argument for a “temporizing” solution is characteristic of Vermigli’s letters

to Sampson in 1559 and 1560. See, e.g., Vermigli to Sampson, 4 November 1559, ZL 2,
32–33: “Though I have always been opposed to the use of ornaments of this kind, yet
as I perceived the present danger of your being deprived of the office of preaching, and
that there will perhaps be some hope that, like as altars and images have been removed,
so this resemblance of the mass may also be taken away, provided you and others
who may obtain bishopricks, will direct all your endeavours to that object, (which
would make less progress, should another succeed in your place, who not only might
be indifferent about putting away those relics, but would rather defend, cherish, and
maintain them …)”.
41 The pamphlet collectanea, attributed to Archbishop Matthew Parker, appeared

under the title A brief examination for the tyme, of a certaine declaration, lately put in print, in the
name and defence of certaine Ministers in London, refusing to weare the apparel prescribed by the lawes
and orders of the Realme … (London: Richard Jugge, 1566): “In the ende is reported, the
judgement of two notable learned fathers, M. doctour Bucer, and M. doctour Martir,
sometime in eyther universities here of England the kynges readers and professours
of divinitie, translated out of the originals, written by their owne handes, purposely
debatying this controversie. Paul. Rom. 14, I besech you brethren marke them which
cause division, and geve occasions of evyll, contrary to the doct which ye have learned,
and avoyde them: for they that are such serve not the Lorde Jesus Christ, but their own
bellyes, and with sweete and flattering wordes deceive the hartes of the Innocentes.”
42 See Bullinger to Horne, 3 May 1566, ZL 1, 356–357: “We send our letter on

the vestiarian controversy, written by us to the learned men, and our honoured godly
brethren, N. and M. [viz. Sampson and Humphrey]. And we send it to you that ye
 the civil magistrate and religious uniformity 215

consternation of its authors, who had been compelled to take sides in

a confrontation between their mutual friends.43 As Walter Phillips has
argued, from this point forward Bullinger and Gualter were cast in the
role of defenders of the Elizabethan Settlement while the opponents of
conformity, such as Sampson and Humphrey, were “compelled to look
more and more to Geneva” for succour.44
Appeals to the authority of Vermigli were by no means restricted to
supporters of the Establishment. His name appears on the masthead
of two more counter blasts in the pamphlet war of 1566, one on
either side of the dispute. The letter to Hooper appears once again
in a conformist tract titled Whether it be mortall sinne to transgresse civil
lawes which be the commaundementes of civill magistrates, which bears all
the marks of government approval, published by Richard Jugge, the
Queen’s printer and, like A brief examination for the tyme, may even have
been composed by Parker himself.45 The tract reprints both Bullinger’s
letter to Sampson and Humphrey and the letter to Bishop Horne as
well as a number of tracts related to the Edwardine controversy of 1550,
including Vermigli’s letter to Hooper. The latter, a nonconformist tract,
is addressed anonymously to “all such as unfainedly hate (in zeale of a
Godly love) all monuments, and remnauntes of Idolatrie” and follows
the now well established model of an assemblage of “gleanings” from
various “learned men,” Vermigli included.46 That Vermigli’s authority
was of considerable consequence in the Elizabethan vestiarian debate
there can be no doubt whatever.

may understand that we would not have any private communication with the brethren,
without the knowledge of you, the principal ministers.”
43 The judgement of the godly and learned H. Bullinger declaring it lawfull to weare the apparell

prescribed, two parts (London: W. Seres, 1566). See Grindal and Horn to Bullinger
and Gualter, ZL I, 175, which announces the publication of Bullinger’s letter. “We
have also undertaken, not however without due consideration, and with the omission
of the names of our brethre, to have it printed and published, from which step we
have derived the good effect we expected. For it has been of much use to sound and
sensible men, who look to the general design and object of the gospel; and has certainly
persuaded some of the clergy, who were thinking of withdrawing from the ministry on
account of the affair of the habits …”.
44 Phillips, “Henry Bullinger and the Elizabethan Vestiarian Controversy,” 382.
45 Whether it be mortall sinne to transgresse civil lawes which be the commaundementes of civill

magistrates. The judgement of Philip Melancton in his Epitome of morall Philosophie. The resolution of
D. Henry Bullinger, and D. Rod[olph] Gualter, of D. Martin Bucer, and D. Peter Martyr, concerning
thapparel of Ministers, and other indifferent things (London: Richard Jugge, Printer to the
Queenes Maiestie, 1566).
46 The Fortresse of Fathers, ernestlie defending the puritie of Religion, and Ceremonies, by the trew

exposition of certaine places of Scripture: against such as wold bring in an Abuse of Idol stouff, and
216 chapter five

What does remain something of a puzzle, however, is the apparent

ease with which Vermigli is cited as an authority on both sides of what
is undoubtedly the bitterest clash of ecclesiological principle to face the
Church of England in the first decade following the enactment of the
Elizabethan Settlement. Let us look more closely at the argument of
his letter to Hooper. From the outset Vermigli expresses his agreement
with Hooper’s main purpose:
I was not a litle delighted with your singular and ardent zeale, whereby
you indeuour that Christian Religion may againe aspire to the uncorrupt
and plaine purenesse. For what ought to bee more desired of all godlie
men, than that all things may by litle and litle be cut off which haue
but litle or nothing at all that can be referred unto sounde edifying, and
which of godlie mindes are iudged to bee ouerchargeable and superflu-
ous? Verilie to saie, as touching mine owne selfe, I take it grieuouslie to
bee plucked awaie from that plaine and pure custome, which you knowe
all we used a great while together at Argentine [Strasbourg], where the
uarietie of garments bout holie seruices were taken awaie. That custome
haue I alwayes most allowed of all other, as that which is the purer and
most sauoreth of the Apostles Church.47
Yet for all his agreement with Hooper “in the chiefe and principall
point,” Vermigli refuses to allow that the use of traditional vestments
and ceremonies is “fatal” or contrary to Scripture on the ground that
they are of themselves “altogether indifferent.” Vermigli is careful to
distinguish personal judgement and sensibility from the expression of

of thinges indifferent, and do appoinct th’authority of Princes and Prelates larger then the trueth is.
Translated out of Latine into English for there sakes that understand no Latine by I.B.
([Emden: Egidius van der Erve], 1566).
47 Vermigli, Divine Epistles, transl. Anthony Marten, fols. 116–117. See also Vermigli,

Epistolæ Theologicæ, fol. 1085 and Whether it be mortall sinne, 61. For an account of a
Reformed church purged of all images, statues, altars, ornaments and music see Lud-
wig Lavater’s description of the practice of the Church of Zurich in Ludwig Lavater,
De Ritibus et Institutis Ecclesiæ Tigurinæ (Zurich: Christopher Froschauer, 1559), Art. 6,
fol. 3: “Templa Tigurinorum ab omnibus simulachris & statuis repurgata sunt. Altaria
nulla habent, sed tantum necessaria instrumenta: veluti, cathedram sacram, subsellia,
baptisterium, mensam quæ apponitur in medium quando celebranda est coena, lucer-
nas, quarum usus est hyemne quando contractiores sunt dies in antelucanis coetibus.
Templa non corruscant auro, argento, gemmis, ebore. Hæc enim non vera sunt tem-
plorum ornamenta. Organa & alia instrumenta musica, in temples nulla sunt, eo quod
ex eorum strepitu, verborum dei nihil intelligatur. Vexilla quoque & alia anathemata
ex temples sublata sunt.” [quoted Primus, 4] Vermigli had a fairly extensive corre-
spondence with Lavater. See letters 29, 30, and 31 in Divine Epistles, fols. 110–112,
152.
 the civil magistrate and religious uniformity 217

public will.48 Furthermore, vehement contention leads to a dangerous

confusion of the “necessarie points” of salvation with “matter indiffer-
ent”:
sometimes in these things indifferent, some things, although they be
grievous and burthensome, are to bee borne withall so long as it cannot
otherwise bee, least if wee contend for them more bitterly than behoou-
eth, it may be a hindrance to the proceeding of the Gospel, and those
things which in their owne nature be indifferent, may be taught by our
vehement contention to be wicked.49

For Vermigli opposition to the ornaments rubric is simply bad strat-

egy from an evangelical standpoint. His council to Hooper continues:
“Nowe when there is brought in a change in the chiefe and necessarie
points of religion, and that with so great disquietnesse, if wee shoulde
also declare those things to be wicked (impius) which be things indif-
ferent, al mens mindes in a manner woulde be so alienated from us,
as they woulde no more shewe themselues to be attentiue and pacient
hearers of sounde doctrine and necessarie sermons.” Moreover, opposi-
tion to the διφορα as ungodly in principle leads to a condemnation
of many Churches “which are not straunge from the Gospel.”
Vermigli then proceeds to address Hooper’s several arguments
against the adiaphoristic principle. First is the contention that the Gos-
pel abolishes the ceremonies of the Law. Vermigli assents to the replace-
ment of the Aaronic sacraments by the Eucharist, but adds that certain
acts, “agreeable unto the light of nature,” are nevertheless continued,
such as the payment of tithes, the singing of psalms, the custom of
prophesying, and the observance of feast days in commemoration of
the nativity, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. “Shoulde all
these thinges be abolished, because they be steppes of the olde lawe?
By all these things I thinke you see that all the thinges belonging to
Aarons priesthood are not to be abrogated, as nothing of them may
be retayned or used.”50 For Vermigli, extreme opposition to the cer-

48 “Although I saide, that I thinke a diversitie of garments ought not to be retained

in holy services, yet neuerthelesse would I not say, that it is a wicked (impius) thing, so
as I would be so bold to condemne whomsoever I shoulde perceiue to use the same.
Certianlie if I were so perswaded I would never have communicated with the Church
here in England, wherein there is as yet kept still such a diversitie.” See Divine Epistles,
fol. 117.
49 Divine Epistles, fol. 117.
50 Divine Epistles, fol. 118.
218 chapter five

emonies imperils Christian liberty.51 In the spirit of this liberty pagan

cultic practices were taken over by the early Christians and use of
vestments (such as the pallium) affirmed by the Fathers long before
the establishment of the “tyrannie of the Pope.” Even verses of the
pagan poets “dedicated unto the Muses and unto diuerse Goddes”
were employed by Church writers when they were deemed “commodi-
ous, and excellent and true.”52 The detested vestments are indeed a
human invention, yet all human inventions, Vermigli argues, are not at
once to be condemned.53 On the contrary, symbols and signs are appro-
priate to Christian worship. “The ministers of the church be Angels
and messengers of God as Malachie testifieth. And Angelles haue in a
manner alwayes shewed themselues cloathed in white garmentes. How
can we depriue the Church of this libertie,” Vermigli asks, “that it may
not signifie some thing by her actions and rites, the same being doone,
without placing any woorship of God therein, modestlie and in fewe
thinges, so as the people of Christ be not burthened with ceremonies,
and that better things be not letted.”54 He goes on to compare this
symbolic function of clerical vestments to the “visible words used in
the sacraments”: “unto which end the signes of the sacramentes seeme
to haue beene deuised, that euen by the uerie sight and sense wee
maie bee rauished to thinke of diuine thinges. Neither doe I thinke that
tyrannie is straight waie brought in if any indifferent thing be taken in
hande to bee doone in the Church, and be constantlie kept of manie …

51 Divine Epistles, fol. 119: “Doubtlesse we must take heede, that we presse not the

Church of Christ with too much bondage so as it may not be lawefull to use anie
thing that belonged to the Pope. Certainely our forefathers receiued the temples of
Idolles, and converted them into holie houses wherein Christ should be worshipped,
and the reuenues consecrated to the gods of the Gentils, to plays of the theater, and to
vestall virgins, they tooke to maintaine ministers of the Church: whereas these thinges
did first serve not onelie Antichrist, but the devill himselfe. Yea and the uerses of the
Poets which were dedicated unto the Muses, and unto diverse Goddes or unto fables
to be doone in the Theater for pacifying of Goddes: when they be commodious, and
excellent and true, the Ecclesiasticall writers use them, and that by the example of the
Apostle, who disdained not to cite Menander, Aratus, and Epimenides, and that euen in
the holie scripture which hee delivered; and those words which otherwise were profane,
hee adapted to divine service.” In his sermon on the Areopagus in Acts 17:22–34, Paul
quotes from Epimenides’ Cretica (“For in him we live and move and have our being”)
and Aratus’ Phænomena (“For we are also his offspring”). In 1 Corinthians 15:33, he cites
Menander’s comedy Thais (“Evil company corrupts good habits”).
52 Divine Epistles, fol. 119.
53 Divine Epistles, fol. 119.
54 Divine Epistles, fol. 119; compare Richard Hooker, Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical Polity

V.78; Folger Library Edition, 2:435.20.

 the civil magistrate and religious uniformity 219

This generallie is enough to knowe by faith, that thinges indifferent

cannot defile them which liue with a pure and syncere minde and con-
science.”55
Vermigli’s staunch support of vestiarian conformity is all the more
remarkable for being in a profound sense contrary to his own evi-
dent personal inclination and sensibility. Given, however, that from
Vermigli’s theological perspective the gospel principle of Christian lib-
erty was itself at stake in this controversy concerning the use of things
indifferent, the theologically reasonable course demanded a thorough
defence of Cranmer’s policy. Vermigli’s position is grounded in his
interpretation of the first principles of Reformed ecclesiological ortho-
doxy, especially with regard to the crucial distinction between mat-
ters necessary and matters merely accessory to salvation. By keeping
these two matters in clear and evangelical distinction, he allows him-
self to be led by what might be described as a “theological neces-
sity” to a conclusion which came to epitomize the very substance of
the Elizabethan Settlement. Diarmaid MacCulloch and Scott Wenig
have recently restated the old Tractarian canard that the Elizabethan
Church of England sought to achieve a middle way between Rome and
Geneva, the so-called Anglican via media.56 According to MacCulloch,
the Settlement of 1559 represents a “theological cuckoo in the nest.”57
That is to say, the Church of England was an essentially “Catholic”
structure operated by a “Reformed” clerical leadership. On this view
of the matter, “the story of Anglicanism, and the story of the dis-
comfiture of Elizabeth’s first bishops, is the result of the fact that this
tension between Catholic structure and Protestant theology was never
resolved.”58 According to this interpretation of the Elizabethan Settle-
ment, the criticism levelled against the Establishment by such radical
critics as Thomas Sampson, Laurence Humphrey, and Robert Crow-

55 Divine Epistles, fol. 120. Compare Vermigli’s position to Richard Hooker’s, for

example: “The sensible things which Religion hath hallowed, are resemblances framed
according to things spiritually understood, whereunto they serve as a hand to lead and
a way to direct.” Lawes IV.1.3; Folger Library Edition, 1:275.21–24.
56 Scott Wenig, Straightening the Altars: The Ecclesiastical Vision and Pastoral Achievements

of the Progressive Bishops under Elizabeth I, 1559–1579 (New York: Peter Lang, 2000), 10:
“Forced by their own theologically-based Erastianism to submit to Crown’s will, the
bishops’ drive for an authentically Reformed English church was undermined at the
national level.”
57 Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Later Reformation in England, 1547–1603, 2nd ed. (New

York: Palgrave Press, 2000), 29.

58 Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Later Reformation, 29.
220 chapter five

ley is taken to be representative of Reformed orthodoxy. On our read-

ing of Vermigli’s and Bullinger’s contribution to the vestiarian contro-
versy, however, as well as to the discourse on the relation between civil
and ecclesiastical jurisdiction more generally, the question plainly arises
whether the claim to Reformed orthodoxy may in fact lie more plausi-
bly with the Queen and her loyal bishops. For as we have seen, it is the
latter who succeeded in enlisting the two pre-eminent Reformed divines
of Zurich in support of the key elements of the Elizabethan Settlement
of 1559. Vermigli’s letter to Hooper, along with Bullinger’s to Sampson
and Humphrey, suggests that far from intruding a evangelical cuckoo
into a Romish nest, the architects of the Elizabethan Settlement may
very well have succeeded in demonstrating—at least to their sixteenth-
century contemporaries—the essential consistency of the ecclesiology
of the Settlement with the principles of magisterial Reformed ortho-
doxy as formulated by the Schola Tigurina.
 text

HEINRICH BULLINGER

Concerning thapparel of Ministers (1566)

Bullinger’s Prefatory Letter

To the reuerende fathers in Christe D. Rob[ert] Horne Bishop of
Winchester, D. Ed[mund] Grindal Bishop of London, D. Ioh[n] Par-
custe B. of Norwich, his honorable Lordes, and most deare brethren in
Englande.1
Ryght reuerende honorable Lordes and dearely beloued brethren,
the Lorde Jesus blesse you, and preserue you from all euyll. We sende
you here our opinion, concerning matters of apparel, written to our
worshipfull frende maister. N. and maister. M. those godly and learned
men.2 And for that cause we sende it unto you, that you might under-
stande, we deale not with our brethren priuily, without your knowledge,
who are the princiapall and cheefe ministers, and that so muche as in

1 The text which appears below of Bullinger’s letter to Robert Horne, Edmund

Grindal, and John Parkhurst—of whom Horne and Parkhurst had been guests in
Bullinger’s house at Zurich during the period of the Marian exile—first appeared in
English translation in a pamphlet collectanea published at the height of the Vestiarian
Controversy and whose compilation is traditionally attributed to Matthew Parker,
Archbishop of Canterbury: Whether it be mortall sinne to transgresse civil lawes which be the
commaundementes of civill magistrates. The judgement of Philip Melancton in his Epitome of morall
Philosophie. The resolution of D. Henry Bullinger, and D. Rod[olph] Gualter, of D. Martin Bucer, and
D. Peter Martyr, concerning thapparel of Ministers, and other indifferent things (London: Richard
Jugge, Printer to the Queenes Maiestie, 1566), 27–46. See also The judgement of the godly
and learned H. Bullinger declaring it lawfull to weare the apparell prescribed, two parts (London:
W. Seres, 1566). See ZL 1, 356–357.
2 Study of the correspondence confirms that the anonymous initials ‘N.’ and ‘M.’

plainly refer to Thomas Sampson, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford (deprived on

26 May 1565 for non-conformity), and Laurence Humphrey, President of Magdalen
College, Oxford, who appealed to Bullinger at the height of the Vestiarian Controversy
in 1565–1566 with a list of questions on the key matters held in dispute. See Laurence
Humphrey to Bullinger, 9 February 1566, ZL I, 151–152 and Thomas Sampson to
Bullinger, 16 February 1566, ZL I, 153–155 for the substantive questions addressed by
Bullinger in his response. This identification of ‘N.’ and ‘M.’ is confirmed by Bullinger
and Gualter in their letter to Grindal and Horne, 6 Sept. 1566, ZL 1, 357.
222 chapter five

us lyeth, we seeke the unitie and concorde of your congregations,

in all respectes. And we heartely beseeche almightie God, to have
a speciall regarde of your [28] estate, and to continue you in one
consent and unitie. We earnestly exhort your, right honorable and
deare brethren, to be carefull for those faythfull ministers and learned
menne for they haue commonly their affections. For which cause the
apostle warneth us, that one helpe to beare anothers burthen.3 You
may by your aucthoritie do very muche with the most noble Lady your
Queene: bryng it therefore to passe with her Maiestie, that our good
brethren may be reconciled and restored againe. And we also beseeche
that you, D. Horne, our good lorde, and deare brother, that as soone
as these my letters may be deliuered, ye cause them to be sent to the
Bishop of Norwiche, to communicate them to D. Juel, to D. Sandes,
and to D. Pilkinton,4 to whom also I purpose to write at the next mart
at Franckforte by gods grace. These I have written in haste aswel in
maister Gualters name, as in myn owne, sendyng them to Basile, from
thence to be conueyed to Antwarpe. And we hartily desire you to sende
us word, whether ye haue receaued them or no. Fare ye well ryght
reuerend fathers. The Lorde blesse you, and your labours.

From Tigurine this third of Maye. M.D.Lxvi.

H. Bullinger your
Very frende

We pray you, reverend master Horne, to communicate this letter also to

the illustrious personage, Edmund Grindal, bishop of London, whom,
although he is not personally known to us, as you are, we love, and
desire to be loved by him in return. Again and again, farewell.5
[29]
To maister N. and M.6

3 Galatians 6: 2.
4 To bishops John Parkhurst of Norwich, John Jewel of Salisbury, Edwin Sandys of
Worcester, and John Pilkington of Durham. All had been guests of Bullinger in Zurich
during the Marian exile.
5 This postscript was omitted from the version published in Whether it be mortall sinne.

See ZL 1, 357.
6 At this point begins the letter addressed by Bullinger and Gualter to Humphrey

and Sampson, ZL 1, 345–355.

 text: bullinger, concerning thapparel of ministers 223

The Lorde Iesu blesse you right worshipful and welbeloued breth-
ren, and preserue you from all euyll. I haue receaued your letters, in
the which you doe seeme to complayne, that my aunswer unto your
question was ouer short and brief.7 Verily my brother, I saw no cause
then, neyther do I see any yet, why I shoulde haue written those letters
any larger. For you only required to knowe my iudgement, touching
the matter of apparel, for the which ye now contende in England.
Unto which question I thought I should answere in few wordes: for so
muche as in fewe wordes I coulde declare my iudgement. And then also
I understoode, that D. Peter Martyr, of most happie remembraunce,
handled the same question at Oxforde,8 and heare too many tymes

7 Laurence Humphrey wrote to Bullinger on 9 February 1566 complaining about

the enforcement of conformity in the matter of ecclesiastical habits. See ZL I, 151–

152: “I again and again entreat your piety to reply in few words to those little ues-
tions of mine; first, whether laws respecting habits may properly be prescribed to
churchmen, so as to distinguish them from the laity in shape, colour, &c? Secondly,
whether the ceremonial worship of the Levitical priesthood is to be reintroduced into
the church of Christ? Thirdly, whether in respect of habits and external rites, it is
allowable to have any thing in common with the papists, and whether Christians may
borrow ceremonies from any counterfeit and hostile church? Fourthly, whether the dis-
tinguishing apparel of the priesthood is to be worn [upon all occasions] like a com-
mon dress? Whether this does not savour of monkery, popery, and Judaism? Fifthly,
whether those persons who have till now enjoyed their liberty, can with a safe con-
science, by the authority of a royal edict, involve in this bondage both themselves and
the church? Sixthely, whether the clerical dress of the papists may be regarded as a
matter of indifference? Seventhly, whether the habit is to be worn, rather than the
office deserted? I had sent both to master Beza and yourself some other questions;
I know not whether you received them. I entreat you to condescend to explain your
judgment and opinion a little more fully as soon as possible; and also to touch upon
and note the reasons upon which it is founded. You see that it is the Lernæan Hydra,
or the tail of popery. You see too what the relics of the Amorites have produced. You
see my importunity. Confer, I beseech you, on the whole matter with master Gual-
ter and your colleagues, and write their opinion either to me or master Sampson.
Oxford, 9 February 1565, according to the English computation. [Until the intro-
duction of the new, i.e. Gregorian style, in 1752, the year in England commenced 25
March.] May Christ long preserve you to his church in health and happiness! Your
most attached, Laurence Humphrey.” [my italics] See also Humphrey’s earlier let-
ter to Bullinger of 16 Aug. 1563 in which he broaches the same subject. ZL 1, 133–
134.
8 Martyr’s response to the questions of the vestiarian controversy were composed

during the period of John Hooper’s period of imprisonment in 1550 for resistance to the
canonical dress required for his consecration to the See of Gloucester. It was published
in Whether it be mortall sinne, 61–80 and in another translation by Anthonie Marten (ed.),
Another Collection of certeine Divine matters and doctrines of the same M[aster] D[octor] Peter Martyr
(London: H. Denman et al, 1583), 116–120.
224 chapter five

at large, whereto I could say no more. And I remember also, that

in my letters unto you, brother M.9 I made mention of my opinion
herein. And that I may nowe speake a worde or twaine what I thinke
hereof: Surely, I like not in any wyse, that (yf ye were commaunded) ye
shoulde say seruice at an aulter rather burthened, then beauified with
the image of [30] a crucifixe in massing apparel, that is, in albe, and
in a vestment, which hath the picture of Christ crucified hanging on
the back. And so farre as I can perceive by my letters returned out of
Englande, there is no contention now of any such garment. But the
question is whether it be lawfull for Ministers of the Gospel to weare
a round cap or a square, or to put on a white robe called a surplesse,
whereby the Minister may be decerned from the vulgare sort? And
whether a Minister ought rather to leaue his holye calling, then to
weare such apparel?10 Touching whiche question, I wrote my mynde
the last mart, unto the reuerende father my lorde R[obert] Horne
B[ishop] of Winchester briefly repeating D[r] Martyrs wordes.11 My
felowe minister and welbeloued kinsman D[r] Rodolphe Gualter, wrote
unto hym also not long before, a coppie wherof I send here inclosed
unto you, and to the rest of our brethren.12 Wherefore, yf ye wyll heare
us, and be desirous to know our iudgement concerning this matter of
apparel, as you signified unto me the last mart you were: loe you haue
our iudgement in that Epistle, whereunto yf you wyll not agree, we are
heartily sorie: and seeing we haue none other counsel, we moste hartily
and incessantly pray to god, who is in all thynges, and at all tymes to be
called upon, that he vouchsafe by his holy grace and power, to comfort
and helpe our miserable state.
You brother N. [Humphrey] proposed a fewe such questions,13 but
our brother M. [Sampson] heaped together a great many more of
the same argument.14 Albeit I, according to my simple skil, did neuer
allowe to have matters distracted into so many questions, and to be
entangled with so many doubtes, which otherwise being more plaine

9 Namely Thomas Sampson.

10 Humphrey’s and Sampsons’ first question. See ZL 1, 151 and 153.
11 Bullinger to Horne, ZL 1, 341–344. See letter of Peter Martyr Vermigli, dated 4

Nov. 1550, Epistolæ Theologicæ, fols. 116–120.

12 See ZL 1, 141–143.
13 Humphrey to Bullinger, 9 Feb. 1566, ZL 1, 151–152. Laurence Humphrey, Pres-

ident of Magdalen College, Oxford. Unlike Sampson, Humphrey managed to avoid

deprivation for nonconformity.
14 Sampson to Bullinger, 16 Feb. 1566, ZL 1, 153–155.
 text: bullinger, concerning thapparel of ministers 225

by them selues, might be more easily resolved: yet notwithstanding,

I wyl write downe a lytle to euerye one of them, that herein also I
may satisfie you my worshipful and deare brethren, as much as lyeth in
my lacke of utteraunce, and rather dull, then quicke and sharpened
wit. And I beseeche you, that you woulde accept in good part this
my doing, as of your brother, and one that unfainedly loueth you,
and to iudge therof with a quiet mynde, voyde of all affections. For
my part I utterly abhorre all contentions, and desire nothing more
humblye of almyghtie God, then that it might please him to remoue
[32] all dissention and strife farre from his Church which from the first
beginning hath marueylously hurt true godlynes, and as it were torne
and rent the Churche in peeces, were it neuer so quiet and flourishing.

Whereas it is demaunded, whether lawes ought to be enioyned on Ecclesiasticall

persons for wearyng apparel, that thereby they may be knowen from the lay people? 15
I aunswere, that there is ambiguitie and doubt in the worde, ought: for
in case it be understoode for that whiche is necessarie, and apparteyn-
yng to euerlastyng lyfe, I suppose the lawmakers themselues do not so
understande or meane it. But yf it be sayde that it may be done for
comlynes and decencie, and for dignitie and orders sake, that it should
be but a ciuill obseruation, or some such lyke thing, as is that wherein
the apostle wull haue the minister or Bishop κσμιον, that is modest,
or comlye, I do not see howe he offendeth, which weareth suche a
garment, who is commaunded to weare it.

Whether the ceremonial attire or worshippyng of the Leuitical [33] priesthood, be to

be brought agayne into the Church? 16
I aunswere, That yf a cap or a seemely garment, without superstition
be commaunded to be worne by a minister, no wyse man wyll saye,
that right Iudaisme is brought in agayne. Moreover here I repeate the
same, that I see Peter Martyr hath aunswered,17 who when he had

15 Humphrey’s and Sampson’s first question, ZL 1, 151, 153.

16 Humphrey’s second question and Sampson’s fifth, ZL 1, 152, 154.
17 See Vermigli’s letter to John Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester of 4 November 1550,

printed alongside the present letter of Bullinger and Gualter in the pamphlet Whether
it be mortall sinne to transgresse ciuil lawes, which be the commaundementes of ciuill magistrates
(London: Richard Jugge, cum privilegio Regiæ Maiestatis, 1566), 61–80 and in another
translation by Anthonie Marten (ed.), Another Collection of certeine Divine matters and doctrines
of the same M[aster] D[octor] Peter Martyr (London: H. Denman et al, 1583), fols. 116–120.
226 chapter five

shewed how the sacraments of the olde lawe were quite abolished,
which we ought not to bring agayne into the Churche of Christe,
hauing nowe Baptisme and the Lordes Supper, in steede of them, thus
he sayth. There were notwithstanding in the Leuiticall lawe certayne
actions of that nature, which coulde not properly be called sacraments,
for they serued to decencie, order, and some commoditie, which as
agreeable to the light of nature, and also profitable for our commoditie,
I suppose may both be brought in, and also retained. Who seeth
not, that for maintaining peace, and for that the faythfull might the
better lyue together, the Apostles commaunded the gentiles to absteyne
from that is strangled, and from blood. No doubt these were thinges
belonyng to the Leuiticall lawe. Furthermore, no man is ignoraunt what
tithes are appointed at this day to su[34]steyne ministers. It is euident
that Psalmes and Hymnses are now songe in holy congregations and
meetings, whiche notwithstandyng the Leuites also used. And that I let
not this passe neither, we haue holy dayes in remembraunce of Christes
resurrection, and suche lyke. Shall all those be abolished, because thei
are tokens and reliques of the olde lawe? You see therefore, al thinges of
the leuitical lawe are not so abrogated, that none of them may be used.
Thus farre P. Martyr.18

Whether we maye weare suche apparel, as the papistes do? 19

I aunswere. We may, so long as it is not prouen that the Pope brought in
the difference of garments. Nay it is manifest, the difference of apparel
is more ancient then the Pope is. Neyther do I see any cause, why we
may not go as the papistes do in apparel, whiche is not superstitious,
but of pollicie, and for comlynesse sake. If we shoulde haue nothing
common with them, then must we forsake all our Churches, refuse all
lyuinges, not minister baptisme, not say the Apostles or Nicene creede,
yea and quite caste away the Lordes prayer. Neyther do you borowe
any ceremonies of them. The matter of apparel was neuer taken away
at the beginning of refor[35]mation, and is yet reteyned, not by the
Popes lawe, but by the kynges commaundement, as an indifferent thing
of mere pollicie.20 Yea truly, if you weare a cap or a peculiar kynde of

18 Divine Epistles, fol. 118.

19 Humphrey’s third question, ZL 1, 152.
20 Matthew Parker sought to issue his Advertisements of 1566 (ESTC 10026) as “royal

injunctions” although he was unsuccessful in persuading the Queen to agree to this

 text: bullinger, concerning thapparel of ministers 227

apparel, as a ciuill and politike thing,21 it smelleth neyther of Iudaisme,

nor Monachisme: For these wil seeme to separate them selues from
the ciuill and common lyfe, and account a meritorious deede in the
wearyng of a peculiar garment. So Eustachius Bishop of Sebastia, was
not simply condemned for wearyng a peculiar kynde of garment: but
for that he put religion in his garment.22 The cannons of the counsel
of Gangren, Laodicen,23 and of the vi. councell,24 are well knowen. If
in case any of the people be perswaded that these thynges sauour of
Papisme, Monachisme, or Iudaisme, let them be tolde the contrarie,
and perfectly instructed therein. And if so be, through the importunate
crying out hereon before the people by some men, many be disquieted
in their conscience, let them beware which so do, that they bring not
greater yokes on their owne neckes, and prouoke the Queenes Maiestie,
and bring many faythfull ministers in suche daunger, as they can not
ryd them selues out of agayne.

Whether these men, which hy[36]therto haue vsed their libertie, maye nowe with
safe conscience, bring them selues and their Churche into bondage, through the
commaundement of the prince? 25
I aunswere thus. I thinke thei ought to take heed, lest by odious dis-
puting, exclaymyng, and stryuing for apparel, and by this importunate
dealing, occasion be offered to the princes Maiestie, not to leaue the
matter any longer in their choise, who haue hitherto used this liber-
tie, and that she being incensed with necessarie clamours, commaunde

explicit invocation of the royal prerogative in determining such matters. Elizabeth saw
episcopal privilege as a bulwark of the Royal Supremacy.
21 Cp. Letters of Thomas Cranmer, 428.
22 Eustathius of Sebaste, d. 377, was one of the founders of monasticism in Asia

Minor. He studied under Arius, and was condemned along with his followers at the
synod of Gangra for extravagant asceticism. The garment in question was the philoso-
pher’s mantle, worn to show contempt for all luxury. The canon does not reject distinc-
tive dress, but blames proud and superstitious over-estimation of its worth. Sozomen,
Ecclesiasticæ historiæ autores Eusebij Pamphili Cæsariæ Palæstinæ episcopi historiæ Ecclesiastic[a]e
lib. x Vuolfgango Musculo interprete … Hermij Sozomeni Salaminij Musculo interprete lib. ii eodem
interprete (Basle: Froben, 1549), 3.14.36. See CICan, Gratian’s Decretum, I. Dist. xxx, c. 15.
23 The Council of Laodicea, probably held sometime after the General Council of

Constantinople in 381. Theodoret, “In Coloss.” 2.18, PL LXXXII, 619.

24 The third General Council of Constantinople, held in 680–681. The main con-

cern of this council was the condemnation of “monotheletism.”

25 Humphrey’s fifth question; compare Sampson’s second. ZL 1, 152–153.
228 chapter five

them eyther to weare that apparel, or to geue ouer their charges.26

Truly it seemeth very straunge unto me (be it spoken, my worshipful
and deare brethren, without your offence) that you so perswade your
selues, that you can by no meanes with a safe conscience submit your
selues and your congregations to the bondage of apparel, and do not
rather way with your selues, if ye refuse to weare a thing meere poli-
tike and indifferent, and odiously contende alwayes, unto what maner
of bondage you submit your selues and your Churches to Wolues, or
at the lest wise to unfit teachers, who [37] are not so able to edifie the
people, as ye your selues are. Do you set your churches at libertie, when
you minister occasion to oppresse them with more and with greater
burthens? You knowe wel inough after what a great many seeke, how
they are affected towards the preaching of the Gospell, and what they
woulde proue, if they succeede you, and what we may hope for at their
handes.

Whether the apparel of the Cleargie, be a thing indifferent? 27

Surely it seemth to be an indifferent thing, in so much as it is a mere
ciuil thing, appointed for decency, seemelines, and for order, wherin
is put no religion. This muche I thought good to answer briefly unto
your questions, my learned and louing brother N. Nowe I com to our
brother M. [’s] questions, in dissoluyng whereof, perchaunce I wyll be
more briefe.

Whether a particular kynde of apparel, differying from the lay men, were euer
appointed for ministers of the Churche? And whether in these dayes, it may be
appointed in reformed Churches? 28
I answere that in the auncient Churche, there was a particular fash-
ion of apparell for Priestes. It appeareth in the Ecclesiasticall historie
of Theodoret29 and of Socrat[es Scholasticus].30 [38] No man is igno-

26 See Elizabeth’s letter to Archbishop Matthew Parker, Correspondence of Matthew

Parker, D.D., Archbishop of Canterbury, comprising letters written by him and to him, 1535–1575,
ed. by John Bruce and Thomas Perowne, PS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1853), 223–227.
27 Humphrey’s sixth question; compare Sampson’s third question below, n. 34.
28 Sampson’s first question.
29 Palladii diui Euagrii discipuli Lausiaca quæ dicitur historia, et Theodoreti episcopi Cyri

[theophiles], id est, religiosa historia (Paris: Apud Martinum Iuuenem, 1555) 51.2.ca.2.7.
30 Ecclesiasticæ historiæ … Theodoriti Episcopi Cyri, Ioachimo Camerario interprete libri v

(Basle: Froben, 1549), 51.6.ca.22.

 text: bullinger, concerning thapparel of ministers 229

rant, which hath but lightly read ouer the monuments of the auncient
fathers, but that the ministers used a cloke in their seruice. And there-
fore I sayd before, that the diuersitie of garments had not his originall
of the Pope. Eusebius citeth out of the auncient writers, that S. John the
apostle ware on his head a leafe, or thinne plate lyke unto a Byshoppes
miter.31 And Pontius Diaconus witnesseth of S. Cyprian the martyr, that
when he offered his necke to the executioner, he first gaue hym his cap
[birrus], and the deacon his upper garment [dalmatica], and so stood
appareled in white linnen.32 Moreouer, Chrysostom maketh mention of
white apparell of ministers. But it is certayne, that where the Christians
turned from their paganisme to the Gospell, in steade of gownes, they
put on clokes: for the which beyng afterwarde mocked of the infidels,
Tertullian wrote a very learned booke, De pallio.33 I could bring more
stuffe of this sort, yf this suffised not. In deede I had rather no apparrell
were layde upon the ministers against their will but that they used the
custome of the Apostles. But in so muche as the prince commaundeth
the cap, and the surplesse, wherein (as I haue often saide) she putteth
no religion, and [39] sithe the same thing hath ben used amongest the
olde fathers without superstition, or offence, whyle the Churche was as
yet in better estate: I would not wishe good ministers to account ther
forwardnesse of religion to be cheefly in these thinges, but te yeelde
somewhat unto the tyme, and not to braule contentiously in matters
indifferent, but to iudge with modestie, that these things may be, and
that we must go foreward accordyng to the tyme: for they are nearer
the Apostles simplicitie, who know of no such distinction, nor do urge
it, but yet in the meane whyle do not refuse discipline in their apparrell.

Whether the prescribying of apparrell, be agreeable with Christian libertie? 34

I answer. That indifferent things may sometymes be prescribed, yea,
and also constrayned to, as I may terme it, as touching the use, but
not as of necessitie, that is, that any indifferent thyng of his owne nature
shoulde be forced to a mans conscience, and thereby a kynde of religion

31 Eusebius, Ecclesiasticæ historiæ, Bk. 5. 24.

32 Opera D. Cæcilii Cypriani Carthaginiensis Episcopi, totius Africæ primatis ac gloriosissimi
martyris … in tres tomos nunc primum distincta … Ab eodem recens adiecta D. Cypriani Vita è
scriptis ipsius collecta … (Antwerp: Johannes Stelsius, 1568).
33 Q. Septimii Florentis Tertulliani Carthaginensis, Opera omnia, non omissis accuratis

B. Rhenani annotationibus (Basle: Froben, 1539).

34 Sampson’s second and third questions.
230 chapter five

charged to his conscience. The times and places of holy assemblies,

are rightly accounted to be indifferent: and yet if there be no order
prescribed therein, I pray you what confusion and mis-order would ryse
hereby? [40]

Whether any new ceremonies may be increased, besides the expresse worde of God? 35
I aunswer. That I like not with increasing of new ceremonies, and yet I
wyll not deny, but the new may be deuised, so that there be no worship-
pyng of God placed in them, and that they be appoynted for order and
discipline. Christe hymselfe celebrated the feast or ceremonie of the
dedication,36 and yet we reade not, that the same feaste was commaun-
ded by the lawe. To be short, the greater part of those propositions
or questions touchyng matters of apparrell, doe stande on this point.
Whether any lawes ought or may be made in the churche, touching apparrel? And
so the question is broughte to this general proposition, that is, What
is lawful to be decreed concerning cermonies? Unto these questions I briefly
answere. That I woulde haue no ceremonies brought into the Church,
but such as are necessarie: yet in the meane season I confesse, that
the lawes touchyng these ceremonies, which perchance are not neces-
sarie, and sometyme unprofitable, may not by and by be condemned of
wickednesse, so that factions and schismes be stirred up in the Churche,
for so muche as they are without superstition, and things of their [41]
own nature meere indifferent.

Whether it be lawfull to renue the customes of the Iewes, being abrogated, and to
translate the rytes proper to idolatrous religion from them, to be vsed in reformed
churches? 37
Touching this question, I answered before, when I spake of Leuiticall
rites and ceremonies.38 But I wil not in any wyse haue the ceremonies
of Idolaters, not purged from their superstition and errours, translated
into reformed Churches. And agayne on the other side, it may be
asked, whether the receaued customes, after the superstition is taken
away, may be for discipline and orders sake, reteyned without sinne?39

35 Sampson’s fourth question.

36 John 10: 22.
37 Sampson’s fifth and sixth questions.
38 See Bullinger’s response to Humphrey’s second question above, n. 16.
39 This is the classic distinction found in arguments in favour of the adiaphoristic

principle.
 text: bullinger, concerning thapparel of ministers 231

Whether conformity must of necessity be required in ceremonies? 40

I answer. That the agreement of ceremonies in al Churches, pera-
duenture is not necessary. In the meanetime, if a thing unnecessarie,
whiche yet is not wycked, be commaunded, therefore we may not
forsake the Church committed to our charge. There was not the like
fashion in ceremonies in all the auncient Churches: and yet those
which used conformable cermonies, despised not [42] those which were
without the same. I easily beleue, that wyse and politike men do urge
a conformitie in ceremonies, because they thinke this wyl mainteyne
concorde, and because the Churche throughout all England is one:
wherein if there be no wicked thyng mixt withall, I can not see howe
you can enuiously obiect any thing agaynst suche good orders.

Whether ceremonies ioyned with open offence, maye be retayned or no? 41

I aunswere. That all offences must be auoyded, but in the meane
whyle, we must beware lest we conceale, and cloke our owne affec-
tions under the colour of offences. You knowe there is one kynde of
offence geuen, and an other kinde taken, and wylfully procured. Here
I wyll not dispute, whether you without great offenc geuen, can forsake
your Churches, for the whiche Christe dyed and that for a matter of
indifferencie.

Whether that any constitution of men, are to be tollerated in the Churche, which
albeit they are not wicked of their owne nature, yet do helpe to edification neuer a
whit? 42
I answer. That yf the constitutions, which [43] the princes Maiestie
would enioyne you to be without impietie, you must rather bear with
them, then forsake your Churches. For if edifiyng the churche, be
cheefly to be consydered in this behalfe: surely then in leauing the
Churche, we shall more destroy it, then in wearing apparrell.43 And
where there is no impietie, nor the conscience is not offended, there
ought we not geue ouer our vocations, although there be some kynde
of seruitude therby laied upon us. And in the meane tyme, it may be a
question, whether we may rightly comprehende the matter of apparrell

40 Sampson’s seventh question.

41 Sampson’s eighth question.
42 Sampson’s ninth question.
43 For Bullinger the bottom line is that conformity must be preferable to schism.
232 chapter five

under the name of bondage, in respect that it serueth for comlinesse

and order?

Whether the prince may prescribe any thyng touchyng ceremonies, without the wyll
and free consent of the Cleargie? 44
I aunswere. That if the prince shoulde alwayes tarrye for the consent of
the Cleargie: perchaunce those most wyse and godly kinges Iosaphat,
Ezechias, Asa, and Iosias, with other good princes, shoulde neuer haue
brought the Leuites and Ministers of the Churche, into good order.45
Albeit I would not wishe in any wyse, that Bishops shoulde be excluded
from con[44]sultations concerning matters of the church. Neyther
woulde I agayne haue them challenge unto themselues that power,
which they usurped agaynst princes and magistrates in tyme of poperie.
Lykewyse I would not haue Bishops kepe silence, and geue consent to
wicked statutes of princes.46
The two latter questions touche the matter more narrowly.

Whether it be more conuenient to serue in the Church after this manner, or rather
therefore to be depriued of Ecclesaisticall function? 47
I answere. That if there be no superstition in suche ceremonies, nor
any ungodlynesse, and yet notwithstandyng they are layed on good
pastours, which had rather thei were not so layed upon them, I wyll
graunt in deede, and that franckly, that there is a burthen and a
bondage layed on them, but yet I will not graunt (for very good causes
to) that therefore their charge and ministerie is to be forsaken, and
their place left unto wolues (as I sayde be[45]fore) or to other unmete
ministers: especially the libertie of preachyng remayneth free, and that
there be heed taken, lest greater seruitude be thrust upon them, with
such other thinges of this nature.
Thus have I spoken those thinges which I thought meet, concerning
these propounded questions, knowyng right well that other men accor-
dyng to their learning, might have discussed the matter much better,

44 Sampson’s tenth question.

45 See Bullinger’s sermon on the duty of the Magistrate to exercise the “cura
religionis” in chapter one above where he frequently cites the same examples the godly
kings in the Old Testament histories.
46 In this comment Bullinger recapitulates the concept of the minister’s “prophetical

office”. See the discussion of this concept in the first chapter above.
47 Sampson’s eleventh and twelfth questions.
 text: bullinger, concerning thapparel of ministers 233

and farre more eloquently. But because it was your wylles I shoulde
make aunswere, I haue done what I coulde, leauyng the matter free
unto other mens iudgement and writyng. That whiche remayneth, is,
that I would not haue any mans conscience urged or snared: but I put
foorth these thinges to be examined, and I warne al men, that none
in this controuersie frame hymselfe a conscience, because he wyl con-
tende. And I also exhort you al in Christ Iesu our Lorde, sauiour of
his Churche, our head and kyng, that euery one of you deepely con-
sider with your selues, by which of these twayne he shall most edifie
Christes congregation: whether if for order and comlynesse sake, he
use the apparrell as a thing indifferent, which hytherto hath not a litle
set forewarde the unitie and profite of [46] the Church: or els whether
for a matter of a garment, he leaue his Church to be possessed if not of
wolues, yet of verye unmeete and naughtie ministers. The Lorde Iesu
graunt you grace to see, understande, and folow that which tendeth
to the settyng foorth of his glorie, and the Churches peace and tran-
quilitie. Fare ye well in the Lorde, with al other faythfull ministers. We
wyl pray diligently unto God, that ye may thinke and do those thinges
whiche are wholesome and holy. M. Gualtherus commendeth him most
heartily unto you, and wisheth you all prosperitie, as do also the rest of
the ministers.

From Tigure the Kalendes of May. The yere of our Lord M.D.Lxvi.
Henrie Bullinger, Minister of the Church at Tigure,
in Maister Gualtherus name and his owne.
 appendix 1

‘VERMILIUS ABSCONDITUS’: THE ZURICH PORTRAIT*

In 1560, at the pinnacle of his distinguished and varied career as a

reformed theologian and biblical scholar, Peter Martyr Vermigli sat to
have his portrait painted in Zurich. The painting now hangs in the
National Portrait Gallery in London. The presence of Vermigli’s like-
ness in the Gallery stands as testimony to his distinction as the first
protestant reformer to occupy the Regius Chair of Divinity in the Uni-
versity of Oxford. While the portrait is unsigned, the evidence suggests
strongly that Hans Asper (1499–1572), the leading portrait-painter of
mid-sixteenth-century Zurich, was the artist.1 Asper’s authorship has
not stood unchallenged. In his catalogue of the Gallery’s Tudor and
Jacobean portraits, Roy Strong refrains from ascribing the painting of
Vermigli to Asper and characterizes the piece as of “workshop qual-
ity, perhaps once part of a set of reformers.”2 More recently, however,
Asper’s title to authorship has been reaffirmed by Marianne Naegeli,
Urs Hobi and their collaborators in a thorough and scholarly sur-
vey of Asper’s paintings. In their catalogue to an exhibit of art in
Zurich after the Reformation held in 1981, the iconography of the
Vermigli portrait proves to be decisive in establishing authorship.3 In

* I acknowledge with gratitude the research contributions made toward this paper

by Kurt Jakob Rüetschi, Joseph McLelland and Frank James III. This paper was first
published under the title “Vermilius Absconditus? The Iconography of Peter Martyr”
in Petrus Martyr Vermigli: Humanismus, Republikanismus, Reformation, ed. Emidio Campi
(Geneva: Droz, 2002), 295–303.
1 In the judgement of Walter Hugelshofer “ohne jeden Zweifel ist Asper der Urhe-

ber.” See Zwingliana, vol. 3 no. 1 (1930), 128. See also Hugelshofer, Die Zürcher Malerei der
Spätgotik: Mitteilungen der Antiquarischen Gesellschaft in Zürich 30, Heft 5 (Zürich: Leemann,
1928/29), 102.
2 Tudor and Jacobean Portraits (London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1969), NPG

195 (Pl. 635), 319, 320. Strong notes that the portrait of Vermigli was purchased for the
NPG in 1865 from one John L. Rutley and that its previous history is unknown. A copy
of the portrait hangs in the current lodgings of the Regius Professor of Divinity in Tom
Quad, Christ Church, Oxford.
3 Marianne Naegeli, Urs Hobi, with the collaboration of Bernhard Anderes, Hans

Christoph von Tavel and Katherina Vatsella, Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation: Hans
236 appendix 1

the course of his career as Stadtmaler of Zurich Asper painted as many

as thirty known portraits of leading personalities of the city. Perhaps
the most famous is his small portrait of Huldrych Zwingli, painted
shortly before the reformer’s death on the field at Kappel in 1531.4 It
has often been observed that Asper’s portraits show a marked simi-
larity of style to those of Hans Holbein the younger.5 The portrait of
Vermigli resembles the others in this respect as well. Dated 1560, the
painting exhibits a remarkable iconographical resemblance to a series
of portraits painted by Asper during the previous decade. In a letter
to Rudolph Gualter dated 4 March 1550, a young Englishman named
Christopher Hales commissioned six portraits of prominent Zurich
reformers: “I request you, my dear Rodolph, to procure your Apelles to
paint for me the following portraits, those namely of Zuinglius, [Kon-
rad] Pellican, Theodore [Bibliander], master [Heinrich] Bullinger, and
yourself … And if the artist can paint a good likeness of Oecolampa-
dius, I would have it in addition to the other five.”6 Hales does not men-
tion Asper by name in his correspondence but refers to the artist once
as “your Apelles” and again as “your Zeuxis,” references to notable
Greek painters of the 4th century BCE.7 Between September 1549 and

Asper und seine Zeit: Katalog zur Ausstellung im Helmhaus, Zürich, 9. Mai bis 28. Juni 1981
(Zürich: Schweizerisches Institut für Kunstwissenschaft, 1981). The exhibition was or-
ganised by the Präsidialabteilung der Stadt Zürich and the Schweizerisches Institut für
Kunstwissenschaft. The portrait of Vermigli is reproduced in “Katalog” nr. 31, 68, 69.
4 This painting hangs in the Kunstmuseum, Winterthur, Inv.-Nr. 133. See “Kata-

log,” Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, nr. 3, 46. For an account of Hans Asper’s career
as Stadtmaler of Zurich, see “Katalog,” 45, 46.
5 Concerning the probable influence of Holbein on Asper see Hugelshofer, Die

Zürcher Malerei der Spätgotik, 90. According to Lucas Wüthrick in “Die Zürcher Malerei
im 16. Jahrhundert,” Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, 10: “Daß Asper Zugang zu
Porträts von Holbein hatte, muß als sicher angenommen werden, denn seine Abhängig-
keit von solchen ist offensichtlich.” Whether Asper actually studied the art of portrai-
ture with Holbein is not known with any certainty. It is supposed that he was appren-
ticed to Hans Leu the younger (1490–1531) in Zurich.
6 Hastings Robinson, editor, Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation Written

during the Reigns of King Henry VIII, King Edward VI, and Queen Mary: Chiefly from the
Archives of Zurich (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Parker Society, 1846),
184–186; cited hereafter as OL. See also Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, 13, 64 and
Paul Boesch, Die Wiler Glasmaler und ihr Werk. Reihe: Neujahrsblatt / Historischer Verein
des Kantons St. Gallen; 89 (Wil: Gegenbauer, 1949), 21. Oecolampadius died on 1st
December 1531.
7 Pliny dates Apelles of Colophon at c. 332 BCE on account of his famous portrait

of Alexander the Great with the thunderbolt. Ernst Pfuhl, Malerei und Zeichnung der
Griechen (München: F. Bruckmann a. g., 1923), 801; see T.B.L. Webster’s entry in the
Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 79. See also OL,
 ‘vermilius absconditus ’: the zurich portrait 237

February 1550, while recovering in Zurich from a bout with consump-

tion, Hales had been living in the household of Gualter, then Pastor of
St. Peter’s Church.8 The elder Hales was also an ally of John Hooper,
Bishop of Gloucester, who studied theology in Zurich between 1547
and 1549, and who remained a close friend and associate of Bullin-
ger and the Schola Tigurina. Christopher Hales’s friend Richard Hilles,
an English cloth merchant in Strasbourg, arranged Hooper’s sojourn
at Zurich. It appears that Hilles may also have arranged the younger
Hales’s stay with Gualter. Hales’s correspondence with Bullinger and
Gualter, preserved in the Archives at Zurich, reveals a warm friend-
ship with “the most worthy ministers of your church and school.”9 In
his correspondence with Gualter after his return to England, Hales
refers also with admiration to a pair of paintings by Asper, one of
Gualter himself (now lost) and the other a remarkable 1549 portrait
of Gualter’s wife and Zwingli’s daughter Regula with their daughter
Anna.10 The portraits of the six reformers were executed over a period
of nine years.11 Those of two deceased subjects—viz. Oecolampadius
and Zwingli—were eventually delivered to Hales in England through
the offices of John Burcher, while those of Bibliander, Bullinger, Gual-
ter and Pellikan remained behind in Zurich.12 Apparently, there was
concern on the part of the living subjects that there should be no occa-
sion for idolatry given to the faithful in the Church of England.13 In
a letter to Bullinger dated 10th December 1550 Hales observes that

193: “your Zeuxis shall be paid at my expense.” Zeuxis of Heraclea is dated by Pliny at
c. 397 BCE. In his Poetics, 25 (1461b12) Aristotle refers to the paintings of Zeuxis as ideal:
“It may be impossible that there should be such people as Zeuxis used to paint, but it
would be better if there were; for the type should improve on the actual.”
8 Christopher Hales’s elder brother John played a prominent role in English politics

during the reign of Edward VI and was a friend and hunting companion of Archbishop
Thomas Cranmer. See Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1996), 196. OL, 195.
9 OL, 189.
10 OL, 186 and 194. “Malerei,” Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, nr. 23, 62, 63. See

also Walter Hugelshofer, Die Zürcher Malerei der Spätgotik, 100 ff. The painting of Regula
and Anna Zwingli-Gualter now hangs in Zentralbibliothek, Zurich, Inv.-Nr. 5.
11 The precise dating of the portraits has been subject to some revision since the

exhibit of 1981. While the exhibition catalogue lists the portraits of Bullinger, Bibliander,
Oecolampadius as having been painted in 1550, recent research on the inscriptions
suggests that dates later in the 1550s are more likely.
12 Burcher, cloth merchant and partner of Richard Hilles, appears to have been

Hales’s agent in Zurich. See OL, 184 and 259.

13 OL, 190, 191. See also Wüthrick, “Die Zürcher Malerei im 16. Jahrhundert,” 13

and Bruno Meyer, Thurgauische Beiträge zur vaterländischen Geschichte 103 (1966), 97 ff.
238 appendix 1

Gualter had “retained four of [the portraits] for two reasons; first,
because there is some danger lest a door shall hereafter be opened to
idolatry; and next, lest it should be imputed to you [i.e. Bullinger] as a
fault, as though it were done by you from a desire of empty glory. But
the case is far otherwise, for I desired to have them on this account,
both for an ornament to my library, and that your effigies might be
beheld in the picture, as in a mirror, by those who by reason of distance
are prevented from beholding you in person. This is not done, excellent
sir, with the view of making idols of you; they are desired for the reasons
I have mentioned, and not for the sake of honour or veneration.”
In yet another letter to Gualter Hales expostulates in a tone of some
impatience on doubts expressed concerning the idolatry of portraiture:
I am greatly surprised that Burcher should persist in thinking that por-
traits can nowise be painted with a safe conscience and a due regard
to godliness; since there is not a single letter in the holy scriptures
which appears really to sanction that opinion. For, if I understand aright,
images were forbidden in the sacred books for no other reason, than that
the people of god might not be drawn aside from the true worship of
one true God to the vain worship of many false gods. And if there be no
danger of this, I do not see why pictures may not be painted and pos-
sessed, especially when they are not kept in any place where there can be
the least suspicion of idolatry … Who bows himself before your Charles
placed on the top of the tower? Who is so senseless, as to worship a
painting or picture deposited in the library? But it is said that times may
occur, when there will be danger lest encouragement be given to idolatry
by their means. Well then, it may in the same manner be argued, that
no image or likeness ought to be made of any thing whatever! Indeed
my worthy friend, if I thought it possible that the worship of idols could
be re-established by such means, believe me, that if I had the pictures, I
would tear them into a thousand pieces with my own hands.14
The portrait of Bibliander was apparently executed by Asper in secret
without a sitting, owing to the great linguist’s firm opposition to the
production of images.15

14 OL, 191, 192. The south tower of the Großmunster at Zürich is called Charles’s

Tower, named for a statue placed there which is supposed to represent Charlemagne.
The original statue is now to be found in the crypt of the Großmunster.
15 OL, 193: “I entreat you, my worthy friend, that should I not be able to obtain all

the portraits, I may at least obtain the two others, namely, that of Theodore, which
you tell me was taken without his knowledge, and as it were by stealth, also your
own; for I am well assured that you are of quite the contrary opinion [viz. concerning
the supposed idolatry of portraiture], unless you have lately very much changed it, or
 ‘vermilius absconditus ’: the zurich portrait 239

Sometime after the original commission Hales seems to have re-

quested an additional portrait for the series, one of Peter Martyr him-
self. Although resident in Oxford at the time of the original commission
of the portraits, the death of King Edward VI in 1553 compelled Ver-
migli to flee England and return to the continent. By 1556 Vermigli
had been appointed to succeed Konrad Pellikan in the chair of Hebrew
at Zurich. Thus, Vermigli himself had come to be numbered among
the eminent Zurich divines, which probably accounts for the extension
of the commission to a seventh portrait.16 The best evidence of this is
the very close iconographical resemblance the National Gallery portrait
bears to the others in the series commissioned by Hales. In his original
commission, Hales had been quite specific about the iconography: each
of the reformers was to be portrayed in scholar’s attire and holding a
book; each portrait was to be inscribed with a text set in the form of a
tetrastich.17 Vermigli’s portrait is no exception. Like the other reform-
ers, he is depicted in the current academical dress of a learned divine—
cap, gown and tippet. He is shown seated at half length and facing right
with a three-quarter profile. His right hand is extended with the index
finger pointing emphatically to a book with a crimson binding. The
book rests on his left knee and is held upright by his left hand. His eyes
are brown, hair white, and he wears a heavy moustache and a forked
beard, the latter an especially distinctive characteristic which is faith-
fully reproduced in subsequent derivative images of the reformer. Miss-
ing from the picture of Vermigli, however, is Asper’s monogram “HA”
which is plainly visible in the portraits of Zwingli, Regula and Anna
Gualter-Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bibliander and Pellikan. It should
also be noted that Asper portrayed Bibliander, Bullinger, Pellikan and
the earlier of two versions of Oecolampadius with a table top in the
foreground whereas this particular feature of the iconography is miss-
ing in the Vermigli portrait.18
A prominent feature of the iconography of the series is a verse
inscription which appears together with the subject’s name at the top

else you would never have had the portraits taken of your wife and little girl.” See
“Malerei,” Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, nr. 26, 64, 65.
16 “Katalog,” Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, 69.
17 OL, 185, 186.
18 Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, plates 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 28; see also plates 29

and 30, portraits of Heinrich Brennwald (1551) and Alexander Peyer (1554); 62–68.
Hales remarks that his commissioned portrait of Oecolampadius was taken from a
copy in Bullinger’s possession. OL, CII, 194.
240 appendix 1

of each likeness. The tetrastich inscribed above Vermigli’s head in gold

capitals reads
hvnc genvit florentia, nvnc peregrinus oberrat
qvo stabilis fiat civis apvd svperos
illivs effigies haec, mentem scripta recondvnt
integritas pietas pingier arte neqvit

“Florence brought him forth, Now he wanders as a foreigner and pil-

grim / That he might forever be a citizen among those above. / This is
his likeness; the writings conceal his mind; / Integrity and piety cannot
be represented by art.” It has been suggested that the tetrastich was
most probably composed by Gualter. The tetrastichs on the paintings
of Bibliander, Bullinger, Oecolampadius and Pellikan have been defi-
nitely identified as Gualter’s.19 In the middle on the right-hand edge
of the Vermigli portrait there is another inscription “anno: dni: md:
lx / aetatis lx.”20 The latter reference may shed light on the long-held
but mistaken view that Vermigli was born in 1500.21
Walter Hugelshofer observes of the portrait that Vermigli appears
a weary, prematurely aged man and that the reformer looks “dried-
up, torpid, and even distinctly petit-bourgeois”! The overall impression
of the picture is indeed disappointing. In this respect, it is somewhat
ironic that Hales should have referred to Asper as “Zeuxis Tigurinus.”
The Vermigli of this portrait does not sparkle with vitality. Hugelshofer
remarks that “the sun of Grace” does not illuminate this likeness, and
concludes that the painting must consequently be relegated to the sta-
tus of a merely historical rather than genuinely artistic representa-
tion of the reformer.22 This is no idealised “type” of the reformer, no
“improvement on the actual,” as Aristotle put it; indeed quite the con-

19 For Gualter’s manuscript drafts of the verses see Zurich Zentralbibliothek, MS D

152, 85v–86r. I am grateful to Kurt Jakob Rüetschi for this reference. See also Wüthrick,
“Die Zürcher Malerei im 16. Jahrhundert,” 13.
20 In the year of our Lord 1560, 60 years old.
21 Philip McNair suggests that Vermigli himself probably did not know that he was

born in 1499 rather than 1500. See McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy: An Anatomy of Apostasy
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), xvi, 53. Coincidentally Asper and Vermigli were born
in the same year. For the life of Hans Asper see Marianne Naegeli und Urs Hobi,
“Katalog,” Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, 45. Emmanuel Benezit, ed., Dictionnaire
critique et documentaire des peintres, sculpteurs, dessinateurs et graveurs de tous les temps et de tous
les pays / par un groupe d’écrivains specialistes français et étrangers (Paris: Gründ, 1999).
22 Walter Hugelshofer, “Zum Porträt des Petrus Martyr Vermilius,” Zwingliana, vol.

3, no. 1 (1930), 129.

 ‘vermilius absconditus ’: the zurich portrait 241

trary.23 While Hugelshofer’s analysis is, on the whole, fairly convincing,

it is nonetheless worth noting how remarkably fitting the second dis-
tich is to such a lacklustre image: “This is his likeness; the writings
conceal his mind; / Integrity and piety cannot be represented by art.”
Hugelshofer goes on to suggest that the book held by Vermigli is most
likely the Bible.24 This interpretation does not fit very well, however,
with the insinuation of the second distich. The verse intimates that
while the painted figure represents Vermigli’s effigies, that is to say his
merely external appearance, his mentem remains concealed in the writ-
ings, presumably beyond the power of æsthetic representation. If we
accept the guidance of the tetrastich in the interpretation of the paint-
ing, then the book which “conceals” the reformer’s mind is more likely
to be representative of his commentaries and treatises than the Bible
itself. Whatever the painter’s intention may have been, the author of
the verse, at any rate, suggests that the most significant qualities of the
reformer cannot be conveyed by the merely outward representation of
the effigies. On this view, the true “icon” of the great theologian cannot
be found in daubs of paint, but must be sought altogether elsewhere.
Hugelshofer’s interpretation proceeds from a classical æsthetic assump-
tion that the external image properly ought to convey the underly-
ing substantial reality of the subject. On this assumption, the marked
absence of spiritual and intellectual vitality in the likeness of Vermigli
would seem to render the painting a failure. The hermeneutic implied
by the inscription, on the other hand, nevertheless holds out the possi-
bility that the painting may at some level “succeed” precisely by virtue
of its failure to represent Vermigli’s widely acknowledged intellectual
and spiritual qualities—integritas pietas pingier arte neqvit. One
might describe the latter interpretation, admittedly somewhat strained,
as a “negative iconography,” that is an interpretation of the portrait
on the assumption of the essential hiddenness of the subject—Vermilius
Absconditus. Have the suspicions of idolatry which surrounded Hales’s
commission from the outset informed the iconography of Asper’s final
portrait? Both distichs of the inscription appear to point the viewer
beyond the effigies of the reformer to a substantial but hidden reality
beyond mere images, apud superos.
Asper’s portrait of Vermigli provides a pattern for numerous subse-
quent depictions of the reformer. In 1562, the year of Vermigli’s death,

23 See note 7 above.

24 “Zum Porträt des Petrus Martyr Vermilius,” 128.
242 appendix 1

a silver medal was struck in Zurich to commemorate the death of the

great reformer.25 Designed by the Zurich artist and craftsman Hans
Ulrich Stampfer II (1534–1580), the round medal bears the image of
Vermigli on the obverse with the inscription “Petrus: Martyr: Vermil-
ius: Flor[entinus].”26 The image on the medal is a bust quite plainly
derived from the portrait by Asper. The head is portrayed in the iden-
tical three-quarter profile facing right with the same detail of mous-
tache, forked beard, academic cap and tippet. On the reverse of the
medal is the first of the two distichs appearing on the portrait: hvnc
genvit … apvd svperos. Underneath the distich appear the words
“obiit anno dom. mdlxii. aet. 63.”27 The absence of the second dis-
tich is no doubt owing to the restricted space for a legible inscription
on the face of the medal. More importantly, however, the reduction of
the figure with the consequent removal of both the book and Vermigli’s
gesturing hand renders the second distich iconographically superflu-
ous.
Within less than a year after Vermigli’s death Josias Simler’s Funeral
Oration was published in Zurich by Christoph Froschauer the youn-
ger.28 A woodcut portrait of the reformer is printed as a frontispiece
to the folio.29 It bears the signature mark of Jos Murer (1530–1580),
Glass-painter to the Council of Zurich, on the inner band of the oval
border.30 Like Stampfer, Murer has based his design on the original
portrait, once again omitting the lower portion of the painting along

25 Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, Katalog no. 258, 208.

26 For an account of the artist Stampfer and his work see Hans-Ulrich Geiger,
“Zürcher Münz- und Medaillenkunst im 16. Jahrhundert,” Zürcher Kunst nach der Ref-
ormation, 27–31. See also Ulrich Thieme und Felix Becker, Allgemeines Lexikon der bilden den
Kuntsler von der Antike bis zum Gegenwart XXXI (Zwickau: Ullmann, 1964–1966), 460.
27 He died in the year of our Lord 1562, aged 63. Here the age is given correctly.
28 Josias Simler, Oratio de vita et obitu clarissimi viri et præstantissimi theologi D. Petri Martyrys

Vermilii (Tiguri: apud Christophorum Froschouerum Iuniorum, 1563). For a modern

English translation of the Oratio see Joseph C. McLelland, The Life, Early Letters &
Eucharistic Writings of Peter Martyr (Appleford, England: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1989).
29 For a detailed description of the frontispiece to the Oratio see “Illustrierte Bücher,”

Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, Katalog nr. 188, 170. Murer’s woodcut portrait of
Vermigli is also reproduced in Hans Ulrich Bächtold, editor, Schola Tigurina: Die Zürcher
Hohe Schule und ihre Gelehrten um 1550; Katalog zur Ausstellung vom 25. Mai bis 10. Juli 1999
in der Zentralbibliothek Zürich, Institut für Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte (Zürich;
Freiburg im Breisgau: Pano Verlag, 1999), 54.
30 André J. Racine, Jos Murer: ein Zürcher Dramatiker aus der zweiten Hälfte des 16. Jahrhun-

derts (Zürich: Stiftung von Schnyder von Wartensee: Kommissionsverlag Berichthaus,

1973), Nr. 49, 63. Bernhard Anderes, “Glasmalerei im reformierten Zürich,” Zürcher
Kunst nach der Reformation, 19.
 ‘vermilius absconditus ’: the zurich portrait 243

with the icongraphically relevant second distich. In Murer’s adapta-

tion of Asper, however, the likeness is reversed. Although still in three-
quarter profile, Vermigli is now looking to the left rather than to the
right. Curiously each and every letter “S” of the inscription in the
oval-shaped band which surrounds the likeness is also reversed in the
print—perhaps a subtle, self-referential allusion by the sculptor to his
reversal of the original portrait? Murer certainly displayed no similar
evidence of dyslexia in the carving of the letter “S” in other, similar por-
traits.31 The oval perimeter of the portrait is inscribed petrus martyr
vermilius florentinus anno aetatis suae lxiii.32 In the lower portion
of the oval, underneath the image, there is the further inscription obiit
anno dni / mdlxii. pri: die idvs nov / embris.33 Aside from the rever-
sal of the image, the iconographical detail once again closely resem-
bles the oil portrait. The effect of the sharp contrast between dark line
and white background in the woodcut suggests a somewhat younger
man, perhaps owing to a heightened sharpness of detail with respect
to the hair and beard. Murer has somehow succeeded in conveying a
spark of intensity in the reformer’s gaze wholly lacking in the oil por-
trait.
The Murer woodcut firmly establishes the iconographical pattern
for subsequent images. The most well-known portrait of Vermigli, pub-
lished in the Icones of Theodore Beza in 1580, follows Murer closely,
although the derivative is a somewhat less refined and exact image.34 It
too shows a three-quarter profile looking to the left. The same icono-
graphical notae are present: the academical cap and tippet, full mous-
tache and forked beard. The brow is pensively knit. Like Stampfer’s
medal Beza’s “icon” of Vermigli shows just head and shoulders. Like
the Murer woodcut, the “icon” is presented in an oval shape though
without an inscription. Surrounding the oval-shaped portrait is an elab-
orate rectangular Jacobean frame with fanciful gargoyles at the four
corners.

31 See Zürcher Kunst nach der Reformation, Katalog nr. 189 and 190, 170.
32 Peter Martyr Vermigli, Florentine, in his 63rd year.
33 He died in the year of our Lord 1562 on the day before the Ides of November (i.e.

November 12th).
34 Theodore Beza, Icones, id est, Veræ imagines virorum doctrina simul et pietate illustrium:

quorum præcipu e ministerio partim bonarum literarum studia sunt restituta, partim vera religio in
variis orbis Christiani regionibus, nostra patrumque memoria fuit instaurata: additis eorundem vitæ &
operæ descriptionibus, quibus adiectæ sunt nonnullæ picturæ quas emblemata vocant (Geneuæ: Apud
Ioannem Laonium, 1580).
244 appendix 1

Yet another early portrait of Vermigli—a hand-coloured, copper-

plate engraving—was shown at a recent exhibit devoted to the Schola
Tigurina and held at the Zurich Central Library from May to July
1999.35 The engraving is closely modelled on Murer’s woodcut and
depicts Vermigli in three-quarter profile facing left with the same full
moustache and forked beard. The detail of the visage follows the wood-
cut closely but the gown’s appearance of richness, even elegance evokes
the oil portrait directly. In the engraving, the reformer is depicted clasp-
ing a quarto-size volume in both hands; this pose manages to convey a
distinctly pious demeanour. As with the oil portrait, medal and wood-
cuts, this likeness of Vermigli impresses the viewer with a curious air of
remoteness. The external effigies conceals much more than it reveals. No
doubt Vermigli himself would have been pleased to refer the viewer to
the contemplation of those things that are apud superos.

35 Michael Baumann, “Petrus Martyr Vermigli: Der Kosmopolit aus Italien in Zu-

rich (1556–1562),” Schola Tigurina: Die Zürcher Hohe Schule und ihre Gelehrten um 1550, 34.
 appendix 2

PETER MARTYR VERMIGLI:

AN EPISTLE VNTO THE RIGHT HONORABLE AND
CHRISTIAN PRINCE, THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

YOU maye peraduenture thynke it a straunge and maruellous thing

moste excellent Duke, that I am so bolde as nowe to begin to wryte
unto you.1 It had ben my dewtie to haue done it rather before, when
the tempest had almost drowned you, and we (whiche began to reioyse
for the enterprised, but not fullye ended, restorynge of religyon) were in
maner ouercome with sorowe and greate heuynes.2 And paraduenture
it would not haue displeased you, yf I or any suche as I shoulde haue
wryten unto you. For where tentation dothe abounde, there a frendlye
and Christian confortynge beynge used goeth not without his effecte.
But I [Aii vº] and other of my profession, in that perillous tyme were
lytle lesse troubled than you. Yea, I dare say for you, that you youre
selfe were of better cheare in the myddes of the water, than we that
stode upon the shore and behelde your wreck. Wherefore I thought it
metest to spede that tyme in wepynge and in prayers, for to obteyne,
both preseruation for you which haue done so muche good in religyon,
and also a sure staye for the churche, for as much as it was alredy
shaken.3

1 An epistle vnto the right honorable and christian prince, the Duke of Somerset written vnto him

in Latin, awhile after hys deliueraunce out of trouble, by the famous clearke Doctour Peter Martyr, and
translated into Englyshe by Thomas Norton (Londo[n]: [N. Hill] for Gualter Lynne, 1550). On
Vermigli’s warm rapport with Somerset, see M.L. Bush, The government policy of Protector
Somerset (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1975), 109–112. Calvin also wrote
An epistle both of godly consolacion and also of aduertisement … to … prince Edwarde, duke of
Somerset … & tr. by the same duke himselfe (London: Edward Whitchurche, 1550).
2 The “tempest” referred to is the series of uprisings in 1549 which eventually

resulted in the toppling of Protector Somerset from power. Somerset resigned from
office and was incarcerated in the Tower on 13 October 1549. On 14 January 1550 his
deposition as Lord Protector was confirmed by Act of Parliament. See chapter 3 above.
3 As Lord Protector Somerset pursued a cautious programme of religious reform,

and succeeded in transforming the Henrician Church of England into one that can
be accurately described as protestant or reformed. While Cranmer provided religious
leadership, Somerset determined the pace of reform. During Somerset’s protectorate
the vernacular became the language of religious services in the first Book of Common
246 appendix 2

And now that you maye haue a testimonye of the ioye, whiche
I haue conceaued by your delyuerance, and of my sorowe past, I
thought it best not to let go this occasion, but by this my epistle,
suche as it is, with such reuerence as is mete, with suche modestie as
becommeth, bothe reioyse of your happye lucke, and [Aiii rº] comforte
you touchynge those thynges which haue of late dayes happened unto
you, not withoute the ordinance of almyghtye God. For them that haue
ben once versed with greuous myseries, the remnantes of myschieffes
are wont often to greue, and make them not a lytle sorye that they were
dryuen to suffre that, which they were as lytle worthye of, as they lytle
thought that any such thing should chaunce.4
As for that whiche I haue taken upon me, yf I performed it not so
well as my wyll is, yet I praye you to take it in good parte, and at the
least yet gentlye to accept this token of my harte towarde you. It is
set forthe in the historye of the holy gospel, that the disciples were in
a ship Christ beyng absente, there rose a mightye storme, the wynde
was so sore agaynste them, and the waues dyd [Aiii vº] so well that
they had no hope of sauynge their lyues.5 Then Christ, whiche alwayes
at suche tyme bestirreth hym selfe to helpe us, when we are in maner
brought euen to despeire, aboute the latter ende of the nyght came
unto them. When they sawe him go upon the water, they were the
more afrayde, because they thought that he was a spirite or fantasticall
thynge. But when he bade them be of good cheare, Peter (which dyd
alwaies beare a burnynge loue towarde Christe) as soone as he hearde
him thus speake, sayed, Mayster, yf it be thou, byd me to come unto
the[e] upon the water. He thoughte hymselfe, yf he were once in hys

Prayer (1549). The reformed liturgy incorporated a reformed theology that moved Eng-
land closer to the doctrine and practices of the continental reformed churches. After
the accession of Edward VI in 1547 Parliament repealed the conservative Henrician
Act of Six Articles, and in January 1549 passed the First Edwardine Act of Uniformity
that sought to maintain religious unity throughout the realm principally by means of
the new English prayer book. Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Boy King: Edward VI and the
protestant reformation, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001), originally published
as Tudor Church Militant (London: Allen Lane, 1999).
4 Somerset was released in February 1550 and his lands restored after his fall from

power in the wake of the 1549 rebellions. He was received by the King and readmitted
to the Privy Council in April. His rehabilitation was to be temporary. He was later
tried and convicted of conspiracy in December 1551 and beheaded on 22 January 1552.
William Seymour, Ordeal by ambition: an English family in the shadow of the Tudors (London:
Sidgwick and Jackson, 1972). Barrett L. Beer, “Edward Seymour,” Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
5 See Matt 14: 22–33 and Mark 6:45–52.
 vermigli: epistle to the duke of somerset 247

maysters companie, saffer from the storme, than yf he had kepte hym
selfe styll within the defence of the shyppe.
When he had obteyned Jesus commaundemente [Aiv rº] he made
haste towarde hym upon the water, and as longe as he loked upon
Christe, and cleaued unto his worde by faythe, he did wel ynough.
But when he loked but a lytle asyde from Christ, and consydered
the boysteousnes of the wynde and raginge of the waues, his faythe
wauered and he began to synke. Then, the so great daunger dyd thus
muche profyt hym, that he loked up agayne to Christ, and cryed out:
Helpe me, O Lorde, els I peryshe. Christ gaue him his hande, whereby
he plainly taught that the daunger that he was in, came not of the
rage, other of wynde or waues, but by the weaknes of hys faythe. For,
sayde he, why dyddest thou stumble by reason of thy weake and feble
faythe. Whyle I consyder this noble historie, good Lorde, I do gather
and perceaue many thynges in it that do fytlye [Aiv vº] agree with your
chaunce.
For all men do knowe, that to rule a commune weale is as it were
to sayle ouer a depe sea, which is alwayes tossed with tempestes, and
alwayes swelleth with myghtie stormes of wynde. Herein were you,
and whan there was almoste no hope of your preseruation, Christe
was with you, and suffred you not to peryshe, seynge that you haue
so aduaunced his relygion, which others estemed not to be true, but a
spirite, a fantasye, a thyng made to deceaue, and neuer thoughte that
your confydence in the gospel of Christ would do you any good.6 But it
hath so helped you that you haue troden under your fete the ragynge
waues and mightie storme. And, sethe we are men, it was possyble, that
your faythe, (althoughe by the helpe of God it be feruent,) myght wauer.
Therefore, when [Av rº] you consydered your selfe to be almoste
drowned, I dowbte not that you cryed out: Oh lorde, yf I haue beleued
no lies, yf thy gospel be true which I haue promoted, yf thy worde
hathe not begyled me, saue me this houre that I peryshe in. Wherefore
he to delyuer hys truthe of wholsome and sure faythe from the despite

6 In December 1549 religious conservatives led by Thomas Wriothesley, earl of

Southampton, attempted to exploit the charges levelled against Somerset at his fall
from power in October in order to bring about his execution and with the intention
of taking control of government. After his rehabilitation in early 1550 Somerset led
a delegation of members of the Council in an unsuccessful attempt to secure the
conformity of Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, who was then imprisoned in
the Tower for his leading role in opposition to the Edwardine religious reforms. Beer,
“Edward Seymour,” ODNB.
248 appendix 2

of scorners, by and by he gaue you his ryghte hande to helpe you,

and set you in safetye, so that I doubt not, it hathe bene bothe a great
pleasure to all godlye men, and shalbe greatly proffitable unto you.
For thus you do perceaue, not onely by faithe, but also by experience,
how sure a staye it is to leane unto true godlynes. And nowe you haue
no nede of any other man to preache unto you that whiche we rede
wryten to the Romanes: Who shall plucke us from the loue that God
[Av vº] beareth towarde us? shal trouble? shal sorow? shal persecution?
shal hunger? shall nakednes? shall danger? shal the swerde? No. Yea he
addeth further, we ouercome in al these thinges throughe him which
loueth us.7
Surelye (moste noble Duke) greuous thinges in dede haue happened
unto you.8 All thinges in maner were stirred up agaynste you alone. But
who ouercame them in you but Christe? who hath calmed so great a
storme raysed up against you but Christ? The wicked styll loke for you
to haue no other chaunce but extremite. But who dyd wrastle for you
against present death, and destruction hangynge ouer your head but
Christe? Beware, yf you be wise, that you thinke no otherwyse. As for
al us that do embrase godlynes, we do confesse with one mouth with
one accorde, that Christ hath taken your [Avi rº] parte: And I doubte
not that you your selfe haue boldlye sayd with Paule: If God be on our
side, who is against us.9 This sure comforte godlye men haue alwayes at
hande in aduersitye. We are Goddes, we do belonge unto Christ. God
hath taken upon him our defence. They say that they be mightye which
fight against us, but what? are they stronger than God? We know and
stedfastlye beleue that God is almightie, who shal ouercome hym that is
almyghtye. O wholsome comforte? O sure toure of christian faithe? O
faith buylded not upon sande but upon a most stronge rocke?
Pompei in his desperate state coulde not so comforte hym selfe,
nor Cicero in his banishement, on the laste houre of hys miserable
destruction coulde strengthen hys courage being weakened on euery

7 Romans 8:35–39. Many of the scriptural references in this letter are to Paul’s

Epistle to the Romans. Vermigli later published a full-length commentary on the epistle
based on lectures given at Oxford and at Strasbourg after his hasty departure from
England in 1553 following the death of Edward VI. See In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli ad
Romanos … Commentarii (Basle: P. Perna, 1558).
8 Between the time of his deposition in October 1549 and his rehabilitation in

April 1550, Somerset was imprisoned in the Tower of London and deprived of his
lands and property. Vermigli is writing after the rehabilitation, and the publication of
the epistle itself is a mark of this improvement of Somerset’s fortune.
9 Romans 8:31.
 vermigli: epistle to the duke of somerset 249

syde, with anye such comforte.10 I coulde reherse Brutus, Cato, and
[Avi vº] many other noble men after the iudgement of the world, which
whyle they wer in state other prosperous or tolerable, semed bothe
wyse and valiant men, but when they sawe themselues brought to the
extremite that there was no remedy or helpe, we rede that they other
cryed out, Oh neuer was I wyse, or blamed bothe God and men, and
knowyng not what to do, now layed the faulte upon destenie, now upon
fortune, now upon falshed of men.11 Sometimes desperatlie thei would
accuse and lay the faulte upon their own blinde councelles. And many
tymes, whiche they had in redynes, they would comforte themselues
withe abhominable and mischeuous remedye to kyll themselues. But
we, yf we purely agree unto the gospel do undoubtedlye beleue, that
God our father and Christe is almyghtye. Hym we haue put in truste
[Avii rº] to defende oure cause.
Therefore so we do reason with our selues, when we are in any
great daunger. They that come againste us, must prepare them selues to
fighte not against men, but against God whom he that striueth against,
hurteth not him, but maketh him selfe onely miserable. Therefore God
sayd from heauen to Saul that most earnest persecutour of Christians, it
is harde for thee to kicke agaynst the prick.12 For the prick is not hurte
thereby, but it woundeth the heles that do strike at it. Wherefore we
must not despeire, we must not disquiet our self with to much care.
We must not go to it with crying, with weping, with stirring up of
troublesome sedicions, we rest under the shadowe of goddes winges,
Christe shall care for us. We are couered with the shelde of Gods mercy.
Nothing can happen [Avii vº] unto us, but it maketh for our profyt and
the glorye of God.
Herby am I perswaded to beleue that you dyd comfort your selfe in
the middes of your troble, which I know that flesh is wont to wrastle
against, and bringeth forth these reasons. These comfortes in dede
that you speake of ar[e] somwhat worth. But tell me not that in these
greuous troubles Christian men do suffre nothinge. I perceaue, I se[e]
by experience that they take not awaye our sorowe, our vexations,

10 See Plutarch’s “Life of Pompey,” The lives of the noble Grecians and Romanes compared

together by that graue learned philosopher and historiographer, Plutarke of Chæronea; translated by
Thomas North. (London: Thomas Vautroullier and Iohn VVight, 1579), 678–710. On
Cicero’s banishment see M. Tullius Cicero, Epistolæ familiares (Venice, 1548), epist. X, ad
Atticum, 3.4; XI ad familiares, 14.4; XII ad Atticum, 3.12.
11 See, e.g., the “Life of Cato the Younger” in Plutarch, Lives, 372–394.
12 Acts 9:5; 26:14.
250 appendix 2

wherwith we are almoste oppressed are no lesse greuous, our paines

wherwith we are sore punished are nothinge eased by these comfortes.
While they are spoken in dede they encourage oure hearte, but that
doth profyt nothing, but to fall agayne, and is more hurt by the newe
fall that if it had been in one state still. For when a man hath taken a
good hert unto him, if deliuerance [Aviii rº] do not straight way folow, a
greater heape of mischiefes withoute remedy assaileth afreshe, yea and
that so hard, that it whorleth downe with more hedlonge destruction
than before. So is the flesh wont to trouble the refreshinges by the
gospell and to barke agaynste the heauenlye comfort. But leaste the
power of the fleshe make us lese so greate fruite, we muste consider
the plentuous and full light of Christian doctrine, least while we be
to[o] earnestlie moued with those thinges which the flesh putteth in our
head, we take the lesse hede to thos thinges which we ought to loue.
What can happen more happie to a christian man than bothe to be
and be accepted the scholer of Christe? what more luckie thing can
he desyre, than to reigne for euer with hys maister? what more to bee
wished for, than to obteine euerlasting life with great glory. But these
thinges [Aviii vº] are not attayned but by the crosse.13
The sons of Zebede moued by a certayne gredines of honour, set
theyr mother to require that they shuld sit next to Christ in his king-
dome as head and chiefe.14 To whome he answerd. Can ye drinke of
the cup which I shall drynke? Can ye be washed with the baptisme
wherwith I shalbe washed? By which wordes he plainlye declared that
all they that wil reigne foreuer, must drinke up the cuppe of aduersi-
tie. And as many as are trewe suters for the heuenly kingdome must
be washed with the baptisme of persecution. Finnallye without circum-
stances our maister whome we professe Jesus Christe hathe taughte that
none shall bee his disciple, whiche will not willingly take upon him his
crosse, whereupon let him see that he nayle bothe himselfe, hys flesh,
and the lustes therof.15 For the [Bi rº] which cause also saincte Paule

13 Somerset contributed a dedicatory epistle to Miles Coverdale’s translation of Otto

Werdmüller’s Kleintot, von Trost und Hilf, published in 1550 by Walter Lynne, the printer
of Vermigli’s letter. See A spyrytuall and moost precyouse pearle. Teachyng all men to loue and
imbrace the crosse, as a mooste swete and necessary thyng, vnto the sowle, and what comfort is to be
taken thereof, and also where and howe, both consolacyon and ayde in all maner of afflyccyons is to be
soughte, and agayne, howe all men should behaue them selues therein, accordynge to the word of God.
Sett forth by the moste honorable lorde, the duke hys grace of Somerset, as appeareth by hys epystle set
before the same (London: [by S. Mierdman] for Gwalter Lynne, 1550).
14 Matt. 20:20–22.
15 Mark 8:34–35.
 vermigli: epistle to the duke of somerset 251

writinge to the Romaines dothe diligently instruct the congregation,

sayinge: if we suffre with him, we shalbe glorified with him, and he
addeth a comfort sayinge that he doth not esteme the troubles of thys
worlde to be lyke the glorye whych shalbe declared in us.16 And to Tim-
othe he saieth that he bringeth a sure and approued sayinge, that if
we die together with Christ, we shall liue together with him, and if we
suffre together with him we shal reigne with him.17 And unto the same
man in the first epistle he sayth that all they that entende to liue godlye
in Christ Jesu muste suffre persecution.18 And it is no otherwise mete.
For it is no reason that we shoulde entre into the inheritance and king-
dom an other way, than Christe him selfe entred into it. He obteined
the kingdome [Bi vº] by obedience, glorye by shame, freedome from
deathe by crosse and deathe.
Further it is mete that the meanes and the ende should haue a
convenient likelhode. Seing therfore we be called therunto of God
our father (which we must consyder with ourselues now and then) to
be changed into the image and likenes of his sonne our Lord Jesu
Christ, that euen so as he triumphing after he had ouercome deth,
and other temptations of this life, entred into euerlastynge life, so it
may at length be in us whiche are accompted his membres, as we
se[e] hathe been done alredye in our head. Therefore it is mete that
they which entend to obteine the same kind of reward, shoulde practise
the same kind of maisteries and labours. The which thing the Apostle
of Christ gaue us warninge of when he sayde. Those whome he [Bii
rº] hathe foreknowen, he hath appointed before to be lyke to the
image of his sonne.19 Whereby it appereth how excellent the state of
the chosen is. These thinges did God of his owne free will gyue us
before we were, when we loked for no suche thinges: he gaue us greater
thinges than we durste aske, and more than we would haue hoped
for. Sainct Paul addeth farther and sayth. Whome he hath appointed
before, them he hathe called, whom he hath called, them he hathe
made ryghteous, whome he hathe made ryghteous, them he hath also
made glorious.20 These so many and so great gyftes our most gentle
father hath appoynted and geuen us, not that we shoulde geue place to

16 Romans 8:17, 18.

17 2 Tim. 2: 8–13.
18 1 Tim. 1: 16–18.
19 Romans 8:29.
20 Romans 8:28–30.
252 appendix 2

the forwarde counselles of our fleshe, which other refuseth the crosse,
or wyll not suffre itselfe but softlye and pleasauntlye to be [Bii vº]
nayled unto it. And howe fonde a thyng is it to turne the crosse to a
couche, and the sorowfull gallowes into a softe fetherbed. Such thinges,
I saye, were not geuen us, that we shoulde be afrayed by aduersitie,
mysfortuen, or myserie, and leaue the steppes of Christe, to folowe our
senses or the iudgement of reason. But when we haue consydered that
all these thynges are geuen us so lyberally of the bountefulnes of God,
aboue the defect, aboue the worthynes, aboue the strenth of our nature
that we be nat unmyndfull, unthankfull, folyshe, as they are, which
by folowyng the fleshe and commodities therof, to auoyde aduersities,
and sorowes, that are but shorte and continue for a tyme, do cruellye
robbe them selues of eternall life, and do wickedly forsake the wayes
of godlines. Euen as Job answered [Biii rº] his wife, when (in stede of
the comfort whiche she should haue geuen her afflicted husband) she
caste hys pure godlines in his teth: euen so oughte we to answere oure
fleshe when it beginneth to be so bold as to rayle and bable against
the heauenlye comfortes. Why (sayeth Job) haste thou spoken as one
of the folysh women? Seing we haue receued good thinges of the lord,
why shuld we not receaue the euel also?21 O maruailous and incredible
stedfastnes of the man of God. Howe circumspectely, how wiselie, howe
godly, he answered here?
Ther can nothing be immagyned more folysh than the flesh, spe-
ciallye when it bableth against the word of god. It seeth nothing, it
regardeth thinges present onlye, it neuer understandeth that whiche the
Apostle preached. We reioyce in trouble, knowing that trouble engen-
dreth [Biii vº] sufferaunce, sufferaunce engendreth profe, profe engen-
dreth hope.22 So the spirite of God poureth oute it selfe, that out of
the stormes of miseries he may bring fourth strength whereby we may
be able to abide them: and out of this sufferance he bringeth fourth
the tryed knowledge of our selues. Wherby we easelye perceaue, howe
fraile we are of our selues, and howe strong we are by the helpe of
Christe. By the which knowledge when we have so proued what is ours
and what is Gods, we conceaue in our mind a great boldnes of the
help of god. For we doubt not that god which hath once layed his hand
under us when we were redie to fall, wyll do the same when other
like or harder danguer shall assayle us. For by the benfites whiche we

21 Job 2:9–10.
22 Romans 5:3, 4.
 vermigli: epistle to the duke of somerset 253

receaue, the loue of god towarde us is so farre from being unknowen,

that [Biiii rº] it poureth itself into every corner of our hartes. Where-
fore there is no longer anye excuse lefte for us to doubt therof, wherby
in us also is stirred up a loue toward god, to set more by him, his
will and commaundementes than all our own commodities, profites,
desires, and purposes. Behold these be the greuous dammages, these
be the losses, these be the hinderances, these be the euels that godly
men gather of aduersite. Surely seing so plentifull fruites, and large
profites come to the chosen therby, the wise forseing gentlenes of our
almighty father did not il[l] prouide for us, which hath opened us the
way to heauen through crosse and troubles. For we are led unto this
by the degrees aforesayd, chiefly to truste to our creatour, and all our
affections moste feruently to leaue upon him alone. Therefore unles we
[Biiii vº] [be] to[o] folysh as sone as we haue escaped afflictions and
trouble, we muste geue oure heartie thankes to the mercy of god. For in
them the power of God dothe appere more than in any other thyng.
This one thinge in dede doth often greue the chosen of God in
afflictions, that they see the ungodly and them that haue utterly putte
away al care of godlynes, to liue in quiet, to possess their goods,
commodities and honours unto their lyues ende, whyle they are shaken
with most myghty temptacions, with sundrye and manyfold engines of
the deuill, but they do not consyder, that the deuel is gentle ynoughe
to them that trouble him not, that whyle he semeth in manner to
flatter his, leaste they should forsake him, by this trayne he maye entyse
many moe unto him. A snake hurteth no man that toucheth him not,
but yf thou [Bv rº] presse him neuer so lytle, strayghtwaye he riseth
up against the[e] with fearfull hyssinge and armed wyth poyson. A
scorpion semeth very gentle, and as thoughe he woulde embrase a
man, but touche him neuer so lytle, and he wil turne the daungerous
sting in his tayle againste the[e].
You (right excellent lord) haue sore hurte the deuell which is both a
snake and a scorpion, and ruler of the darkenes of this world, wherfore
what maruel you if he labour to destroy you? Sureli, if I might se[e]
it otherwise chaunce, I would much muse and be dismaide at the
contrarye fashion of thynges. He sore suspecteth that he shall not be
able to fraye the people of Christe from the gospell, unles he rage
against you, by whome supersticion is maruelouslye broken, by whom
the lyght of godlynes hath generallie shined upon this realme. But [Bv
vº] comforte your selfe and be strong. His power hath an ende, he
cannot passe his bo[u]ndes. But beware of this one thing that you
254 appendix 2

nether consyder nor remembre to[o] ofte, your old state, wherin you
were before your fall. For as ofte as any suche thought commeth in
your minde, the flesh complayneth againe that much goodes is taken
away, without which it iudgeth escaping with life not to be swete, and
murmureth that it were better to haue died at once, than to haue
recouered a life so broughte out of fashion. But we must not suffre
our minde so to be moued with them, but that it may put away the
mist when it wil and se[e] that with taking awaye of great authorities,
heapes of honours, and chief orderinge of matters, great cares are also
cut away. You may not learne of me how busy and how painfull a
thing it is to rule a com- [Bvi rº] mune weale with counsel and good
prouision. For that your self haue ben sufficiently taughte by experience
to knowe. Now at length (as I thinke) you may haue more leasure to
study godlines and knowledge of thinges belonging to god.23 Wherfore
I wold haue you thus to thinke, that you muste nedes haue raunsomed
this quietness and peasable life, with some losse of those goods, which (I
dare say for you) you neuer greatlye passed for, although the commune
people do singularly esteme and specially regarde them. Paul doth
very wholesomly instruct us concerning this matter wrytinge unto the
Romanes. Raunsoming the time bycause the dayes are euill.24 These
wordes are few and shortly spoken, and that they may be fully and
perfectly understanded, they must thus be expounded. In the nature
of the dayes [Bvi vº] yf they be consydred alone and by them selues,
there is no euell, seynge they runne deuyded with a pleasant diuersyte,
and carrye and recarrye into the worlde darknes and lyght, the one to
followe the other in most goodlie order. But the Apostle called them
euell, by cause that in their tyme ii. [i.e. ‘two’] greate euells chaunce
unto men, I meane miserye and synne.
Howe myserable a lyfe we lyue in this worlde, thys playnlye prou-
eth, that no parte therof is withoute mysery. When are we not other
troubled or tempted with the nedes of nature? In what parte of our
age is not oure lyfe layed in wayte for, other of dyseases, of outwarde
chaunces, or noughtye men for to destroye us? How innumerable are

23 The fallen Protector also involved himself in good works on behalf of foreign

Protestants. In June of 1550 during his period of rehabilitation after his fall from
power, Somerset obtained the property of the former abbey of Glastonbury through an
exchange of lands with the king. Here he enabled some Flemish protestant refugees to
establish a community for the manufacture of cloth. Somerset’s eventual imprisonment
in October 1551 ended his involvement in the scheme.
24 Ephes. 5:16.
 vermigli: epistle to the duke of somerset 255

the dangers which do besege us on euery side? Graunt that al thinges

be now and than quiet, who is out of the [Bvii rº] danger of false
brethren? Fynallye, who is he that professeth Christe, and is not greued,
troubled, and miserablie uexed in his mynde other with his owne
synnes or other mens? All these thynges withoute doubte do heape up
the myserie of our dayes. Sin also groweth, encreaseth and goeth for-
warde more and more the longer that we lyue, unles it be resysted, with
great hede and diligence. For our nature is so infected and corrupted
with oure naturall dysease which they call original synne that we car-
rye aboute us euen within our selues the begynninge and fountanie of
al synnes, whiche yf a man do diligently marke he shall perceaue that
the Apostle hath truly writen that goodnes dwelleth not in oure fleshe.25
Out of this natural corruption procede alwayes frowarde ententes, vio-
lente fumes, and appetites in [Bvii vº] manner unable to be vanquished,
that striue against the law of god, whiche (alas) oftentimes (suche is oure
weakenes) oure will (whiche should stoutely kepe them under) unhap-
pely obeyeth unto. Yea (and the more pitie is) it is so established in
them by custome and use, that euery day it waxeth harder to heale
than other.
Therefore seinge our dayes are so euil, both by reason of miserye
and also of sinne, by abundaunte wealth, great authority, hie honor,
men become neuer the better, but waxe the prouder therby. He that
ruleth a commune weale though he haue hie dignitie, yet oftentimes
lacketh he good health. For of continual cares and troubles of the minde
brede euyll humors in the bodye, wheruon cometh plenty of diseases.
As for outwarde perilles and chaunces that come by hap runne most
abrod there wher they find metest [Bviii rº] and largest rome. Wher
(I pray you) do the blastes of enuy, the waues of wrath, the heat of
hatred and enimitie more cruelly rage than there. Manye times rise
up vaine perilles, and destruction prepareth itself an easy way to crepe
in, by our familiars, euen those whom we we take to be our moste

25 Romans 7: 14–25 “19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I

would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it,
but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is
present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see
another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into
captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who
shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our
Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law
of sin.”
256 appendix 2

faithfull and secret frendes.26 I speake nothing how greuously the minde
is tourmented, when wise rulers do perceaue that oftentimes in the
gouernance of the commune weale, those faultes which they or other
do comit, can not be redressed by theyr power and authorite. Is ther
not also a great numbre of miseryes heaped up to encrease all these
thynges whiche they must nedes suffre that rule in the commune weale?
And although all men lyue myserable dayes, yet they most miserable of
all whome the people thynketh happye.27 [Bviii vº]
But nowe let us loke asyde to the wretched pestilence of vices,
whether you recken those which be natural unto us, or passions that
violentlye burste out, or euell workes which are purposed and agreed
unto, or noughtye customes and auncient uses, and we shal sone per-
ceaue, that men that be aduaunced to honorable estate, haue lesse
leysure to fyght against them than priuat men haue. For whyle all the
senses of the mynde are occupyed aboute commune and other mens
affaires, O Lorde, what darknes? how great a mist, kepeth them from
seyng their owne? In no state we knowe oure selues worse than in
that, and all our laboure tendeth to this ende, rather to make others
better, than to fashion oure owne affections, workes and customes of
our mindes accordynge to the law of God and heauenly doctryne.
Therefore [Ci rº] on both sydes the state of them that rule and gouerne
realmes, is unhappier than theirs which liue a priuat and their owne
life. For they are loaden with the heauier burden of miseries, and
abyde greater occasions of vices, and they can least labour to ammende
them selues. Wherfore God almyghtye somtyme pityeth their case, and
fyndeth meanes for them to raunsome the dayes that be so euell.
But unles we geue somwhat for to receaue somwhat agayne, it is no
raunsominge. For we use to call them raunsomed, which being bonde
to some necessite paye somwhat els to obteyne their lyberte. There to
auoyde euels we must be contente to suffre some losse. Wyse and thriftie
men do prouyde to put away the lesse good for to obteyne the greater,
and take upon them the lesser euell for to auoyde the greater. This
doeth the worde raunsome [Ci vº] signifye in our commune speache.
Thus cometh it to passe, that that is rather to be reioysed at, which

26 Somerset’s brother Thomas Seymour thought that as uncle to the king that

he should have a more significant role in government and demanded promotion as

the king’s governor. When Somerset refused Thomas pursued reckless schemes to
undermine his brother that led to his arrest in January 1549 and ultimately to his
execution in March.
27 Henry IV, part 2, “uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.”
 vermigli: epistle to the duke of somerset 257

blynde loue complayneth of in the fleshe. Therfore yf it at any tyme

lament the losse of the dygnite you had before, of the ordering of the
commune weale, of the gouernaunce of the realme, and other lyke, let
God be thanked whiche hathe partlye geuen you a raunsomynge of
the euell dayes. Therfore I saye, partlye, because whyle we are in this
lyfe, they shall neuer be perfectlye good, but we saye that they haue
raunsomed them that for some losse haue obteyned to haue them not
so euell as they were.
I haye red that it is a commune prouerbe amonge the people of
Affrike. The plague standeth at thy dore to begge a pennye of the[e],
geue him two to get him awaye. Surelye godly men ought to spende
awaye [Cii rº] muche ryches, speciallye suche as the ignoraunt people
dothe moste esteme, for to obteine more greater sounde and certayne
riches. We are wonte to recouer oure healthe by lettynge of bloude,
often times we put awaye by coarsynge certayne pushes or painfull
botches in our bodye, partlye with cuttyng, partlye with searinge, part-
lye with pluckynge away parte of the membre. Why shoulde we not also
be content to coarse the miserye of our lyfe, and more pure affection of
oure mynde with some losse. It is like to happen that they whiche do
not here raunsome the euell dayes with putting awaye the commoditees
of thys lyfe, and pleasures of the bodye, at the last daye of iudgement,
they shal haue them worse, and that not for a shorte tyme, but for euer.
And the wretches shal abye28 their folishnes, that caused them to set
more by the [Cii vº] lesse good than the greater.
This we oughte surely to beleue that God our father dothe order al
these thinges. And yf we that be euell, can geue good giftes unto our
children, howe muche more shal our heauenly father prouide wel for
his children?29 He taketh away somtimes earthly riches and worldly
glory, that we maye learne the frailtye therof.30 Are we so folyshe,
that (although we do see harde stones broken in processe of tyme)
and buildinges settled and strongly ioyned with lime, iron and led at
length to decay, yet we thinke that good fortune and prosperite of this
world wil abide for euer? With whiche errour we being led (somtymes
farre from the treuth) do set more by these goods which brute bestes
haue as wel as we, and euell menne as wel as the good, than those
which the lord of hys goodnes hathe appointed for [Ciii rº] hys chosen

28 i.e. “purchase”
29 Luke 11:13.
30 Job 1:21.
258 appendix 2

bothe in this life and in the worlde to come. And yet I do not write
this unto youre grace (most excellent Duke) as thoughe you had not
these remedies and far better then these in stoare. For I do wel knowe
what knowledge and wisdome the spirit of Christ hath geuen you,
but that you shoulde take some pleasure in reding these, consideringe
that throughe the selfe same spirit of Christ, concerning the selfe same
thinges, all they that sauer of Christe agree in one selfe same tale, and
thereby you maye be the more encouraged to use them. I wyshe youre
grace in the lorde wel to fare, and offer unto you (as I am no lesse
bound both by your loue and benefites) my selfe and my seruice redye
at al assayes.

Yours graces most humble,

Peter Martyr.

Seke peace and ensue it

Psal. Xxxiii. i. Pet.iii

The feare of the lord is the beginnynge of wisedome

Psalm. cxi.b. prou. ix.b. Job. xxviii.
Eccle. i.c.

Imprynted at London for Gaulter Lynne, dwellynge on Somers Kaye,

by Byllynges gate. In the yeare of our Lorde M.D.L. [1550]

And they be to be solde in Paules churche yarde, nexte the great

Schole, at the sygne of the sprede Egle.

Cum priuilegio ad imprimendum solum.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibliographies1

Donnelly, John Patrick, ed. with Robert M. Kingdon and Marvin W. Ander-
son. A Bibliography of the Works of Peter Martyr Vermigli. Kirksville, Mo: Six-
teenth Century Journal Publishers, 1990.
Büsser, Fritz, ed. Heinrich Bullinger Bibliographie. Hrsg. unter Mitwirkung des Zwing-
livereins in Zürich, des Instituts für Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte; Bd. 1,
Joachim Stædtke, “Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der gedruckten Werke von
Heinrich Bullinger”; and Bd. 2, Erland Herkenrath, “Beschreibendes Ver-
zeichnis der Literatur über Heinrich Bullinger.” Zürich: Theologischer Ver-
lag, 1972.
James, Montague Rhodes. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library
of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1912.

Manuscript Sources—Vermigli

“A sermon concernynge the tyme of rebellion translated from the Latin of Pe-
ter Martyr.” Corpus Christi College Cambridge, MS 102, no, 29, fols. 409–
499.
“Cogitationes Petri Martyris contra seditionem.” Corpus Christi College Cam-
bridge, MS 102, no. 34, fols. 530–532.
“Sermo Petri Martir manu propria scripta in seditionem Devonensium.” Cor-
pus Christi College Cambridge, MS 340, no. 4, fols. 73–95.

Printed Sources—Vermigli

For a complete bibliographical listing of early editions of Vermigli’s works

(both Latin and English) please refer to the Donnelly bibliography cited above.

Vermigli, Peter Martyr. The Common Places of the most famous and renowmed diuine
Doctor Peter Martyr: diuided into foure principall parts: with a large addition of manie
theologicall and necessarie discourses, some neuer extant before. Translated and partlie

1 My thanks to my research assistant, Jason Zuidema, doctoral student in Church

History at McGill, for his thorough work on the bibliography of Peter Martyr Vermigli.
260 bibliography

gathered by Anthonie Marten. London: Henrie Denham, Thomas Chard,

William Broome, and Andrew Maunsell, 1583.
———. Another Collection of certeine Divine matters and doctrines of the same M.D. Peter
Martyr. An appendix to the above edition of Common Places, transl. Anthony
Marten. London: Henry Denham, 1583.
———. An epistle vnto the right honorable and christian prince, the Duke of Somerset written
vnto him in Latin, awhile after hys deliueraunce out of trouble, by the famous clearke
Doctour Peter Martyr, and translated into Englyshe by Thomas Norton. Londo[n]:
[N. Hill] for Gualter Lynne, 1550.
———. In duos libros Samuelis Prophetae qui vulgo Priores libri Regum appellantur
D. Petri Martyris Vermilii Florentini, professoris diuinarum literarum in schola Tigurina,
Commentarii doctissimi, cum rerum & locorum plurimorum tractatione perutili. Zurich:
C. Froschauer, 1564; second edition, Froschauer, 1567.
———. In Epistolam S. Pauli Apostoli Ad Romanos D. Petri Martyris Vermilij Florentini,
Professoris diuniaru[m] in schola Tigurini, com[m]entarij doctissimi, cum tractatione
perutili rerum & locorum, qui ad eam epistolam pertinent Basle: Petrus Perna, 1558;
repr. Perna 1560; second edition, 1568.
———. In librum Iudicum D. Petri Martyris Vermilij Florentini … commentarij doctissimi:
cum tractatione perutili rerum & locorum. Accesserunt praetereà indices duo locupletiss.
rerum scilicet & uerborum: locorum item sacrae scripturae, qui in hoc libro syncerissimè
explicantur. Zurich: Christopher Froschauer, 1561.
———. In Primum, Secundum, et Initium Tertii Libri Ethicorum Aristotelii ad Nichoma-
chum. Zurich: C. Froschauer, 1563.
———. Loci communes: Ex variis ipsius aucthoris & libris in unum volumen collecti, &
quatour classes distribute, ed. Robert Masson. 3 vols. London: John Kingston,
1576; Basle: Petrus Perna, 1580–1582.
———. Most fruitfull [and] learned co[m]mentaries of Doctor Peter Martir Vermil Floren-
tine, professor of deuinitie, in the Vniuersitye of Tygure: with a very profitable tract of the
matter and places. Herein is also added [and] contained two most ample tables, aswel of
the matter, as of the wordes: wyth an index of the places in the holy scripture. Set forth &
allowed, accordyng to thorder appointed in the Quenes maiesties iniunctions. London:
Iohn Day, 1564. [variant title: Commentarie vpon the booke of Iudges; an English
translation of In librum Judicum commentarii doctissimi.]
———. Most learned and fruitfull commentaries of D. Peter Martir Vermilius Florentine,
professor of diuinitie in the schole of Tigure, vpon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes:
wherin are diligently [and] most profitably entreated all such matters and chiefe common
places of religion touched in the same Epistle. With a table of all the common places and
expositions vpon diuers places of the scriptures, and also an index to finde all the principall
matters conteyned in the same. Lately tra[n]slated out of Latine into Englishe,
by H[enry] B[illingsley]. London: Iohn Daye, cum gratia & priuilegio Regiæ
Maiestatis per decennium, 1568.
———. Tractatio de sacramento Eucharistiæ [electronic resource]: habita in celeberrima
vniuersitate Oxoniensi in Anglia, per D. Petrum Martyrem Vermilium Florentinum,
Regium ibidem Theologiæ professorem, cum iam absoluisset interpretationem. II capi-
tis prioris epistolæ D. Pauli Apostoli ad Corinthios. Ad hec. Disputatio de eode[m]
Eucharistiae Sacramento, in eadem Vniuersitate habita per eundem D.P. Mar. Anno
Domini M.D.XLIX. London: [R. Wolfe] ad æneum serpentem, [1549].
 bibliography 261

The Peter Martyr Library

Vol. 1. Early writings: creed, Scripture, church. 1994. M. di Gangi, Joseph C. McLel-
land, and Philip McNair, translators and editors.
Vol. 2. Dialogue on the two natures in Christ. 1995. J.P. Donnelly translator and
editor.
Vol. 3. Sacred prayers drawn from the Psalms of David. 1996. J.P. Donnelly, translator
and editor.
Vol. 4. Philosophical works: on the relation of philosophy to theology. 1996. J.C. McLel-
land, translator and editor.
Vol. 5. Life, letters, and sermons. 1999. J.P. Donnelly, translator and editor.
Vol. 6. Commentary on Lamentations of the prophet Jeremiah. 2002. Daniel Shute,
translator and editor.
Vol. 7. The Oxford Treatise and Disputation on the Eucharist. 2000. J.C. McLelland,
translator and editor.
Vol. 8. Predestination and justification: two theological loci. 2003. Frank A. James, III,
translator and editor.
Vol. 9. Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. 2006. Joseph C. McLelland
and Emidio Campi, editors.
The Peter Martyr Reader. 1999. J.P. Donnelly, Frank A. James III, and J.C. McLel-
land, editors.
All volumes in the Peter Martyr Library published—Kirksville, MO: Truman
State University Press.

Printed Sources—Bullinger

Bullinger, Heinrich. Bullæ papisticæ ante biennium contra sereniss. Angliæ, Franciæ
& Hyberniæ Reginam Elizabetham, & contra inclytum Angliæ regnum promulgatæ,
refutatio, orthodoxæq[ue] Reginæ, & vniuersi regni Angliæ defensio. London: John
Day, 1571.
———. A confutation of the Popes bull which was published more then two yeres agoe against
Elizabeth the most gracious Queene of England, Fraunce, and Ireland, and against the
noble realme of England: together with a defence of the sayd true Christian Queene,
and of the whole realme of England. London: John Day, cum priuilegio Regiæ
Maiestatis per decennium, 1572.
———. De Scripturæ sanctæ authoritate, certitudine, firmitate et absoluta perfectione, de[que]
episcoporum … institutione & functione, contra superstitionis tyrannidis[que] Romanæ
antistites … libri duo. Zurich: Christopher Froschauer, 1538.
———. Sermonum decades quinque, de potissimis Christianæ religionis capitibus, in tres
tomas digestae, authore Henrycho Bullingero ecclesiae Tigurinae ministro. Zurich:
Christopher Froschauer, 1552.
———. Fiftie godlie and learned sermons, divided into fiue decades translated by H.I.
London: R. Newberie, 1577. [STC 4056]
———. The decades of Henry Bullinger. Edited for the Parker Society [vols. 7–
10] by Thomas Harding. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1849–1852.
262 bibliography

———. The judgement of the godly and learned H. Bullinger declaring it lawfull to weare
the apparell prescribed. Two parts. London: W. Seres, 1566. [STC 4063]
———. The iudgement of the Reuerend Father Master Henry Bullinger, pastor of the church
of Zurick, in certeyne matters of religion, beinge in controuersy in many countreys, euen
wher as the Gopel [sic] is taught. [Emden: Printed by Egidius van der Erve],
1566. [STC 4065. Translated excerpts from: Sermonum decades quinque.]
———. A treatise or sermon of Henry Bullynger: much fruitfull and necessarye for this
tyme, concernynge magistrates and obedience of subiectes; Also concernyng the affayres of
warre, and what scryptures make mension thereof; whether christen powers may war
against their ennemies; And whither it be laufull for a christyan to beare the office
of a magistrate, and of the duety of souldiers with many other holsom instructions
for captaynes [and] souldiers both. Made in the yeare of our lorde. [London]: [by
W. Powell?] for Gwalter Lynne dwellynge vpon Somers Kaye by Byllynges
gate, 1549. [The ninth sermon of the second series of Sermonum Decades, tr.
by W. Lynne]

Other Primary Sources

A briefe examination for the tyme, of a certaine declaration, lately put in print in the name
and defence of certaine ministers in London, refusyng to weare the apparell prescribed by
the lawes and orders of the realme: In the ende is reported, the iudgement of two notable
learned fathers, M. doctour Bucer, and M. doctour Martir … translated out of the
originals, written by theyr owne handes, purposely debatyng this controuersie. London:
Richarde Iugge, printer to the Queenes Maiestie, 1566.
Anglican Canons, 1529–1947, ed. Gerald Bray. Woodbridge: Boydell Press; [Read-
ing]: Church of England Record Society in association with the Ecclesiasti-
cal Law Society, 1998. [includes Reformatio Legum ecclesiasticarum: 1553 revision
of the Canon Law of the Church of England]
Chronicle of the Grey friars of London, ed. John Gough Nichols. London: Camden
Society, 1852.
Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Emil Friedberg. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1879;
repr. Graz, 1955, 1959.
A message sent by the kynges Majestie, to certain of his people, assembled in Devonshire.
London: Richard Grafton, printer to the Kynges Maiestie, 1549.
Original letters relative to the English reformation: written during the reigns of King Henry
VIII., King Edward VI., and Queen Mary: chiefly from the archives of Zurich. Trans-
lated from authenticated copies of the autographs, and edited for the Parker
Society, by the Rev. Hastings Robinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1846.
Synodalia: a collection of articles of religion, canons, and proceedings of convocations in the
Province of Canterbury, from the year 1547 to the year 1717, ed. Edward Cardwell.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1842.
The First and Second Prayer Books of King Edward VI. London: Dent, 1968; repr.
London: Prayer Book Society, 1999.
The Fortresse of Fathers, ernestlie defending the puritie of Religion, and Ceremonies, by the
trew exposition of certaine places of Scripture: against such as wold bring in an Abuse
 bibliography 263

of Idol stouff, and of thinges indifferent, and do appoinct th’authority of Princes and
Prelates larger then the trueth is. Translated out of Latine into English for there
sakes that understand no Latine by I.B. [Emden: Egidius van der Erve],
1566.
The seconde tome of homelyes of such matters as were promised and intituled in the former
part of homelyes, set out by the aucthoritie of the Quenes Maiestie: and to be read in euery
paryshe churche agreablye. London: Richard Jugge, 1563.
The Zurich letters (first series): comprising the correspondance of several English bishops
and others, with some of the Helvetian reformers, during the early part of the reign of
Queen Elizabeth. Transl. and ed. for the Parker Society by Hastings Robinson.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1842.
The Zurich letters (second series) comprising the correspondence of several English bishops
and others with some of the Helvetian reformers, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth.
Translated from authenticated copies of the autographs, and edited for
the Parker Society by the Rev. Hastings Robinson. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1845.
Whether it be mortall sinne to transgresse civil lawes which be the commaundementes of
civill magistrates / the judgement of Philip Melancton in his epitome of morall philosophie
[and] the resolution of D. Hen. Bullinger and D. Rod. Gualter, of D. Martin Bucer
and D. Peter Martyr concerning th[e] apparrel of ministers, and other indifferent thinges.
London: Richard Jugge, Printer to the Queenes Maiestie, 1566.
Anderson, Anthony. An exposition of the hymne commonly called Benedictus: with an
ample & comfortable application of the same, to our age and people. London: Henry
Middleton, for Raufe Newbery, 1574.
à Wood, Anthony. Historia et antiquitates universitatis Oxoniensis. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1674.
Augustine, Aurelius. The City of God against the Pagans, ed. and transl. by R.W.
Dyson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Beza, Theodore. De vera excommunicatione et Christiano presbyterio. Geneva 1590.
Cheke, Sir John The Hurt of Sedicion howe greueous it is to a commune welth. London:
John Day and William Seres, 1549.
Cranmer, Thomas. The remains of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury. Ed.
Henry Jenkyns. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1833.
———. The works of Thomas Cranmer. Ed. John Edmund Cox. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1844–1846.
———. The work of Thomas Cranmer. Ed. G.E. Duffield. Appleford, Berkshire:
Sutton Courtenay Press, 1964.
Crowley, Robert. A briefe discourse against the outwarde apparell and Ministring Gar-
mentes of the Popishe Church. [Emden: Egidius van der Erve], 1566.
Erastus, Thomas. Explicatio gravissimae quaestiones, utrum excommunicatio, mandato
nitatur divino, an excogitata sit ab hominibus. Ed. J. Castelvetro. London: J. Wolfe,
1589. [STC 10511]
Frere, Walter H. and C.E. Douglas, eds. Puritan Manifestoes: A Study of the Origin
of the Puritan Revolt. London: SPCK, 1954.
Gorham, George C. Gleanings of a few scattered ears, during the period of the Refor-
mation in England and of the times immediately succeeding, A.D. 1533 to A.D. 1588:
comprehending I. Engravings of eleven seals of Cranmer, Parkhurt, and Jewel. II. Let-
264 bibliography

ters, &c. (for a great part hitherto unpublished) of [Peter] Martyr [Vermigli], Bishop
Parkhurst, Sandys, &c. London: Bell and Daldy, 1857.
Hooker, Richard. The Folger Library Edition of the Works of Richard Hooker, gen.
ed. W. Speed Hill. 7 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, 1977–1998.
Jewel, John. Apologiae ecclesiae anglicanae. London: Thomas Vautrollier, 1581.
[STC 14582]
———. An Apologie … in defence of the Church of England. London: R. Wolfe, 1562.
[STC 14590]
———. A Defence of the Apologie of the Churche of Englande, an answeare to a certaine
booke by M. Hardinge. London: H. Wykes, 1567. [STC 14600]
Josephus, Flavius. Antiquitatum Iudaicarum libri XX. Basel: Froben, 1548.
Kingdon, Robert M., ed. The Political Thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli: Selected
Texts and Commentary. Geneva: Droz, 1980.
Lavater, Ludwig. De Ritibus et Institutis Ecclesiae Tigurinae. Zurich: Christopher
Froschauer, 1559.
Morison, Richard. A remedy for sedition: wherin are conteyned many thynges, concernyng
the true and loyall obeysance, that comme[n]s owe vnto their prince and soueraygne lorde
the Kynge. London: Thomæ Berthelet, 1536.
Musculus, Wolfgang. Common Places of Christian Religion. Translated by J. Man,
1563. London: H. Bynneman, 1578. [STC 18309]
———. Loci communes in usus theologiae candidatorum parati. Basel: House of Her-
vagen, Eusebius Episcopius, 1573.
Parker, Matthew, ed. A brief examination for the tyme, of a certaine declaration, lately put
in print, in the name and defence of certaine Ministers in London, refusing to weare the
apparel prescribed by the lawes and orders of the Realme … London: Richard Jugge,
1566. [STC 10387]
Pii Papae V sententia declaratoria contra Elizabetham praetensam angliæ regem, et ei
adharentes haereticos. 1570. In John Jewel, A viewe of a seditious bul sent into
Englande, from Pius Quintus Bishop of Rome, anno. 1569. Taken by the reuerende
Father in God, Iohn Iewel, late Bishop of Salisburie. London: R. Newberie &
H. Bynneman, 1582. [STC 14614]
Pole, Reginald. De Summo Pontifice Christi in terris Vicario, eiusque officio & potes-
tate, Louvain: Apud Ioannem Foulerum Anglum., 1569; facsimile reprint,
Farnborough 1968.
———. Ad Henricum Octavum Britanniæ regem, pro ecclesiasticæ unitatis defensione, libri
quatuor … Excussum. Romæ: Apud Antonium Bladum Asulanum, 1538;
repr. in Juan T. Rocaberti, Bibliotheca maxima pontificia, Rome, 1698, XVIII.
———. Defense of the Unity of the Church, translated by Joseph G. Dwyer. Westmin-
ster, MD: Newman Press, 1965.
Simler, Josiah. Oratio de vita et obitu viri optimi, praestantissimi Theologi Petri Martyris
Vermilii, Sacrarum literarum in schola Tigurina Professoris. Zurich: Froschauer,
1563.
Spalding, James C., ed. Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum: The Reformation of the
Ecclesiastical Laws of England, 1552. Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies.
Vol. 19. Kirksville, Mo: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1992. (In-
cludes Vermigli’s emendations to text of the Ecclesiastical Laws).
 bibliography 265

Whitgift, John. The Works of John Whitgift. Edited by John Ayre. 3 vols. Parker
Society, 46–48. Cambridge: University Press, 1851–1853.
Wriothesley, Sir Charles. A Chronicle of England during the reigns of the Tudors,
from A.D. 1485 to 1559. ed. W.D. Hamilton, from a transcript made early
in the seventeenth century for the third earl of Southampton. Westminster:
Camden Society, 1875–1877.

Selected Secondary Sources

“Peter Martyr (1499–1562).” In the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd
edn. F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1997.
Alford, Stephen. Kingship and politics in the reign of Edward VI. Cambridge; New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Anderson, Marvin W. Peter Martyr, a reformer in exile (1542–1562): a chronology of
biblical writings in England & Europe. Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1975.
———. “Peter Martyr on Romans.” Scottish Journal of Theology 26 (1973): 401–
420.
———. “Peter Martyr, Reformed theologian (1542–1562), his letters to Heinrich
Bullinger and John Calvin.” Sixteenth Century Journal 4 (1973): 41–64.
———. “Peter Martyr Vermigli: Protestant humanist.” In Joseph C. McLelland,
ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform. Waterloo, ON: Sir Wilfrid Laurier
University Press, 1980; 64–84.
———. “Rhetoric and Reality: Peter Martyr and the English Reformation.”
Sixteenth Century Journal 19.3 (1988): 451–469.
———. “Royal Idolatry: Peter Martyr and the Reformed tradition.” Archiv für
Reformationsgeschichte 69 (1978): 157–200.
———. “Vista Tigurina: Peter Martyr and European reform (1556–1562).” Har-
vard Theological Review 83 (1990): 181–206.
———. “Word and Spirit in Exile (1542–1562): the Biblical Writings of Peter
Martyr Vermigli.” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 21.3 (1970): 193–201.
———. “Vermigli, Peter Martyr.” In H. Hillerbrand, ed. Oxford Encyclopædia of
the Reformation. Vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996; 229–231.
Artini, Alessia. “Un grande riformatore Italiano ed Europeo, Pietro Martire
Vermigli.” PhD diss. 2. vols. Universita degli studi di Firenze, 2000.
Asselt, Willem J. van and Eef Dekker. Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical
Enterprise. Texts & Studies in Reformation & Post-Reformation Thought.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.
Bächtold, Hans Ulrich. Heinrich Bullinger vor dem Rat: zur Gestaltung und Verwaltung
des Zürcher Staatswesens in den Jahren 1531–1575. Bern: P. Lang, 1982.
Baker, J. Wayne. Heinrich Bullinger and the covenant: the other reformed tradition.
Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1980.
———. “Erastianism in England: the Zurich Connection.” In Alfred Schindler
and Hans Stickelberger, eds. Die Zürcher Reformation: Ausstrahlungen und Rück-
wirkungen. Wissenschaftliche Tagung zum hundertjährigen Bestehen des
Zwinglivereins 1997. Bern: New York: Peter Lang AG, 2001, 327–349.
266 bibliography

Baumann, Michael. “Humanist–Republikaner–Reformator: Petrus Martyr

Vermigli.” UniJournal 20.4 (1999): 20.
———. “Petrus Martyr Vermigli.” Theologika 1 (1999): 35–38.
Beer, Barrett L. Rebellion and riot: popular disorder in England during the reign of
Edward VI. [Kent, Ohio]: Kent State University Press, 1982.
———. “‘The Commoyson in Norfolk, 1549’: a narrative of popular rebellion
in sixteenth-century England.” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 6
(1976): 80–99.
Beesley, Alan. “Unpublished source of the Book of Common Prayer: Peter
Martyr Vermigli’s Adhortatio ad coenam domini mysticam.” Journal of Ecclesiastical
History 19 (1968): 83–88.
Biel, Pamela. Doorkeepers at the house of righteousness: Heinrich Bullinger and the Zurich
clergy 1535–1575. Bern; New York: P. Lang, 1991.
Blanke, Fritz Immanuel Leuschner. Heinrich Bullinger: Vater der reformierten Kirche.
Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1990.
Boesch, Paul. “Julius Terentianus, Factotum des Petrus Martyr Vermilius und
Korrector der Offizin Froshauer.” Zwingliana 8 (1948): 587–601.
Bouvier, André. Un père de l’Eglise réformée, Henri Bullinger: le second réformateur
de Zurich (ouvrage posthume complété d’après les notes de l’auteur par
Auguste Lemaitre). Genève: Diffusion, Fondation des Clefs de Saint-Pierre,
1987.
Bravi, Giulio Orazio. “Uber Die Intellektuellen Wurzeln des Republikanismus
Von Petrus Martyr Vermigli.” In Emidio Campi, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli:
Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation. Geneva: Droz, 2002; 119–142.
Bromiley, G.W. Zwingli and Bullinger; selected translations with introductions and notes.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953.
Brooke, Christopher N.L. et al., eds. Church and Government in the Middle Ages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Büsser, Fritz. “Vermigli in Zürich.” In Emidio Campi, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli:
Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation. Geneva: Droz, 2002; 203–212.
———. Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575): Leben, Werk und Wirkung. Zürich: TVZ,
Theologischer Verlag, 2004.
Campi, Emidio, ed. Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575): Leben, Denken, Wirkung. Interna-
tionaler Bullingerkongress 2004. Zürcher Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte,
Bd. 24. Zurich: Theologische Verlag Zurich, 2007.
Campi, Emidio and Bruce Gordon, eds. Architect of Reformation: an introduction to
Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004.
Campi, Emidio. Peter Martyr Vermigli: humanism, republicanism, reformation = Petrus
Martyr Vermigli: Humanismus, Republikanismus, Reformation. Geneva: Droz, 2002.
———. “Streifzug Durch Vermiglis Biographie.” In Emidio Campi, ed. Peter
Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation. Geneva: Droz, 2002;
17–36.
Caraman, Phillip. The Western rising, 1549: the Prayer Book rebellion. Tiverton: West
Country Books, 1994.
Clark, Francis. The Impact of Continental Protestantism on England. Eucharistic Sacrifice
and the Reformation. Westminster: Newman Press, 1960.
Cross, Claire “Continental Students and the Protestant Reformation in Eng-
 bibliography 267

land in the Sixteenth Century.” In Derek Baker, ed. Reform and Reforma-
tion: England and the Continent, 1500–1750. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1979; 35–
57.
———. The Royal Supremacy in the Elizabethan Church. London: Allen and Unwin,
1969.
———. “No continuing city: exiles in the English Reformation, 1520–1570.”
History Review 32 (1998): 17–22.
Dent, Christopher. Protestant Reformers in Elizabethan Oxford. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1983.
Denzinger, Heinrich. Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum de Rebus
Fidei et Morum. 37th edn. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1991.
Di Gangi, Mariano. Peter Martyr Vermigli, 1499–1562: Renaissance man, Reformation
master. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1993.
———. “Peter Martyr Vermigli, 1500–1562: an Italian Calvinist.” BD diss.,
Presbyterian College, Montreal, 1949.
Donnelly, John P. Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli’s doctrine of man and grace.
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976.
———. “Calvinist Thomism.” Viator 7 (1976): 441–455.
———. “Italian influences on the development of Calvinist scholasticism.” Six-
teenth Century Journal 7 (1976): 81–101.
———. “Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Political Ethics.” In Emidio Campi, ed. Peter
Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation. Geneva: Droz, 2002;
59–66.
———. “The social and ethical thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli.” In Joseph
C. McLelland, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform. Waterloo, Ont.: Sir
Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1980; 107–120.
Duffy, Eamon. The stripping of the altars: traditional religion in England, c. 1400 –
c. 1580. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2005.
Dupré, Louis. Passage to Modernity: An Essay in the Hermeneutics of Nature and
Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.
Ficker, Johannes. Handschriftenproben des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts nach Strassburger
Originalen. 2 portfolios. Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner, 1902–1905. [Facsimiles
of Vermigli’s autograph MSS.]
Fletcher, Anthony and Diarmaid MacCulloch. Tudor Rebellions. Harlow: Long-
mans, 2004.
Gäbler, Ulrich and Erland Herkenrath, eds. Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575: Gesam-
melte Aufsätze zum 400. Todestag im Auftrag des Instituts für Schweizeriche Reforma-
tionsgeschichte. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975.
Ganoczy, Alexandre. “La Bibliothèque de Pierre Martyr.” In his: La bibliothèque
de l’Académie de Calvin le catalogue de 1572 et ses enseignements. Geneva: Droz,
1969; 19–27.
Gardy, Frédéric. “Les Livres de Pierre Martyr Vermigli conserve à la Biblio-
thèque de Genève.” Anzeiger für Schweizerische Geschichte 50 (1919): 1–6.
Garrett, C.H. The Marian Exiles: A Study in the Origins of Elizabethan Puritanism.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938.
Gerrish, Brian A. Reformatio perennis: essays on Calvin and the Reformation in honour
of Ford Lewis Battles. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1981.
268 bibliography

Gordon, Bruce. The Swiss Reformation. Manchester and New York: Manchester
University Press, 2002.
——— and Emidio Campi. Architect of Reformation: an introduction to Heinrich Bul-
linger, 1504–1575. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2004.
Hale, David George. The Body Politic: A Political Metaphor in Renaissance English
Literature. The Hague: Mouton, 1971.
Hankey, Wayne J. “‘Dionysius dixit, lex divinitatis est ultima per media reduc-
ere:’ Aquinas, Hierocracy and the ‘Augustinisme Politique’.” Medioevo XVIII
(1992): 119–150.
———. “Augustinian Immediacy and Dionysian Mediation in John Colet, Ed-
mund Spenser, Richard Hooker, and the cardinal de Bérulle,” 125–160.
Augustinus in der Neuzeit, Colloque de la Herzog August Bibliothek de Wolfenbüttel,
14–17 octobre, 1996, sous la direction de Kurt Flasch et Dominique de Courcelles, éd.
Dominique de Courcelles. Turnhout: Editions Brepols, 1998.
Haugaard, William. Elizabeth and the English Reformation: The Struggle for a Stable
Settlement of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968.
Hillerbrand, Hans J., ed. Oxford Encyclopædia of the Reformation. Oxford: OUP,
1996.
Hollweg, Walter. Heinrich Bullingers Hausbuch: eine Untersuchung über die Anfänge
der reformierten Predigtliteratur. Neukirchen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Er-
ziehunsverein, 1965.
Hudson, Winthrop S. The Cambridge Connection and the Elizabethan Settlement of
1559. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1980.
Huelin, Gordon. “Peter Martyr and the English Reformation.” PhD diss. 2
vols. University of London, 1955.
James, Frank A. III, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European reformations: semper
reformanda. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions, vol. 115. Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 2004.
James, Frank A. III. “Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562)” In Carter Lindberg,
ed. The Reformation Theologians: an Introduction to Theology in the Early Modern
Period. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002; 198–212
———. “Peter Martyr Vermigli: at the Crossroads of Late Medieval Scholas-
ticism, Christian Humanism and Resurgent Augustinianism.” In Carl R.
Trueman and R. Scott Clark. Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment.
Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 1999; 62–78.
———. “Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–1562).” In Donald McKim, ed. Historical
Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
1998; 239–245.
Jenkin, Ann Trevenen. Notes on the Prayer Book Rebellion of 1549. Hayle: Noonva-
res Press, 1999.
Jones, Martin D.W. The Counter Reformation: Religion and Society in Early Modern
Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Jones, Norman L. Faith by Statute: Parliament and the Settlement of Religion 1559.
London: Swift Printers for the Royal Historical Society; Atlantic Highlands:
Humanities Press, 1982.
Jones, William M. “Uses of foreigners in the Church of Edward VI.” Numen,
Vol. 6, Fasc. 2. (April, 1959): 142–153.
 bibliography 269

Kantorowicz, Ernst. The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957.
Keep, David J. “Bullinger’s Defence of Queen Elizabeth.” In Ulrich Gäbler
und Erland Herkenrath, eds. Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575: gesammelte Aufsätze
zum 400. Todestag. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975; 231–241.
———. “Bullinger’s Intervention in the Vestiarian Controversy of 1566.” The
Evangelical Quarterly 47 (1975): 223–230.
———. “Theology as a Basis for Policy in the Elizabethan Church.” In Derek
Baker, ed. Studies in Church History, Vol. 11. Oxford: Blackwell, 1975; 263–
268.
Kim, Jin Young. “The Exegetical Method and Message of Peter Martyr Ver-
migli’s Commentary on Judges.” PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theolog-
ical Seminary, 2002.
Kingdon, Robert M. “Althusius’ Use of Calvinist Sources in his Politica.”
Rechtstheorie 16 (1997): 19–28.
———. “The function of law in the political thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli.”
In B.A. Gerrish and Robert Benedetto, eds. Reformatio perennis: Essays on
Calvin and the Reformation in Honour of Ford Lewis Battles. Pittsburgh: Pickwick
Pr, 1981; 159–172.
———. “Introduction” to The Political Thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli: Selected Texts
and Commentary. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1980.
———. “Peter Martyr Vermigli and the Marks of the True Church.” In F. For-
rester Church and Timothy George, eds. Continuity and discontinuity in church
history: Essays presented to George Huntston Williams on the occasion on his 65th birth-
day Leiden: Brill, 1979; 198–214.
———. “Peter Martyr Vermigli on Church Discipline.” In Emidio Campi,
ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation. Geneva: Droz,
2002.
———. “The political thought of Peter Martyr Vermigli.” In Joseph C. McLel-
land, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform. Waterloo, ON: Sir Wilfrid
Laurier University Press, 1980; 121–140.
Kirby, W.J. Torrance. “The Civil Magistrate and the ‘cura religionis’: Hein-
rich Bullinger’s prophetical office and the English Reformation,” pp. 935–
950. In Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575): Leben, Denken, Wirkung. Internationaler
Bullingerkongress 2004, ed. Emidio Campi and Peter Opitz. Zürcher Beiträge
zur Reformationsgeschichte, Bd. 24. Zurich: Theologische Verlag Zurich,
2007.
———. “Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575): Life–Thought–Influence.” Zwingliana
32 (2005): 107–117.
———. “‘Relics of the Amorites’ or adiaphora? The authority of Peter Martyr
Vermigli in the Elizabethan Vestiarian Controversy of the 1560s.” Refor-
mation and Renaissance Review: Journal of the Society for Reformation Studies 6.3
(December, 2004): 313–326.
———. “‘The Charge of Religion Belongeth unto Princes:’ Peter Martyr Ver-
migli on the Unity of Civil and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.” Archiv für Refor-
mationsgeschichte 94 (2003): 161–175.
———. “Vermilius Absconditus? The Iconography of Peter Martyr Vermigli.” In
270 bibliography

Emidio Campi, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation.

Geneva: Droz, 2002; 295–304.
———. “The Civil Magistrate: Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Commentary on Ro-
mans 13.” In J.P. Donnelly, Frank James III and Joseph C. McLelland,
eds. The Peter Martyr Reader. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press,
1999; 221–237.
———. “Political Theology in the Reformation Period.” In Susan Harris, ed.,
No Power but of God: Political Theology and the Christian’s Relation to the State.
Proceedings of the 18th Atlantic Theological Conference. Charlottetown:
St. Peter’s Publications, 1999; 61–68.
———. Richard Hooker’s Doctrine of the Royal Supremacy. Studies in the History of
Christian Thought, vol. XLIII. Leiden and New York: E.J. Brill, 1990.
———. “Supremum Caput: Richard Hooker’s Theology of Ecclesiastical Domin-
ion.” Dionysius 12 (1988): 69–110.
Kressner, Helmut. Schweizer Ursprünge des anglikanischen Staatskirchentums. Güter-
sloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1953.
Lake, Peter. Anglicans and Puritans? Presbyterianism and English Conformist Thought
from Whitgift to Hooker. London: Unwin and Hyman, 1988.
Loades, D.M. The mid-Tudor crisis, 1545–1565. New York: St. Martin’s Press,
1992.
———. Essays on the reign of Edward VI. Oxford: Davenant Press, 2004.
Locher, Gottfried W. Zwingli’s thought: new perspectives. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981.
Löwe, J. Andreas. “Peter Martyr Vermigli and Richard Smyth’s De Votis Monas-
ticis.” In Emidio Campi, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism,
Reformation. Geneva: Droz, 2002; 143–172.
———. Richard Smyth and the language of orthodoxy: re-imagining Tudor Catholic polemi-
cism. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003.
MacCulloch, Diarmaid. “Peter Martyr and Thomas Cranmer.” In Emidio
Campi, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation. Gene-
va: Droz, 2002; 173–202.
———. The Reformation: Europe’s House Divided, 1490–1700. London: Allan Lane,
2003.
———. The Later Reformation in England, 1547–1603. Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire; New York: Palgrave, 2001; first edn. New York: St. Martin’s
Press, 1990.
———. Thomas Cranmer: a life. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.
———. Tudor church militant: Edward VI and the Protestant Reformation. London:
Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, 1999.
MacMillan, Ken. “Zurich Reform and the Elizabethan Settlement of 1559.”
Anglican and Episcopal History 68 (1999): 285–311.
McLelland, Joseph C. and G.E. Duffield, Eds. The Life, Early Letters and Eucharis-
tic Writings of Peter Martyr. Abingdon, Oxford: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1989.
———. “Calvinism perfecting Thomism: Peter Martyr Vermigli’s question.”
Scottish Journal of Theology. 31/6 (1978): 571–578.
———. “Editing the Peter Martyr Library.” In Erika Rummel, ed. Editing texts
from the age of Erasmus. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Pr., 1996; 71–79.
———. “From Montreal to Zurich (1949–1999): Vermigli Studies Today.” In
 bibliography 271

Emidio Campi, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation.

Geneva: Droz, 2002; 9–16.
———. “Peter Martyr Vermigli: scholastic or humanist?” In Joseph C. McLel-
land, ed. Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform. Waterloo, Ont.: Sir Wilfrid
Laurier University Press, 1980; 141–152.
———. The Visible Words of God: An Exposition of the Sacramental Theology of Peter
Martyr Vermigli, AD 1500–1562. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.
McNair, Philip M.J. “Peter Martyr in England.” In Joseph C. McLelland, ed.
Peter Martyr Vermigli and Italian Reform. Waterloo, Ont.: Sir Wilfrid Laurier
University Press, 1980; 85–105.
———. Peter Martyr in Italy: an anatomy of apostasy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.
Mühling, Andreas. Heinrich Bullingers europäische Kirchenpolitik. Bern: New York:
Peter Lang, 2001.
Oberman, Heiko A. “The Nicodemites: Courageous Alternative to the Refu-
gee.” In his: The Impact of the Reformation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994;
187–194.
O’Donovan, Joan Lockwood. Theology of Law and Authority in the English Reforma-
tion. Atlanta, GA: Scolar’s Press, 1991.
——— and Oliver O’Donovan. Bonds of imperfection: Christian politics, past and
present. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing,
2004.
Overell, M.A. “Peter Martyr in England 1547–1553: an alternative view.”
Sixteenth Century Journal 15.1 (1984): 87–104.
Pauck, Wilhelm, ed. Melanchthon and Bucer. Library of Christian Classics, vol.
19. London: SCM Press, 1969.
Pettegree, Andrew. Marian Protestantism: six studies. Aldershot, UK: Scolar, 1996.
Phillips, Walter. “Heinrich Bullinger and the Elizabethan Vestiarian Contro-
versy: an Analysis of Influence.” Journal of Religious History 11.3 (June, 1981):
363–384.
Primus, J.H. The Vestments Controversy: An Historical Study of the Earliest Tensions
within the Church of England in the Reigns of Edward VI and Elizabeth. Kampen:
J.H. Kok, 1960.
Rivière, J. Le problème de l’église et de l’état au temps de Philippe le Bel: Étude de théologie
positive. Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, VIII, Paris: Librairie Ancienne
H. Champion, E. Champion, 1926.
Rorem, Paul. Pseudo-Dionysius: A Commentary on the Texts and an Introduction to their
Influence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Rose-Troup, Frances James. The western rebellion of 1549: an account of the insurrec-
tions in Devonshire and Cornwall against religious innovations in the reign of Edward
VI. London: Smith, Elder, 1913.
Schindler, Alfred. “Vermigli und die Kirchenväter.” In Emidio Campi, ed. Peter
Martyr Vermigli: Humanism, Republicanism, Reformation. Geneva: Droz, 2002;
37–44.
Shagan, Ethan. “Protector Somerset and the 1549 Rebellions: New Sources
and New Perspectives.” English Historical Review 114.455 (Feb. 1999): 34–63.
Skinner, Quentin. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Vol. 2 “The Refor-
mation.” Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
272 bibliography

Spijker, Willem van’t. Reformation and Scholasticism. Grand Rapids, Michigan:

Baker, 2001; 79–98.
Stayer, James M. The German Peasants’ War and Anabaptist community of goods.
Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1991.
Strype, John. Annals of the reformation and establishment of religion, and other various
occurrences in the church of England, during Queen Elizabeth’s happy reign: together
with an appendix of original papers of state, records and letters. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1824.
———. Memorials of the Most Reverend Father in God Thomas Cranmer, sometime Lord
Archbishop of Canterbury: wherein the history of the church, and reformation of it …,
are greatly illustrated. London: Richard Chiswell, 1694; new edn. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1812.
Sturt, John. Revolt in the west: the Western Rebellion of 1549. Exeter: Devon Books,
1987.
Sutherland, N.M. “The Marian Exiles and the Establishment of the Eliza-
bethan Regime.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte (1987): 253–286.
Taplin, Mark. The Italian reformers and the Zurich Church, c. 1540–1620. Burlington,
VT: Ashgate, 2003.
———. “Pietro Martire Vemigli.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2004.
Tierney, Brian. The Crisis of Church and State, 1050–1300. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1988.
Ullmann, Walter. Law and Politics in the Middle Ages: An Introduction to the Sources of
Medieval Political Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
Verkamp, Bernard J. The Indifferent Mean: Adiaphorism in the English Reformation to
1554. Athens, Ohio: Ohio U. Press and Wayne State U. Press, 1977.
Vetter, Theodore. Relations between England and Zurich during the Reformation. Lon-
don: E. Stock, 1904.
Vinay, Valdo. “Die Haltung Pier Martire Vermiglis gegenuber dem Bauer-
naufstand in Cornwall und Devonshire zur zeit Eduards VI.” In Wort und
Welt; Festgabe fur Erich Hertzsch anlasslich der Vollendung seines 65 Lebensjahres.
Berlin Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1968; 277–288.
Walton, Robert C. “Henry Bullinger’s Answer to John Jewel’s call for help:
Bullinger’s exposition of Matth. 16: 18–19 (1571).” In Ulrich Gäbler and
Erland Herkenrath, eds. Heinrich Bullinger, 1504–1575: Gesammelte Aufsätze zum
400. Todestag im Auftrag des Instituts für Schweizeriche Reformationsgeschichte. Zu-
rich: Theologischer Verlag, 1975; 245–256.
Wenig, Scott. Straightening the Altars: The Ecclesiastical Vision and Pastoral Achieve-
ments of the Progressive Bishops under Elizabeth I, 1559–1579. New York: Peter
Lang, 2000.
Wesel-Roth, Ruth. Thomas Erastus: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der reformierten Kirche
und zur Lehre von der Staatssouveränität. Lahr / Baden: M. Schauenburg, 1954.
Wright, David Frederick. “Reformed Roots: Peter Martyr Vermigli.” Theology
in Scotland 7 (2000): 21–38.
 INDEX
Aaron, 98
Abiathar, 90
Absalom, 153n15, 173
accession to throne, of Elizabeth I,
185–186, 187–188, 194–196
Achab, 163
Achan, 204n4
Act of Supremacy (Elizabeth I,
1559), 36n35, 189n28
Act of Supremacy (Henry VIII,
1534), 21, 28, 36n35, 64
Act of Uniformity (Edward VI,
1549), 122, 204, 246n3
Act of Uniformity (Elizabeth I,
1559), 203–204, 208
adiaphoristic principle, 230n39
An Admonition to the Parliament (1572),
36–37, 40
Adonias, 153n15
Advertisements (Parker), 209, 226–
227n20
Ahia (King), 56
Alexander the Great (King of Mace-
donia), 114n171
Alexander V (Pope), 104n135
Ambrose, 87, 88, 89, 91, 115
Amnon, 153n15
Amorites, 204n4
see also ‘relics of the Amorites’
Anderson, Marvin, 7, 64n22
Anglicanism see Church of England
anointed kingship, 100–101n116, 181
Vermigli on, 19, 47, 184–186,
187–188, 194–196
Antiochus, 112
Antiquities (Josephus), 92n77
Antistes, 28n10
Apelles of Colophon, 236n7
Apology of Socrates (Plato), 117n185
Apostles, 102, 111
and Christ, 94–95, 96, 113–114,
246–247
Aquinas, Thomas, 109
Arcadius, 89
Aristotle
on community of virtue, 59–60
influence on Vermigli, 72
Nicomachean Ethics, 76–77n5
Artemesia (Queen of Caria), 191, 201
Asamoneans, 92
Aske, Robert, 165n58
Asper, Hans, 20, 23, 235–236, 237,
239
Augustine, Aurelius, 40 47, 116, 117–
118, 119
The City of God against the Pagans,
183n5
influence on Vermigli, 63, 66, 72,
143, 148, 151n8, 183
Avignon, papacy at, 104n135
Baker, J. Wayne, 4n16, 7, 37n39
Battle of Pinkie (Scotland, 1547),
158n30
Bedford see Russell, Francis, Earl of
Bedford
De bello Gallico (Caesar), 110
Benedict XI (Pope), 108–109
Benedict XIII (Pope), 104n135
Benedictus (song), 186
Vermigli’s adaptation of, 188
‘benefit of clergy’, 106n138
Benjamin, tribe of, 154
Bernard of Clairvaux, 96–97
Beza, Theodore, 4, 38n41, 243
Bibliander, Theodore, 238
biblical commentaries, by Vermigli,
14, 17, 20, 59, 61, 71, 75n2, 248n7
biblical kings, 31–32, 44–47, 55–57,
232
274
biblical priests, 50–51
see also Levites
Biel, Pamela, 30
Body, William, 122
Boniface VIII (pope), 65–66
on immunity of the clergy, 108
on papal supremacy, 101–102, 104
on tithes payment, 98–99
on ‘two swords’ ecclesiology, 67,
68–69, 72, 83, 84–85, 95, 97–
98
Book of Common Prayer see Prayer
Book (First) and (Second)
A Brief examination for the tyme (Parker),
214n41, 215
Bucer, Martin, 13, 14, 207n12
Bullinger, Heinrich, 1, 25
on magisterial and religious
authority, 21, 26–27, 28–29,
30–36, 37, 38, 40, 43–57,
232
publications, 3, 21, 29–30, 38–
39n42, 43–57
and Reformation in England, 5,
7, 8, 9, 11, 25–26, 37, 40
on royal supremacy of Church of
England, 27, 36, 38–39, 40–
41
on Scripture, authority of, 27–28,
34
and Vermigli, 14, 212–213
on Vestiarian Controversy, 23,
209–211, 212, 214–215, 220,
221–233
Burcher, John, 237
Burnet, Gilbert, 126, 128
Cade, Jack, 165n58
Caecilianus (bishop of Carthage),
118
Caesar, Julius, 110
Calvin, John, 15, 21, 71n44, 149n2,
153n13
canon law
of England, revision of, 16–17
Vermigli’s analysis of, 64–65
Cartwright, Thomas, 40
index
Cassander (King of Macedonia), 114
Cassiodorus, Flavius Magnus Aure-
lius, 88
Catiline (Lucius Sergius Catilina),
143
Cato, Marcus Porcius (the younger),
143n90
ceremonies, prescribed, 230–231
Christ
and Apostles, 94–95, 96, 113–114,
246–247
on obedience, 91, 156, 171
poverty of, 161, 164
priesthood of, 99
on suffering, 250
Christendom, unity of, 34
Christian humanist education, 13
Christian Platonism, 66
Christians, biblical kings seen as, 47
Chronicle of England (Wriothesley), 125
Chrysostom, John, 82, 89, 94–95,
110, 117, 229
Church of England
middle way between Roman
Catholicism and Reformed
Protestantism, 5–6, 219
reform of
by Elizabeth I, 181
of liturgy, 122
Vermigli’s influence on, 15,
147, 195n8
royal headship of, 3–4, 8, 21
Act of Supremacy (Elizabeth I,
1559), 203–204, 208
Act of Supremacy (Henry
VIII, 1534), 21, 28, 36n35,
64
Bullinger’s support of, 27, 36,
38–39, 40–41
Vermigli’s support of, 71, 73,
189–192, 200
unity of, 203, 205, 206–207, 208–
211, 227–228, 231
church reform see religious reform
Cicero, Marcus Tullius, 248–249
The City of God against the Pagans
(Augustine), 183n5
 index 275

civil authority see magisterial author- Cyprian, St. (Thascius Caecilius),

ity 229
civil disorder, Vermigli on, 132–133, Cyrus (King of Persia), 46
136–137, 151, 171–173
see also rebellion Dampmartin, Katherine (of Metz),
Civil Magistrate see magistrates 14
civil obedience, Vermigli on, 138– Daniel, 136
143, 147–148, 155–156, 159– Darius (King of Persia)
167 Bullinger on, 46
Clement VII (Pope), 104n135 Vermigli on, 117
clergy, immunity of, 106–110 David (King), 100n116
Codex Theodosianus, 34, 52n45 Bullinger on, 45–46
Collinson, Patrick, 10 Vermigli on, 153, 189, 196–197,
Colloquy of Poissy, 19–20 198
Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Day, John, 20, 75n2
Ethics (Vermigli), 18 De Consideratione (Bernard of Clair-
Commentary on the book of Judges (Ver- vaux), 96–97
migli), 17, 75n2 De Pallio (Tertullian), 229
Commentary on Romans (Vermigli), 61 Deborah, role model for Elizabeth I,
Commentary on the Two Books of Samuel 191, 201
(Vermigli), 59, 71 Decades (Bullinger), 3, 21, 29–30, 43–
common lands, enclosure opposed 57
by rebels, 142, 156–157, 163 Defensio (Bullinger), 38–39n42
The Commonplaces of Peter Martyr Demades, 114
(Day), 20–21, 182 Deuteronomy, 45, 98
Constantine I (Roman Emperor), devil, Vermigli on, 253–254
48, 107, 118, 119n192 Diocletian, 109, 111
Constantius Chlorus (Roman Em- Dion, Nicholas, 75n1
peror), 112 Dionysius, 83, 84n43
Constantius (Roman Emperor), 112 Disciplinarians, 37
continental Protestantism, 6–7 divine kingship, 19, 47, 101, 181, 184–
Coverdale, Miles, 250n13 185, 196–197
covetousness, as cause of rebellion, see also ‘Godly Prince’
157–158 divine law, 30–31, 113, 114–115,
Cox, Edmund, 127, 128 116
Cox, Richard, 15, 18 divine magisterial authority, 61–62,
and response to Regnans in excelsis 78–80, 82
(Pius V), 3, 39n42 divine ordination, 68
Cranmer, Thomas, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, doctrines
75n1, 132, 245n3 of Eucharist, dispute over, 14–15,
on magisterial authority, 61–62 124
sermon on civil disorder, 121, of predestination, 183–184
123–124 of Reformation, 6
authorship of, 125–130, 174n92 Donatists, 117, 118
and Vermigli, 22, 124–125, 146 druids, 110
on Vestiarian Controversy, 207n12 Duffield, G.E., 128–129
Crowley, Robert, 213–214
276
ecclesiastical dress and ornaments
see Vestiarian Controversy
ecclesiastical jurisdiction
Bullinger on, 37, 38
Vermigli on, 63, 70
see also religious authority
ecclesiastical subjection, dual, 70–71,
88–98
ecclesiology of the ‘two swords’, 67,
68–69, 72, 83, 84–85
Vermigli on, 93–98
Edward VI (King of England and
Ireland), 14, 188, 199, 200
Egyptian priests, 109
elect, Vermigli on, 183–184
Eliot, Nicholas, 27–28
Elizabeth I (Queen of England and
Ireland)
accession of, 185–186, 187–188,
194–196
inviting Vermigli back to Oxford,
18–19
speech to troops at Tilbury,
191n36
on unity in Church of England,
208–209
Vermigli’s advice / tribute to, 20,
23, 181–183, 201–202
on anointed kingship, 19, 184–
186, 187–188, 194–196
on the king’s double service to
God, 188–189
on royal headship of the
church, 189–192, 200
Elizabethan Settlement (1559), 3,
203
criticism of, 10, 36–37, 38
interpretations of, 10, 219–220
England
canon law of, revision of, 16–17
as ‘elect nation’, 19
Reformation in, 1, 3, 6, 122
influence of Bullinger and
Vermigli on, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11,
25–26, 37, 40, 130
Scottish and French attacks on,
158–159
index
theology in, 3, 4
English Church see Church of
England
Epistle to the Princess Elizabeth (Ver-
migli), 181, 187, 193–202
on Elizabeth’s accession to the
throne, 184–188
on the king’s double service of
God, 188–189
on royal headship of the church,
189–190
An Epistle vnto the right honorable and
Christian Prince, the Duke of Somerset
(Vermigli), 245–258
Epistula ad Bonifacium (Augustine),
116n182
equality of man, Vermigli on, 141–
142
Erastian conception of society, 4,
8n30
Erastus, Thomas (Thomas Lieber /
Lüber), 4, 37–38
estates, confusion of, 144–145, 165–
166
Eucharist doctrine, dispute over, 14–
15, 124
Eugenius, 96, 97
Eusebius of Caesaria, 89, 112, 188,
229
Eustathius of Sebaste, 227
excommunication disagreement
(Heidelberg, 1560s), 37–38
Exeter, siege of, 123
Extravagantes Decretales Communes
(Benedict XI), 108–109
Ezechias (King), 55, 199
Ezra (Old Testament book), 46
Field, John, 36
Fletcher, Anthony, 168n69
Forty-Two Articles of Religion (1553),
141, 147n101
France, attacks on England, 158n30
From Irenaeus to Grotius (O’Donovan
& O’Donovan), 8–9
Froschauer, Christoph (the younger),
242
 index 277

Gardiner, Stephen (Bishop of Win- Hooker, Richard, 4, 5–6, 219n55

chester), 247n6 Hooper, John, 207, 212–213, 216,
Gelasius (pope), 101 237
General Councils, 118 Horne, Robert, 211, 212
Genesis, 94 Hosea, 82
Geneva model of Reformation, 4, Hostiensis (Henricus de Segusio),
38, 40 101
Germany, rebellions in, 173–174 Hugelshofer, Walter, 235n1, 240–241
Giles of Rome, 65, 67n31, 68 Humphrey, Laurence, 204n4, 210,
Gloria in excelsis deo (hymn), 188, 223n7, 224n13
195n8
God Icones (Beza), 243
king’s double service to, 181, 188– idolaters, punishment of, 119
189, 198 idolatry, portraits of reformers seen
law of, 30–31, 113, 114–115, 116 as, 238, 241
love of, 253 immunity of clergy, Vermigli on,
obedience to, 113, 114–115, 116– 106–110
117 Innocent I (pope), 89, 91
‘Godly Prince’ Institution of the Christian Religion
Bullinger on, 27, 55 (Calvin), 21
Vermigli on, 22, 59, 60–61, 69– Intercessory prayer, 134, 152n10
70, 73, 80–81, 184 Isaiah, prophecies of, 47–48
see also divine kingship
good governance, 141 Jenkyns, Henry, 126, 127, 128,
governors see rulers 174n92
Great Rising (1381), 165n58 Jeremiah (Prophet), 102, 179
‘Great Schism’, 104n135 Jeroboam (King), 56
Gregory XII (Pope), 104n135 Jewel, John, 4, 18, 25, 204n4, 206
Grindal, Edmund, 211 on Vestiarian Controversy, 208
Gualter, Rudolph, 3, 214–215, 224, Joas (King of Judah), 200
237–238, 240 Job, Vermigli on example of, 130–
131, 135, 146, 149, 252
Hales, Christopher, 236–237, 238– John (the Baptist), 91, 176, 186,
239, 240 229
Hanani (Prophet), 56–57 John XXIII (pope), 103, 104n135
Heidelberg, excommunication Josaphat (King), 55
dispute in, 37–38 Josephus, Flavius, 92, 172n80
Heli (the Prophet Eli), 153 Joshua, 160, 204n4
heretics, punishment of, 119 Josiah, 31, 44, 45, 50, 54
Hilles, Richard, 237 Josias (King), 199
Historia ecclesiastica Tripartita (Cas- Judah (King), 44
siodorus), 88, 118–119n191 Jugge, Richard, 215
Hobi, Urs, 235 Julian the Apostate (Roman Em-
Holbeach, Henry, 15 peror), 112
Holbein, Hans (the younger), 236 Justina (Roman Empress), 115n178
Hollweg, Walter, 30 Justinian (Byzantine Emperor), 52–
Homer, 112 53, 90, 101, 107, 118–119
278 index

Kantorowicz, Ernst, 185n12 Vermigli on, 60, 62–63, 70, 71,

Keep, David, 8, 26n4 72–73, 75–77, 78–81, 83–98,
Kett, Robert, 167n67 102–103, 111–119
Kingdon, Robert M., 7, 75n2 Zurich and Geneva models of
kings Reformation, 38
biblical, 31–32, 44–47, 55–57, 232 magistrates
double service to God, 181, 188– contradicting word of God,
189, 198 Vermigli on, 111–113, 114, 116–
kingship, divine, 19, 47, 181, 184– 117
185, 196–197 duties of
Kingston, John, 20 Bullinger on, 43–44, 232n45
Kressner, Helmut, 8 Vermigli on, 119, 132–133, 146,
152–155
Latimer, Hugh, 138, 157n25 slackness of, Vermigli on, 134–
Lavater, Ludwig, 216n47 135, 154
law Malachi (prophet), 50
canon, 16–17, 64–65 Manichees, 104
divine, 30–31, 113, 114–115, 116 Marcionites, 177n102
Leo I (pope), 118 ‘Marian exiles’, 1, 18, 190
Levites, 92, 99, 110, 198, 225–226 return of, 207
Leviticus, 45 theodicy of, 183–185
lex divinitatis, 68, 72 Marten, Anthony, 9
Vermigli’s reinterpretation of, 73 Martin V (Pope), 104n135
Liber Sexti Decretalium (Boniface VIII), martyrs, 112
108 McNair, Philip, 240n21
Lieber / Lüber, Thomas (‘Erastus’), mediation between man and God,
4, 37–38 66
liturgy of English Church Vermigli on, 70–71
reform of, 122 Melchiades, 118
Vermigli’s influence on, 15, 147, Melchizedek, 99
195n8 Bullinger on, 32, 44
Locher, Gottfried, 8 ministers
Loci Communes (Vermigli), 3 and magistrates see religious
love of God, 253 authority and magisterial
Luke (Apostle), Song of Zechariah, 186 authority
Luscombe, David, 67n31 prophetic roles of, 30–31, 88n60
Luther, Martin, 66, 142 Miriam, 173
Lynne, Walter, 250n13 Morison, Sir Richard, 15, 139n74,
166n64
Maccabees, 92n77 Moses, 98
MacCulloch, Diarmaid, 6, 7, rebellions against, 150n7,
168n69, 219 173
magisterial authority, 23 Murer, Jos, 242–243
divine, 61–62, 78–80, 82 Musculus, Wolfgang, 48n28
and religious authority, 4, 21
Bullinger on, 21, 26–27, 28–29, Naboth, 114–115, 163
30–35, 37, 40, 43–57, 232 Naegeli, Marianne, 235
 index
Nebuchadnezzar (King)
Bullinger on, 46
Vermigli on, 82, 112, 117, 178, 199
Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle), 76–
77n5
obedience
civil, 138–143, 147–148, 155–156,
159–167
to God, 113, 114–115, 116–117
Ochino, Bernardino, 13
O’Donovan, Oliver and Joan Lock-
wood, 8–9
Of the Lawes of Ecclesiasticall Politie
(Hooker), 4
Olevianus, Caspar, 37
Oratio de vita en obitu clarissimi viri
et praestantissimi theologi D. Petri
Martyrys (Simler), 242
Oration to the Emperor Constantine
(Eusebius), 188
Origen, 105
original sin, 136, 137, 141n84, 255
ornaments, traditional ecclesiastical,
204, 206
orthodoxy, Reformed, 7, 10, 219–220
Paget, Sir William, 133–134, 152n11,
168n72
papacy
and ecclesiastical dress, 226–227
‘Great Schism’, 104n135
supremacy of, 33n27, 67, 68–69
Vermigli on, 63–64, 65–66,
68, 83–84, 85–86, 91–92,
98, 101–102, 103, 104–
106
pardon, offered to rebels, 167
Parker Library (Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge), 125, 126,
129
Parker, Matthew, 126–127, 128,
149n1, 204n4, 209, 214n41, 215,
226–227n20
Parkhurst, John, 36n35
pater patriae (father of the homeland),
78
279
patres conscripti (Roman senators), 78
Paul (Apostle), 47, 53, 81, 92, 95,
102, 113, 119, 157, 194
charging the Jews, 169–170
on civil / magisterial authority, 79,
82, 97, 101, 103, 105, 111
on evil, 254
on richness, 157
on suffering, 250–251
Paul of Samosata, 81
Pellikan, Conrad, 18
Pepin III (the Short, King of
Franks), 101n123
Peter (Apostle), 47, 91–92, 112, 246–
247
ordered to put away his sword,
96
poverty of, 161
Philip (Emperor?), 89
Phillips, Walter, 215
Pius V (Pope), 3, 33n27
Plato, 117n185
Platonism, Christian, 66
Pliny the Elder, 110, 236–237n7
Pole, Reginald, 64, 71
political theology
early-modern, 8–9, 10–12
in England, 4
of Vermigli, 7, 136–137, 142, 143,
148, 151n8
politics, high and low, 168n69
Politics (Aristotle), 59–60, 62n14
Pontius Diaconus, 229
portraits
seen as idolatry, 238, 241
of Vermigli, 235–236, 239–244
poverty, 164–165
and civil disobedience, 161
Prayer Book (First) (Edward VI,
1549), 16, 22, 179n111, 204n3,
245–246n3
rebellion resulting from, 121–123
Vermigli on, 131–133, 134–146,
147–148, 150–180
Prayer Book (Second) (Edward VI,
1552), 15, 61–62, 124, 203–204n2
criticism of, 36
280
Vermigli’s contribution to, 130
predestination doctrine, Vermigli’s
interpretation of, 183–184
priesthood
of Christ, 99
Levitical, 225–226
priests
biblical, Bullinger on, 50–51
Egyptian, 109
Vermigli on, 197, 198
see also Levites
princes, 78
‘Godly’
Bullinger on, 27, 55
Vermigli on, 22, 59, 60–61,
69–70, 73, 80–81, 184
Privy Council, 133
prophetic roles, of ministers, 30–31,
88n60
prosperity, Vermigli on, 257
Protestantism
continental, 6–7
rift between Lutherans and
Reformed, 15
Proverbs, 45
Psalm, 118 184, 194
Pseudo-Dionysian spirituality, 66, 67
Pseudo-Dionysius, 97
rebellion
in Germany, 173–174
‘Prayer Book’, 121–123
Vermigli on, 131–133, 134–146,
147–148, 150–180
repentance to resolve, 144, 145–
146, 148, 154–155, 174, 175–180
sin of, 143–144, 151, 172
see also civil disorder
reform
in Church of England, 122, 181
Vermigli’s influence on, 15,
147, 195n8
religious
Bullinger on, 34–35
Vermigli on, 181–183, 197
Reformation
doctrines of, 6
index
in England, 1, 3, 6, 122
influence of Bullinger and
Vermigli on, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11,
25–26, 37, 40, 130
Geneva and Zurich models of,
3–4, 38, 40
Reformed orthodoxy, 7, 10, 219–220
Regnans in excelsis (Pius V), 3, 33n27
Bullinger’s criticism of, 38–39
‘relics of the Amorites’, 204, 206,
214, 223n7
religious authority and magisterial
authority, 4, 21
Bullinger on, 26–27, 28–29, 30–
35, 37, 40, 43–57, 232
Vermigli on, 60, 62–63, 70, 71,
72–73, 75–77, 78–81, 83–98,
102–103, 111–119
Zurich and Geneva models of
Reformation on, 38
religious reform
Bullinger on, 34–35
Vermigli on, 181–183, 197
‘The Remedie of al our plags is
onely penance’ (sermon, Ver-
migli), 175–180
repentance, to resolve rebellion, 144,
145–146, 148, 154–155, 174, 175–
180
Replie (Cartwright), 40
resurrection, 193–194, 195
Richard II (Shakespeare, play), 185
Ridley, Nicholas, 207, 213
Roman Emperors, 48–49
Romans, 13, interpretations of, 61,
64, 66, 68
by Vermigli, 72, 151–152n10
royal supremacy of Church of
England, 3–4, 8, 21
Act of Supremacy (Elizabeth I,
1559), 203–204, 208
Act of Supremacy (Henry VIII,
1534), 21, 28, 36n35, 64
Bullinger’s support of, 27, 36, 38–
39, 40–41
Vermigli’s support of, 71, 73, 189–
192, 200
 index 281

Rüetschi, Kurt Jakob, 240n19 society, Erastian conception of, 4,

rulers 8n30
anointed, 100–101n116, 181 Socrates, 117
see also divine kingship Socrates of Constantinople (Scholas-
sins of, 134–136, 151–155, 255– ticus), 228
256 Solomon (King)
Russell, Francis, Earl of Bedford, 212 anointing of, 100–101n116
Rutley, John L., 235n2 Bullinger on, 45, 50
Vermigli on, 90
salvation history, 184, 192 Somerset, Lord Protector (Edward
Sampson, Thomas, 204n4, 205, 206, Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset)
207, 208, 209, 212 criticism of, 24, 133–134, 147,
Sanders, Nicholas, 44n3 152n11, 158n30
Sandys, Edwin, 36 Vermigli’s letter to, 245–258
Scotland, battles against, 158n30 Song of Zechariah (Gospel of Luke),
Scripture’s authority 186–187
Bullinger on, 27–28, 34 spirituali movement, 13
Vermigli on, 170 Stampfer, Hans Ulrich (II), 242
Second Book of Homilies, 150n6 Statute of Six Articles (Henry VIII,
‘A Sermon concernynge the tyme of 1539), 139
rebellion’ (Vermigli, 1549), 16, 22, Strawe, Jack, 165n58
24, 124, 147–148 Strong, Roy, 235
argument of, 130–146 Strype, John, 126, 174n92, 207n14
authorship of, 125–130 suffering, Vermigli on, 250–252
text, 149–175
Sermonum Decades see Decades Tamar, 153n15
Settlement see Elizabethan Settle- Taylor, Rowland, 17
ment (1559) Tertullian, 229
Seymour, Edward see Somerset, theodicy, of ‘Marian exiles’, 183–185
Lord Protector (Edward Sey- Theodora (Byzantine empress),
mour, 1st Duke of Somerset) 90n69
Seymour, Thomas, 256n26 Theodoret, 118, 228
Shagan, Ethan, 133, 152n11 Theodosius (Roman emperor), 87,
Shakespeare, William, 142n87, 89
156n19, 185 theology
silver medal commemorating death in England, 3, 4
of Vermigli, 241–242 political
Simler, Josiah, 12, 14, 16, 17, 124, 129 early-modern, 8–9, 10–12
Vermigli funeral oration, 242 in England, 4
sinfulness, universal, 147 of Vermigli, 7, 136–137, 142,
sins 143, 148, 151n8
original, 136, 137, 141n84, 255 Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1562),
of rebellion, 143–144, 151, 172 36n35
of rulers, 134–136, 151–155, 255– Tiberius (Roman Emperor), 113
256 tithes payment, 98–100
Siverius (pope), 90 Tractatio de sacramento Euchariste
Smith, Richard, 14–15 (Vermigli), 15
282 index

Treatise on the Lord’s Supper (Cranmer), biblical commentaries by, 14, 17,
18 20, 59, 61, 71, 75n2, 248n7
Troilus and Cressida (Shakespeare), and Bullinger, 14, 212–213
142n87, 156n19 on canon law, 16–17, 64–65
‘two swords’ ecclesiology, 67, 68–69, and Cranmer, 22, 124–125, 146
72, 83, 84–85 on divine law, 113, 114–115, 116
Vermigli on, 93–98 on dual ecclesiastical subjection,
tyranny 70–71, 88–98
and obedience, 140 Epistle to the Princess Elizabeth, 181,
Vermigli on, 77, 80, 82 184–190, 193–202
An Epistle vnto the right honorable
Ullmann, Walter, 68n35 and Christian Prince, the Duke of
Ulpian, 106, 107, 109 Somerset (Vermigli), 245–258
Unam Sanctam (Boniface VIII, 1302), exile in Zurich and Strasbourg, 1,
65–66, 67, 68–69, 101 2, 14, 17–20, 75n1
Vermigli’s criticism of, 68, 83, on ‘Godly Prince’, 22, 59, 60–61,
84–86 69–70, 73, 80–81, 184
The Unfolding of the Pope’s Attyre on immunity of clergy, 106–110
(Crowley), 213–214 and liturgy of English Church, 15,
unity 147, 195n8
of Christendom, 34 on magisterial and religious
of Church of England, 203, 205, authority, 60, 62–63, 70, 71,
206–207, 208–211, 227–228, 72–73, 75–77, 78–81, 83–98,
231 102–103, 111–119
universal sinfulness, 147 on papal supremacy, 63–64, 65–
Urban VI (Pope), 104n135 66, 68, 83–84, 85–86, 91–92,
Uzziah’s leprosy 98, 101–102, 103, 104–106
Bullinger on, 31, 32–33, 49 political theology of, 7, 136–137,
Vermigli on, 93 142, 143, 148, 151n8
portraits of, 235–236, 239–244
Valdes, Juan de, 13 on ‘Prayer-Book Rebellion’
Valentinian I (Roman emperor), 88– (1549), 16, 131–133, 134–146,
89, 115 147–148, 150–180
Vermigli, Peter Martyr, 1, 12–13, 14– on predestination doctrine, 183–
15, 20 184
advice / tribute to Elizabeth I, 20, publications of, 3, 17–18, 20–21,
23, 181–183, 201–202 22, 59, 61, 71, 75n2, 248n7
on anointed kingship, 184–186, and Reformation in England, 5,
187–188, 194–196 7, 9, 11
on the king’s double service to on ‘relics of the Amorites’, 204n4
God, 188–189 ‘The Remedie of al our plags is
on royal headship of the onely penance’ (sermon), 175–
church, 189–192, 200 180
Aristotle’s influence on, 59–60, ‘A Sermon concernynge the tyme
72 of rebellion’ (1549), 16, 22, 24,
Augustine’s influence on, 63, 66, 124, 147–148
72, 143, 148, 151n8, 183 argument of, 130–146
 index
authorship of, 125–130
text, 149–175
on Vestiarian Controversy, 23,
204–207, 213, 214, 215–219,
220, 223n8
Vestiarian Controversy, 21, 23, 203
Bullinger on, 23, 209–211, 212,
214–215, 220, 221–233
Cranmer on, 207n12
Horne on, 211–212
Humphrey on, 223n7
Jewel on, 208
Sampson on, 204n4, 205, 206,
207, 208, 209
Vermigli on, 23, 204–207, 213,
214, 215–219, 220, 223n8
vestments, traditional ecclesiastical,
204, 207, 209
Vigilius (pope), 90
virtue, community of, 59–60
Walton, Robert, 8
Wenig, Scott, 8, 25n2, 219
Werdmüller, Otto, 250n13
Western Rising see Prayer Book,
rebellion resulting from
Whether it be mortall sinne to transgresse
civil lawes, 215
283
Whitgift, John, 3–4, 40
Wilcox, Thomas, 36
women, strength of, 201–202
Wriothesley, Charles, Earl of South-
ampton, 123–124n10, 125, 129,
247n6
Xerxes (King of Persia), 191, 201
Zadok, 90, 100–101n116
Zenobia (Queen of Palmyra), 191,
201
Zeuxis of Heraclea, 237n7
Zurich
and Elizabethan England, 2, 3,
7–8, 183
exhibitions
on art after the Reformation
(1981), 235–236, 237n11
on Schola Tigurina, 244
‘Marian exiles’ in, 1–2, 18, 190
model of Reformation, 3–4, 38,
40
Vermigli’s exile in, 18–20
Zwingli, Huldrych (Ulrich)
influence on England and Scot-
land, 8, 13
portrait painted by Asper, 236
 Studies in the History
of Christian Traditions
(formerly Studies in the History of Christian Thought)

Edited by Robert J. Bast

1. McNeill, J. J. The Blondelian Synthesis. 1966. Out of print

2. Goertz, H.-J. Innere und äussere Ordnung in der Theologie Thomas Müntzers. 1967
3. Bauman, Cl. Gewaltlosigkeit im Täufertum. 1968
4. Roldanus, J. Le Christ et l’Homme dans la Théologie d’Athanase d’Alexandrie. 2nd ed. 1977
5. Milner, Jr., B. Ch. Calvin’s Doctrine of the Church. 1970. Out of print
6. Tierney, B. Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350. 2nd ed. 1988
7. Oldfield, J. J. Tolerance in the Writings of Félicité Lamennais 1809-1831. 1973
8. Oberman, H. A. (ed.). Luther and the Dawn of the Modern Era. 1974. Out of print
9. Holeczek, H. Humanistische Bibelphilologie bei Erasmus, Thomas More und William Tyndale. 1975
10. Farr, W. John Wyclif as Legal Reformer. 1974
11. Purcell, M. Papal Crusading Policy 1244-1291. 1975
12. Ball, B. W. A Great Expectation. Eschatological Thought in English Protestantism. 1975
13. Stieber, J. W. Pope Eugenius IV, the Council of Basel, and the Empire. 1978. Out of print
14. Partee, Ch. Calvin and Classical Philosophy. 1977
15. Misner, P. Papacy and Development. Newman and the Primacy of the Pope. 1976
16. Tavard, G. H. The Seventeenth-Century Tradition. A Study in Recusant Thought. 1978
17. Quinn, A. The Confidence of British Philosophers. An Essay in Historical Narrative. 1977
18. Beck, J. Le Concil de Basle (1434). 1979
19. Church, F. F. and George, T. (ed.). Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History. 1979
20. Gray, P. T. R. The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451-553). 1979
21. Nijenhuis, W. Adrianus Saravia (c. 1532-1613). Dutch Calvinist. 1980
22. Parker, T. H. L. (ed.). Iohannis Calvini Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. 1981
23. Ellis, I. Seven Against Christ. A Study of ‘Essays and Reviews’. 1980
24. Brann, N. L. The Abbot Trithemius (1462-1516). 1981
25. Locher, G. W. Zwingli’s Thought. New Perspectives. 1981
26. Gogan, B. The Common Corps of Christendom. Ecclesiological Themes in Thomas More. 1982
27. Stock, U. Die Bedeutung der Sakramente in Luthers Sermonen von 1519. 1982
28. Yardeni, M. (ed.). Modernité et nonconformisme en France à travers les âges. 1983
29. Platt, J. Reformed Thought and Scholasticism. 1982
30. Watts, P. M. Nicolaus Cusanus. A Fifteenth-Century Vision of Man. 1982
31. Sprunger, K. L. Dutch Puritanism. 1982
32. Meijering, E. P. Melanchthon and Patristic Thought. 1983
33. Stroup, J. The Struggle for Identity in the Clerical Estate. 1984
34. 35. Colish, M. L. The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. 1.2. 2nd ed. 1990
36. Guy, B. Domestic Correspondence of Dominique-Marie Varlet, Bishop of Babylon, 1678-1742. 1986
37. 38. Clark, F. The Pseudo-Gregorian Dialogues. I. II. 1987
39. Parente, Jr. J. A. Religious Drama and the Humanist Tradition. 1987
40. Posthumus Meyjes, G. H. M. Hugo Grotius, Meletius. 1988
41. Feld, H. Der Ikonoklasmus des Westens. 1990
42. Reeve, A. and Screech, M. A. (eds.). Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament. Acts — Romans — I
and II Corinthians. 1990
43. Kirby, W. J. T. Richard Hooker’s Doctrine of the Royal Supremacy. 1990
44. Gerstner, J. N. The Thousand Generation Covenant. Reformed Covenant Theology. 1990
45. Christianson, G. and Izbicki, T. M. (eds.). Nicholas of Cusa. 1991
46. Garstein, O. Rome and the Counter-Reformation in Scandinavia. 1553-1622. 1992
47. Garstein, O. Rome and the Counter-Reformation in Scandinavia. 1622-1656. 1992
48. Perrone Compagni, V. (ed.). Cornelius Agrippa, De occulta philosophia Libri tres. 1992
49. Martin, D. D. Fifteenth-Century Carthusian Reform. The World of Nicholas Kempf. 1992
50. Hoenen, M. J. F. M. Marsilius of Inghen. Divine Knowledge in Late Medieval Thought. 1993
51. O’Malley, J. W., Izbicki, T. M. and Christianson, G. (eds.). Humanity and Divinity in Renaissance and
Reformation. Essays in Honor of Charles Trinkaus. 1993
52. Reeve, A. (ed.) and Screech, M. A. (introd.). Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament. Galatians to
the Apocalypse. 1993
53. Stump, Ph. H. The Reforms of the Council of Constance (1414-1418). 1994
54. Giakalis, A. Images of the Divine. The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. With a
Foreword by Henry Chadwick. 1994
55. Nellen, H. J. M. and Rabbie, E. (eds.). Hugo Grotius – Theologian. Essays in Honour of G. H. M.
Posthumus Meyjes. 1994
56. Trigg, J. D. Baptism in the Theology of Martin Luther. 1994
57. Janse, W. Albert Hardenberg als Theologe. Profil eines Bucer-Schülers. 1994
59. Schoor, R. J. M. van de. The Irenical Theology of Théophile Brachet de La Milletière (1588-1665). 1995
60. Strehle, S. The Catholic Roots of the Protestant Gospel. Encounter between the Middle Ages and the
Reformation. 1995
61. Brown, M. L. Donne and the Politics of Conscience in Early Modern England. 1995
62. Screech, M. A. (ed.). Richard Mocket, Warden of All Souls College, Oxford, Doctrina et Politia Ecclesiae
Anglicanae. An Anglican Summa. Facsimile with Variants of the Text of 1617. Edited with an Intro-
duction. 1995
63. Snoek, G. J. C. Medieval Piety from Relics to the Eucharist. A Process of Mutual Interaction. 1995
64. Pixton, P. B. The German Episcopacy and the Implementation of the Decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council,
1216-1245. Watchmen on the Tower. 1995
65. Dolnikowski, E. W. Thomas Bradwardine: A View of Time and a Vision of Eternity in Fourteenth-Century
Thought. 1995
66. Rabbie, E. (ed.). Hugo Grotius, Ordinum Hollandiae ac Westfrisiae Pietas (1613). Critical Edition with
Translation and Commentary. 1995
67. Hirsh, J. C. The Boundaries of Faith. The Development and Transmission of Medieval Spirituality.
1996
68. Burnett, S. G. From Christian Hebraism to Jewish Studies. Johannes Buxtorf (1564-1629) and Hebrew
Learning in the Seventeenth Century. 1996
69. Boland O.P., V. Ideas in God according to Saint Thomas Aquinas. Sources and Synthesis. 1996
70. Lange, M.E. Telling Tears in the English Renaissance. 1996
71. Christianson, G. and Izbicki, T.M. (eds.). Nicholas of Cusa on Christ and the Church. Essays in Memory
of Chandler McCuskey Brooks for the American Cusanus Society. 1996
72. Mali, A. Mystic in the New World. Marie de l’Incarnation (1599-1672). 1996
73. Visser, D. Apocalypse as Utopian Expectation (800-1500). The Apocalypse Commentary of Beren-
gaudus of Ferrières and the Relationship between Exegesis, Liturgy and Iconography. 1996
74. O’Rourke Boyle, M. Divine Domesticity. Augustine of Thagaste to Teresa of Avila. 1997
75. Pfizenmaier, T. C. The Trinitarian Theology of Dr. Samuel Clarke (1675-1729). Context, Sources, and
Controversy. 1997
76. Berkvens-Stevelinck, C., Israel, J. and Posthumus Meyjes, G. H. M. (eds.). The Emergence of Tolerance
in the Dutch Republic. 1997
77. Haykin, M. A. G. (ed.). The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697-1771). A Tercentennial Appreciation.
1997
78. Kaiser, C. B. Creational Theology and the History of Physical Science. The Creationist Tradition from Basil
to Bohr. 1997
79. Lees, J. T. Anselm of Havelberg. Deeds into Words in the Twelfth Century. 1997
80. Winter, J. M. van. Sources Concerning the Hospitallers of St John in the Netherlands, 14th-18th Centuries. 1998
81. Tierney, B. Foundations of the Conciliar Theory. The Contribution of the Medieval Canonists from
Gratian to the Great Schism. Enlarged New Edition. 1998
82. Miernowski, J. Le Dieu Néant. Théologies négatives à l’aube des temps modernes. 1998
83. Halverson, J. L. Peter Aureol on Predestination. A Challenge to Late Medieval Thought. 1998.
84. Houliston, V. (ed.). Robert Persons, S.J.: The Christian Directory (1582). The First Booke of the Christian
Exercise, appertayning to Resolution. 1998
 85. Grell, O. P. (ed.). Paracelsus. The Man and His Reputation, His Ideas and Their Transformation.
1998
86. Mazzola, E. The Pathology of the English Renaissance. Sacred Remains and Holy Ghosts. 1998.
87. 88. Marsilius von Inghen. Quaestiones super quattuor libros sententiarum. Super Primum. Bearbeitet von
M. Santos Noya. 2 Bände. I. Quaestiones 1-7. II. Quaestiones 8-21. 2000
89. Faupel-Drevs, K. Vom rechten Gebrauch der Bilder im liturgischen Raum. Mittelalterliche Funktions-bes-
timmungen bildender Kunst im Rationale divinorum officiorum des Durandus von Mende (1230/1-
1296). 1999
90. Krey, P. D. W. and Smith, L. (eds.). Nicholas of Lyra. the Senses of Scripture. 2000
92. Oakley, F. Politics and Eternity. Studies in the History of Medieval and Early-Modern Political
Thought. 1999
93. Pryds, D. The Politics of Preaching. Robert of Naples (1309-1343) and his Sermons. 2000
94. Posthumus Meyjes, G. H. M. Jean Gerson – Apostle of Unity. His Church Politics and Ecclesiology.
Translated by J. C. Grayson. 1999
95. Berg, J. van den. Religious Currents and Cross-Currents. Essays on Early Modern Protestantism and the
Protestant Enlightenment. Edited by J. de Bruijn, P. Holtrop, and E. van der Wall. 1999
96. Izbicki, T. M. and Bellitto, C. M. (eds.). Reform and Renewal in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.
Studies in Honor of Louis Pascoe, S. J. 2000
97. Kelly, D. The Conspiracy of Allusion. Description, Rewriting, and Authorship from Macrobius to
Medieval Romance. 1999
98. Marrone, S. P. The Light of Thy Countenance. Science and Knowledge of God in the Thirteenth Cen-
tury. 2 volumes. 1. A Doctrine of Divine Illumination. 2. God at the Core of Cognition. 2001
99. Howson, B. H. Erroneous and Schismatical Opinions. The Question of Orthodoxy regarding the
Theology of Hanserd Knollys (c. 1599-169)). 2001
100. Asselt, W. J. van. The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669). 2001
101. Celenza, C.S. Piety and Pythagoras in Renaissance Florence the Symbolum Nesianum. 2001
102. Dam, H.- J. van (ed.), Hugo Grotius, De imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra. Critical Edition with
Introduction, English translation and Commentary. 2 volumes. 2001
103. Bagge, S. Kings, Politics, and the Right Order of the World in German Historiography c. 950-1150. 2002
104. Steiger, J. A. Fünf Zentralthemen der Theologie Luthers und seiner Erben. Communicatio – Imago – Figura
– Maria – Exempla. Mit Edition zweier christologischer Frühschriften Johann Gerhards. 2002
105. Izbicki, T. M. and Bellitto, C. M. (eds.). Nicholas of Cusa and his Age: Intellect and Spirituality. Essays
Dedicated to the Memory of F. Edward Cranz, Thomas P. McTighe and Charles Trinkaus. 2002
106. Hascher-Burger, U. Gesungene Innigkeit. Studien zu einer Musikhandschrift der Devotio moderna
(Utrecht, Universiteitsbibliotheek, MS 16 H 94, olim B 113). Mit einer Edition der Gesänge. 2002
107. Bolliger, D. Infiniti Contemplatio. Grundzüge der Scotus- und Scotismusrezeption im Werk Hul-
drych Zwinglis. 2003
108. Clark, F. The ‘Gregorian’ Dialogues and the Origins of Benedictine Monasticism. 2002
109. Elm, E. Die Macht der Weisheit. Das Bild des Bischofs in der Vita Augustini des Possidius und ande-
re spätantiken und frühmittelalterlichen Bischofsviten. 2003
110. Bast, R. J. (ed.). The Reformation of Faith in the Context of Late Medieval Theology and Piety. Essays by
Berndt Hamm. 2004.
111. Heering, J. P. Hugo Grotius as Apologist for the Christian Religion. A Study of his Work De Veritate
Religionis Christianae (1640). Translated by J.C. Grayson. 2004.
112. Lim, P. C.- H. In Pursuit of Purity, Unity, and Liberty. Richard Baxter’s Puritan Ecclesiology in its
Seventeenth-Century Context. 2004.
113. Connors, R. and Gow, A. C. (eds.). Anglo-American Millennialism, from Milton to the Millerites. 2004.
114. Zinguer, I. and Yardeni, M. (eds.). Les Deux Réformes Chrétiennes. Propagation et Diffusion. 2004.
115. James, F. A. III (ed.). Peter Martyr Vermigli and the European Reformations: Semper Reformanda. 2004.
116. Stroll, M. Calixtus II (1119-1124). A Pope Born to Rule. 2004.
117. Roest, B. Franciscan Literature of Religious Instruction before the Council of Trent. 2004.
118. Wannenmacher, J. E. Hermeneutik der Heilsgeschichte. De septem sigillis und die sieben Siegel im Werk
Joachims von Fiore. 2004.
119. Thompson, N. Eucharistic Sacrifice and Patristic Tradition in the Theology of Martin Bucer, 1534-1546.
2005.
120. Van der KooI, C. As in a Mirror. John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God. A Diptych. 2005.
121. Steiger, J. A. Medizinische Theologie. Christus medicus und theologia medicinalis bei Martin Luther
und im Luthertum der Barockzeit. 2005.
122. Giakalis, A. Images of the Divine. The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council –
Revised Edition. With a Foreword by Henry Chadwick. 2005.
123. Heffernan, T. J. and Burman, T. E. (eds.). Scripture and Pluralism. Reading the Bible in the
Religiously Plural Worlds of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Papers Presented at the First
Annual Symposium of the Marco Institute for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at the Uni-
versity of Tennessee, Knoxville, February 21-22, 2002. 2005.
124. Litz, G., Munzert, H. and Liebenberg, R. (eds.). Frömmigkeit – Theologie – Frömmigkeitstheologie –
Contributions to European Church History.
125. Ferreiro, A. Simon Magus in Patristic, Medieval and Early Modern Traditions. 2005.
126. Goodwin, D. L. “Take Hold of the Robe of a Jew”. Herbert of Bosham’s Christian Hebraism. 2006.
127. Holder, R. W. John Calvin and the Grounding of Interpretation. Calvin’s First Commentaries. 2006.
128. Reilly, D. J. The Art of Reform in Eleventh-Century Flanders. Gerard of Cambrai, Richard of Saint-
Vanne and the Saint-Vaast Bible. 2006.
129. Frassetto, M. (ed.). Heresy and the Persecuting Society in the Middle Ages. Essays on the Work of R.I.
Moore. 2006.
130. Walters Adams, G. Visions in Late Medieval England. Lay Spirituality and Sacred Glimpses of the
Hidden Worlds of Faith. 2007.
131. Kirby, T. The Zurich Connection and Tudor Political Theology. 2007.
132. Mackay, C.S. Narrative of the Anabaptist Madness. The Overthrow of Münster, the Famous Metro-
polis of Westphalia (2 vols.). 2007.
133. Leroux, N.R. Martin Luther as Comforter. Writings on Death. 2007.
134. Tavuzzi, M. Renaissance Inquisitors. Dominican Inquisitors and Inquisitorial Districts in Northern
Italy, 1474-1527. 2007.
135. Baschera, L. and C. Moser (eds.). Girolamo Zanchi, De religione christiana fides – Confession of
Christian Religion (2 vols.). 2007.

Prospectus available on request

BRILL — P.O.B. 9000 — 2300 PA LEIDEN — THE NETHERLANDS