events as, also ironically, the Coxians now ordered Knox not to preach
anymore.^165 The next day a supplication was presented to the Senate of
the city, which set up the French minister Valeran as an arbiter to work
out a compromise. Eventually another compromise liturgy (in actuality
the liturgy of the French congregation) was erected, much to the
satisfaction of the more precise among the English. It was then that the
Coxian party showed to the Senate a copy of Knox’s An Admonition to
Christians, a work rather slanderous of not only Mary, but also against
her husband Philip and Philip’s father, the Emperor Charles V. The
magistrates accused Knox of ‘Laesae Maiestatis Imperatoriae, that is, off
high treason’, and by 26 March 1555 Knox was off to Geneva, banished
from the city.^166
In a subsequent, undated letter to Wittingham and Goodman,^167 both
now at Geneva, Jewel asked their forgiveness if he had caused any
offense to either of them at Frankfurt.^168 The letter, little more than an
apology by Jewel on the face of it, actually delineates two strains of
thought among the exiles, the one ‘Genevan’ or Puritan, the other
Erastian: while these terms are certainly anachronistic for the missive,
the point of contention is central. The notion, propounded by Garrett
Marian Exiles(1938), that the seeds of the Puritan opposition to the
Elizabethan Settlement were planted and nurtured during the Marian
exile, and that the exiles as a group formed a party at the 1559
Parliament which opposed Elizabeth and backed her into a corner, a
notion embraced and given its best exposition in Sir John Neale’s
Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1559–1581,^169 might draw some
credence from what occurred in Frankfurt, as the arguments and lines
drawn seemingly reoccur in the 1560s and beyond.^170 But whatever
happened there, this is a far cry from the orchestrated conspiracy Garrett
44 JOHN JEWEL AND THE ENGLISH NATIONAL CHURCH
(^165) Brieff Discours, pp. XXXIX–XL.
(^166) Brieff Discours, pp. XLIIII–XLV.
(^167) Goodman had actually been a part of Cox’s party, though he had been more disposed
to compromise and conciliation than Cox or the others had been. Brieff Discours, p.
XLVII.
(^168) Jewel to Wittingham and Goodman, in Works, IV, pp. 1192–93.
(^169) J.E. Neale, Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1559–1581 (London: Jonathan Cape,
1953).
(^170) ‘It was, apparently Garrett who engendered the vigorous myth that the exiles, both
in and out of Parliament constituted a radical, or Puritan opposition group, though neither
leadership, organization nor activity has ever been established.’ ‘Although he did not
actually say so, J.E. Neale’s perverse interpretation of the making of the Elizabethan church
settlement was evidently an attempt to account for Garrett’s “Puritan” opposition.’ N.M.
Sutherland, ‘The Marian Exiles and the Establishment of the Elizabethan Regime,’ Archiv
für Reformationsgeschichte78 (1987), pp. 253–84, pp. 253, 254. Another corrective, of
course, is Norman Jones, Faith by Statute: Parliament and the Settlement of Religion, 1559
(London and Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1982).
http://www.ebook3000.com