that movement the Church was Roman Catholic, and further, that the Church of England began its life in the time of Henry, who, it is asserted, gave it birth.
Such statments as these, however, are without historical foundation. History, in fact, asserts the opposite opinion. Ask yourselves for a moment what you mean by Reformation. The word merely means a reforming, not recreating. It denotes that what was already in existence was merely changed and not that something new was brought into existence. lf it be true what some partisans say in their assertions about the Reformation, the only word that could be used to describe accurately the change would be the word revolution.
At the Reformation the Church did not break away from the previous Church as a distinct and separate communion. There was no schism from a previously existing body. As Mr. Hore says, [1]"It was only from the abuses and innovations of Rome that England separated, and it remained the same garden as before the Reformation, only it was cleared of its weeds."
I hope you will have sufficient testimony to-night to convince you that the Church of England did not spring up at the Reformation, but that it was only stripped of its popish errors and finally freed from papal aggressions. I hope you will be convinced that it has remained the same continuous Church since the days of British Christianity.
After I have spoken briefly of the causes which led to the Reformation, I will pass on to describe the chief events which make up this movement. Then I will state in what way
- ↑ Hore, p.228.
