Katherine Chidley (fl. 1616–1653) was an English Puritan activist and controversialist. Initially involved in resistance to episcopal authority and in separatist activity in Shrewsbury and London, she emerged during the English Civil War as a powerful advocate of an Independent or Congregationalist polity. Under the Commonwealth of England and the Protectorate she was a leader of Leveller women, noted for her contribution to campaigns on behalf of John Lilburne.
Shrewsbury
Chidley's origins and background, even her own family name, are unknown. She first appears in Shrewsbury as the wife of Daniel Chidley. The Shrewsbury Burgess Roll lists him in 1621, under the name Chidloe, as a tailor and the son of William, a yeoman of Burlton, a village to the north of Shrewsbury.Shrewsbury Burgess Roll, p. 80. By this time he had two sons, Samuel and Daniel. Katherine may have been from Shrewsbury or the surrounding area, like Daniel, but it is impossible to be certain. The baptism of the first child, Samuel, described as the son of "Daniell Chedler" was recorded in the parish register of St Chad's Church, Shrewsbury on 13 April 1618:Register of St Chad's, Shrewsbury, p. 7. the spelling of the surname is very varied. Between 1618 and 1629, the register records the baptisms of eight Chidley children and the burial of one, Daniel, who died in infancy.Coulton, p. 82-3. The couple were so intent on having a son with his father's name that they named a further son Daniel, which throws into question their naming of the first son. Katharine Gillespie has suggested that the naming of Samuel may have implied a likening of Katherine Chidley to the Biblical Hannah, who in dedicated her first child, Samuel, to God and refused the traditional purification ritual until the child was weaned.Gillespie, p. 80. Moreover, the dedication of the Biblical Samuel is followed by a prophetic utterance from Hannah, , the model for the Magnificat, that looks forward to an overturning of existing power relations.Gillespie, p. 81. Katherine Chidley herself was not mentioned in the parish register entries until the baptism on 12 February 1626 of the second Daniel, who was recorded as "s. of Daniell & Katharn Chedley"Register of St Chad's, Shrewsbury, p. 46.
Following the birth of the second Daniel, and possibly at earlier births, Katherine Chidley refused to undergo the Churching of women, a service prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer. She was not alone in this: the ceremony was suspect to Puritans, even of the fairly moderate kind. Particularly resented was the use of , with its striking spell-like verse 6, "The sun shall not smite thee by day, nor the moon by night." Katherine, along with Judith Wright and five other women, was cited for refusing to be churched by the Peter Studley, the High Church incumbent of St Chad's, later in the year, during a canonical visitation under Thomas Morton, then Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. Judith was the wife of George Wright, sometime bailiff of Shrewsbury, and the couple had son, Joshua, baptised on 25 April 1625:Register of St Chad's, Shrewsbury, p. 47. George Wright was one of the relatively small number accorded the title of Mr. in the register, showing that he was regarded as socially superior to artisans like Daniel Chidley. However, he was cited for allowing meetings to hear sermons and sing hymns in his home on Sunday evenings, and it is known that these were centred on Julines Herring, the town's public preacher, of whom the Wrights were key supporters.Clarke. p. 464. Studley deferred to Morton's judgement: "whether Action of gathering together may be termed a conventicle we refer to your honorable court to judge and determine."Coulton, p. 82. Katherine and her husband were also among twenty parishioners presented to the Consistory court for failure to attend church. This may suggest that they had already sought to form a conventicle or separatist group. However, William Rowley, another former bailiff, was cited with them, although he was certainly not a separatist but a leader of the Puritan faction on the corporation and a close supporter of the Presbyterian Herring.
Although Studley chose for tactical reasons to conflate them, there seem to have been two distinct Puritan oppositional groups at St Chad's. Herring himself considered the Chidleys separatists and his biographer, Samuel Clarke reports that: "When some seeds of separation were scattered in Salop (by Daniel Childey and his wife,) their growth was checked by his appearing against them."Clarke. p. 465. Herring's criticism of them is reported as:
The Chidleys were distinct from the moderate Presbyterian Puritans in social class as well as theology. However, they continued to have their children christened at St Chad's, which was contrary to the beliefs and practice of convinced separatists. The last baptism of a Chidley child at St Chad's was of John on 26 October 1629,Coulton, p. 83. and the register has a gap where Katherine's name should be.Register of St Chad's, Shrewsbury, p. 68. In order to find like-minded people, and possibly for economic reasons also, the Chidleys were forced to move. It seems that their radicalism was deepened by the experience of living in London and it is possible that it was only in London that they moved decisively to a separatist position.
London
The Chidley's are shown to have been active in London by 1630 by a manuscript in the collection of Benjamin Stinton,Burrage, volume 2, p. 292. and used by the Baptist historian Thomas Crosby. This records Daniel Chidley helping John Dupper or Duppa and Thomas Dyer to form a separatist church in the capital.Burrage, volume 1, p. 321.Burrage, volume 2, p. 299. This group was a splinter from a church which was organised by Henry Jacob in Southwark before his departure for New England, and later pastored by John Lothropp. The new grouping distinguished itself by rejecting entirely communion or contact with Anglican churches – an issue brought to the fore when one member had his child baptised in his local parish church,Burrage, volume 2, p. 301-2. exactly as the Chidleys had previously done. Katherine and Daniel Chidley seem to have been involved in this radical underground resistance to the established Church throughout the 1630s. David Brown, a founder member of the group, implies that they tore a surplice as a deliberate act of iconoclasm one St Luke's Day (18 October) at Greenwich. This was a particularly ungodly place in their eyes because a Catholic chapel had been installed there for Queen Henrietta Maria.Brown (1652), p. 14. Little is known of the group's activities and it is unclear whether such direct action was typical. However, the Chidleys made progress socially and financially after their move to London. Daniel became a freeman of the Worshipful Company of Haberdashers in 1632,Haberdashers' register of Apprentices and Freemen 1526-1933. and their eldest son, Samuel, was admitted as an apprentice in 1634.Haberdashers' register of Apprentices and Freemen 1526-1933.
Controversies with Presbyterians
The Justification of the Independent Churches
Katherine's own views were made public for the first time in October 1641, just less than a year into the Long Parliament, which Charles I was forced to call because of his disastrous handling of the Scottish Presbyterians, culminating in the Bishops' Wars. Chidley's target was Reasons Against the Independent Government of Particular Congregations, an attack on the Congregational polity by the English Presbyterian controversialist Thomas Edwards. The issue was one of great political importance and events were moving generally in the direction Edwards favoured. In negotiations between the Parliament and the Scottish Covenanters, the Scots had gradually but relentlessly pressed the case for a Presbyterian reformation of the Church of EnglandShaw, volume 1, p. 128-9. and had brought along four ministers specifically to combat the Independents: "to satisfy the minds of many in England who love the way of New England better than that of Presbyteries used in our Church."Shaw, volume 1, p. 127. Parliament had temporised, committing only to a reformation of the Church "in due time as shall best conduce to the glory of God and the peace of the Church," but it was clear that there would be a need for serious concessions to the Scots if hostilities broke out between king and Parliament.Shaw, volume 1, p. 130-1. Chidley's response to the situation was The Justification of the Independant Churches of Christ. Being an Answer to Mr. Edwards his Booke. Edwards had attacked the Independents both for separatism and for what he saw as their unstable and fissiparous structures. In particular, he had no confidence in the ability of ordinary people to judge the value of ministers:
Chidley asked for the reader's indulgence, as she knew she did not have the education and experience of the formidable Edwards:
However, the Biblical quotations she chose were for the title page were highly provocative. The first, , reports the challenge of David to Goliath. The other was , referring to the Jael, who smashed the skull of an enemy of the Israelites.The Justification of the Independant Churches, Title page. Both seem to suggest that the age of power and authority is to give way to one of rule by consent and the reversal of order may be suggesting specifically that monarchy is giving way to one of more diffuse localised, authority.Gillespie, p. 79.
She began her response by roundly declaring the lawfulness of separation:
She gave vent to considerable bitterness against the clergy of the Church of England, whom she called "those Locusts, which ascended out of the bottomlesse pit, ."The Justification of the Independant Churches, p. 11. Later in the book she listed the ways in which the Episcopalian clergy exploited the poor, including one which refers to the fee extracted for the churching of women, which she had boycotted in Shrewsbury.
However, separation, in her view, was an ecclesiological imperative, rather than a political expedient:
Edwards had drawn attention to the lack of ministers in the Independent churches and challenged the authority of those they had. Chidley unpicked the ambiguities in his own claim to authority:
Chidley was anti-clerical in tone. She renounced the whole idea of apostolic succession in favour of apostolic mission:
Chidley challenged any notion of social superiority or clerical status as a qualification for establishing and governing churches:
Government by elders was common ground between Presbyterians and Independents:
However, any superstructure beyond the immediate local level was another matter. Chidley expressed total distrust in any authority not specifically sanctioned by God:
Edwards had rejected Toleration as likely to lead to the rising of subordinate groups in society and to social collapse. Chidley, however, championed the people, including the poor:
Where Edwards thought that male householders would lose their authority over wives, children and servants, she argued:
A New-Yeares-Gift