by Rod Gragg
England’s Act of Uniformity required everyone to regularly attend church or be punished with fines, and any attempt to worship outside of the Anglican Church or in any manner that deviated from the Church’s Book of Common Prayer was deemed to be a criminal act. Especially offensive to Anglican officials was the Separatist belief that every local church should be independent and self-governing rather than submitting to the Church of England’s governing hierarchy. Like mainstream Puritanism, the Separatist movement traced its roots in large part to a theological movement at Cambridge University in the sixteenth century. There, a young ministerial student named Robert Browne came under the influence of Thomas Cartwright, a university professor and Puritan theologian who had gained attention for his outspoken criticism of the Church of England. Although he remained a member of the Church, Cartwright accused it of departing from the New Testament model of worship and government. By the time he graduated in 1572, at about age twenty-two, Browne was a committed Puritan who went beyond Cartwright’s call for Church reform. He believed that local churches should choose their own leaders and should be autonomous, which meant separating from the Church of England.
He reportedly tossed his official Anglican preacher’s license into the fire and took a job as a schoolmaster in London, where he became an open air preacher in defiance of the law. There, and in Cambridge and Norwich, Browne preached at outdoor venues and in private homes. He also authored a string of books that harshly criticized the Church of England. His books were banned by the Church and burned by Church authorities, and he was repeatedly arrested and jailed. Undeterred, he continued to preach and write, and gained a growing number of followers—who were dubbed “Brownists.”
Surrounded by the English countryside, the town of Bury St. Edmunds greets visitors with a peaceful appearance. In 1583, it was the site of a book-burning and a double execution of Separatists.
ST. EDMUNDSBURY CHRONICLE
In 1583, in the town of Bury St. Edmunds to the east of Cambridge, persecution of “Brownists” turned deadly. Inside the town church, someone had painted a Bible passage from the book of Revelation beside an image of the queen’s coat of arms. According to an investigator from the Church of England, the graffiti implied that Queen Elizabeth was the false prophetess “Jezebel” of the End Times. In response, Church authorities launched a crackdown on Separatists and Puritans in the region, arresting several dozen church members and five Puritan ministers. Two Brownists—a cobbler named John Coppin and a tailor named Elias Thacker—were hanged outside of town for promoting and distributing Browne’s writings, and a pile of Browne’s books were burned at the execution site. At their sentencing Coppin and Thacker reportedly told the presiding judge: “My Lord, your face we fear not, and for your threats we care not. . . .”
Separatists John Coppin and Elias Thacker await execution at Bury St. Edmunds in June of 1583. They were executed for printing books critical of the Church of England and Queen Elizabeth’s reign.
ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF ENGLAND
By then, Browne and some of his followers had fled to Holland, where tolerant laws allowed them freedom of worship. Eventually, however, Browne’s preaching and writing style became so fiery and unpredictable that scores of his followers turned away from him. He then left Holland and migrated to Scotland, but his confrontational ways alienated would-be supporters there as well. Apparently disgusted by his rejection in Scotland, he returned to England, where he was excommunicated from the Church of England—an act that seemed to undermine his resolve. Middle-aged and pressed by the need to support his family, he shocked the Separatists he had once inspired by renouncing Separatist practices and rejoining the Church of England. He was accepted back into the Church, and was allowed to serve as a schoolmaster and pastor until his death as an old man in 1633.
Browne’s fiery and inconsistent ways eventually led many Separatists to denounce him, including the Pilgrims, who refused to wear the name “Brownists.” Pilgrim leaders such as William Bradford would stress that the Separatist preference for autonomous, congregational government rather than the hierarchy of the Church of England was not based on Browne’s writings, but on the model of the New Testament church. Despite his conflicted behavior, however, Robert Browne’s original call to separate from the Church of England was the chief spark that ignited the Separatist movement. By the early 1600s, Separatism had matured and stabilized into the belief system that would be characterized by the Pilgrims: a largely non-confrontational body of believers who held to Puritan doctrine, but sought to worship in independent, self-governing church congregations outside the Church of England.
English Separatists participating in a Puritan-style worship service. Separatists braved the threat of arrest and imprisonment for attending secret worship services in private homes, which was illegal in late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century England.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Under Archbishop Whitgift’s predecessor, English Separatists had generally been treated with begrudging toleration. When Whitgift became archbishop, however, he promptly launched a campaign to crush the Separatists. In 1588, Separatists and other “non-conformists” received an official warning: “And that from henceforth no person or persons whatsoever, be so hardy as to put in print or writing, sell, set forth, receive, give out or distribute any more of the same or such like seditious books or libels will answer for the contrary at their uttermost perils. . . .” Despite Whitgrift’s crackdown, Separatist leaders continued to preach and write, and Separatist congregations continued to assemble for worship in private homes. A rare, brief description of a secret Separatist worship service in an English house-church was recorded by an agent of the Church of England, who infiltrated the congregation and filed this report:
“No person . . . be so hardy as to put in print or writing, sell, set forth, receive, give out or distribute . . . seditious books”
“In that house where they intend to meet, there is one appointed to keep the door . . . to give notice”
In that house where they intend to meet, there is one appointed to keep the door, for the intent, to give notice if there should be any insurrection, warning may be given them.
They do not flock together, but come two or three in a company; any man may be admitted thither; and all being gathered together, the man appointed to teach stands in the midst of the room, and his audience gather about him. He prayeth about the space of half an hour; and part of his prayer is, that those which came thither to scoff and laugh, God would be pleased to turn their hearts; by which means they think to escape undiscovered.
His sermon is about the space of an hour, and then doth another stand up to make the text more plain; and at the latter end, he entreats them all to go home severally, lest, the next meeting, they should be interrupted by those which are of the opinion of the wicked. They seem very steadfast in their opinions, and say, “rather than turn, they will burn.”3
The King Would Come Forth to See “Pastimes and Fooleries”
England’s New King Proves Himself No Friend of Puritans
In 1603, Queen Elizabeth I died. She was sixty-nine years old and had ruled for forty-five years. She was succeeded by the next-in-line: James VI, the king of Scotland. England’s Puritans, including the Separatists, were hopeful that the new monarch would remove the threat of persecution that hovered over them like a dark cloud. Perhaps, they speculated, he might even agree to the Puritan calls to reform the Church of England—after all, the Scots Presbyterians of his homeland were Calvinists like the Puritans. The thirty-six-year-old monarch, who became James I of England, also fancied himself a Bible scholar and had even authored a commentary on the book of Revelation. Puritan hopes were soon crushed, however: King James I had no love for Puritans, Separatists, or other non-conformists.
James I was the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, and her second husband, Henry Stewart. His father had been murdered when James was still a baby, and his mother had been executed by Queen Elizabeth fo
r plotting her overthrow. He had grown up under the wily manipulation of court advisors, some Catholic and some Protestant, but despite his mother’s Catholicism, he had emerged a Protestant. Understanding that the line of succession potentially positioned him to be king of England some day, he shrewdly established a Scottish alliance with Queen Elizabeth when barely twenty years old—an alliance he kept even when the queen executed his mother. When he assumed the English throne, he took his duties seriously. He was an enthusiastic promoter of the arts, managed to keep England out of serious warfare for more than twenty years, and was generally popular with the English people. He reportedly believed that he had been called by God to unite England and Scotland, and he managed to maintain a fragile alliance during his reign. He also expanded English trade with the Far East, and under his rule England established its first successful colony in America at Jamestown in Virginia.
“He could not look at a drawn sword without shuddering”
His personal life, however, tilted toward the bizarre. Although obviously intelligent, he was a complicated and conflicted man, who at times appeared to suffer from paranoia and severe depression. He was married to a foreigner—Princess Anne of Denmark—who bore him eight children, although only two lived to adulthood. Whispered rumors of his infidelity and immorality abounded in his court, and followed him all his life. He was a notoriously heavy drinker, and some claimed that he once injured himself when he drunkenly toppled from his horse. Court gossips described him as chronically anxious and easily frightened. “James was singularly effeminate,” claimed one account, “he could not look at a drawn sword without shuddering. . . .” If so, he was nonetheless a bold hunter who fearlessly raced through the countryside on horseback in pursuit of game.
An early seventeenth-century jester entertains court visitors. Comedy skits were a favorite of James I, who was known for his notoriously “bawdy” humor.
NATIONAL AND DOMESTIC HISTORY OF ENGLAND
His physical appearance was unimpressive: his smile revealed gaps of missing teeth and he walked with an odd gait caused by a childhood illness. He was a man of average height, wore a thin auburn beard and moustache, was known to burp loudly even in public, and seldom washed his hands. Vain and self-indulgent, he spent lavish sums on royal functions, while the Crown’s debts increased and the renowned English navy deteriorated for lack of funding. He insisted that the “Divine Right of Kings” endowed him with godlike authority, and he was frequently embroiled in divisive debates and controversies with Parliament.
While professing to be an astute scholar of the Bible, he was renowned for his crudity, even in public. A knowledgeable observer depicted him as habitually profane and notorious for his “words of perfect obscenity.” Once, for example, he famously described a sensational comet that passed over England as “nothing else but Venus with a firebrand in her arse.”
In his private chambers, he was said to have spent much of his time enjoying bawdy theatricals —“pastimes and fooleries” performed by his court jesters.
Aware of King James’s irreverent sense of humor, His Majesty’s jesters at one point reportedly staged sacrilegious mockery of the ordinance of baptism, dressing a pig in a baptism gown. The story was recorded by seventeenth-century English playwright Arthur Wilson, who had once frequented the king’s court. King James promptly dismissed the farce as “blasphemy,” according to Wilson, although the playwright claimed the king’s displeasure was prompted less by his aversion to blasphemy and more by his dislike of pigs:
When James became melancholy in consequence of various disappointments in state matters, Buckingham and his mother used several means of diverting him. Amongst the most ludicrous was the present. They had a young lady who brought a pig in the dress of a new-born infant. The countess carried it to the king, wrapped in a rich mantle. One Turpin, on this occasion, was dressed like a bishop in all his pontifical ornaments. He began the rites of baptism with the common prayer-book in his hand; a silver ewer with water was held by another. The marquis stood as godfather. When James turned to look at the infant, the pig squeaked: an animal which he greatly abhorred. At this, highly displeased, he exclaimed—“Out! Away for shame! What blasphemy is this!”4
“When James turned to look at the infant, the pig squeaked”
“I Will Make Them Conform Themselves, or Else. . .”
James I Unleashes a Wave of Repression against Puritans and Separatists
Upon Queen Elizabeth’s death, the English throne passed to King James I, the former ruler of Scotland. Intelligent and well read, he considered himself to be a Bible scholar, but he was a heavy drinker whose personal life was clouded by rumors of infidelity and immorality—and he would prove to be no friend to Puritans and Separatists.
NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY
When James I ascended to the throne, England’s Puritans quickly realized he was not their friend. King James considered Puritanism to be a disease that threatened his rule. Puritans, he said, were “an evill sorte” who were “pestes in the Church.” His opinion of England’s Puritan community was reflected by one of his “bawdy” court comedies: a “Puritan” festooned in donkey ears loudly chastised the ruling class for “making merry” while Christians suffered persecution. In 1604—early in his reign—King James was presented with a formal petition by Puritan leaders detailing the reforms they felt were needed in the Church of England. Eventually known as the Millenary Petition, it reportedly included the signatures of one thousand Puritans. In response, the king agreed to hear a formal presentation from Puritan leaders at Hampton Court Palace near London. At what would become known as the Hampton Court Conference, Puritan leaders made their case for reform of the Church of England, asking for changes to Church government and the Book of Common Prayer—as well as the king’s support for a new English-language translation of the Bible. James I granted little that the Puritans requested except for a new translation of the Bible. To that he readily agreed: he intensely disliked the Bible used in most English homes at the time.
King James I leads a royal hunt. The king was a bold hunter and a fearless horseman, but court gossips said his heavy drinking sometimes caused him to topple from his mount.
ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF ENGLAND
It was known as the Geneva Bible because it had been translated into English by Calvinist scholars in Geneva, Switzerland, where many English Calvinists had fled during Queen Mary’s persecution of Protestants. It was a favorite of the Puritans, but it was now a half-century old and Puritan scholars and leaders wanted a new, even more accurate translation of the Scriptures. On the margins of its pages, the Geneva Bible featured a Calvinistic commentary—which King James detested. The commentary reflected Puritan thought and theology, which he believed challenged the practices of the Church of England. The English version officially sanctioned by the Church at the time—the Bishops’ Bible—was only available as a pulpit Bible, so there was no suitable alternative to the Geneva Bible available for personal use in England.
James I was therefore quite willing to support a new translation. What emerged from the Puritans’ petition at the Hampton Court Conference was the 1611 Authorized Version of the Bible. Superbly translated from Hebrew and Greek texts by forty-seven Church of England Bible scholars, it would become the most popular English-language Bible in history. Ironically, although it originated with a Puritan request for a new English translation, the Authorized Version would become famous for the ages as the revered King James Bible. Despite that single major concession to the Puritans, which served the king’s self-interests, James I ended the Hampton Court Conference on an ominous note. Obviously aggravated and weary of Puritan calls for reform, he abruptly arose and closed the conference, muttering an implied threat against Puritans, Separatists, and other non-conformists. “I will make them conform themselves,” he stated, “or else harry them out of the land.”
“I will make them conform themselves, or else”
Soon afterward, King James unleashed se
vere royal repression against the Puritans and Separatists. Leading the purge was Archbishop Richard Bancroft—a devoted enemy of anyone who dared to dissent from the Church of England. It was his efforts as chief investigator that had resulted in the hanging of John Coppin and Elias Thacker in 1583, and his zeal for persecuting Church dissidents had not lessened. When Archbishop John Whitgift died in 1604, it was Bancroft who succeeded him—just in time to be King James’s instrument of persecution.
King James accepted none of the Puritans’ principal requests at the Hampton Court Conference—except for one: he agreed to sponsor a new English-language translation of the Bible. The Authorized Version, as the new translation was officially named, would become the most widely used English Bible in history—popularly known as the King James Bible.
WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
In a published work entitled Basilikon Doron or “Royal Gift” in Greek, King James I proclaimed his view that Puritans and Separatists were “brain sick” troublemakers who deserved “exemplary punishment.”
HAROLD B. LEE LIBRARY
The new archbishop conducted his purge with severe efficiency, “silencing, imprisoning and bearing down on the true and faithful preachers of the Word of God”—in the words of a Calvinist critic. Under King James, Bancroft banished approximately three hundred Puritan ministers from the Church of England, stripping them of their income and their pulpits. The banished pastors became known as “the silenced brethren.” Puritan ministers and their followers who openly defied Church policies were jailed at the notorious Maiden Lane Prison, where they were whipped at times and forced to perform hard labor. The purge sent a chilling warning to the Puritan ministers who remained in the Church, and established an atmosphere of oppression within England’s Separatist community. Increasing numbers of Separatist leaders and their congregations began to seriously consider escaping from England to Holland. In a published work entitled Basilikon Doron—“Royal Gift” in Greek—King James revealed his view that Puritans and Separatists were “rash-headed” and “brain sick” troublemakers who deserved “exemplary punishment.”