The Church of England, Its Catholicity and Continuity/Lecture 3
LECTURE III
The Reformation.
To-night I am going to speak of that change which took place in the Church of England known as the Reformation. The time covered by the events about to be related extends from the twentieth year of the reign of Henry VIII., 1529, to the death of Queen Elizabeth in the year 1603. The object which I have in view to-night is to show what the Reformation really was. As I have already stated, many people assert, and some of them believe, that at the Reformation an entirely new Church was made in England, and that before 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 the Church was benefitted by it. In conclusion I will gather together the evidence in order to show that the Church of England was not made by Henry VIII., but only changed and purified by the movement which he started.
What were the causes of the Reformation?
In the last Lecture we heard enough to convince us how continually the English nation rebelled against papal usurpation. The nation tried by legislation, by protest, by letters, and by rebellion, to curb the Pope's authority in England, but it was not strong enough to succeed. The national feeling had not changed, but grew stronger as time went on. When Henry came the nation was only waiting for the happy opportunity of completing what had been so often attempted before. The people longed for their national independence. These aggressions of the Pope then were the first cause of the Reformation. England was more than weary of the Pope's demands for Peter's pence, for first-fruits and tenths. Our forefathers were disgusted at the insolence of the Pope in thrusting into our Sees and benefices men of foreign birth, ignorant of their ways, their language, and their customs. They lamented that men who held our livings very frequently lived out of England and that all they cared for was our money.
In addition to these facts the state of morality and religion in England had fallen to a very low ebb indeed. Such a state of things could not long continue. The Protestants on the Continent were denouncing the evil lives of many of the Romanists. This spirit spread to England.
It is not my intention in this Lecture to say much about the reformer, Martin Luther. But his movement in Germany was another aid in bringing about the change which took place in our country. Pamphlets expressing the opinions of his party came across the water, and they were read and many of their sentiments endorsed by our people. The movement which John Wycliffe started, to which I briefly referred last week, the activity of his followers, the Lollards, who went throughout the country preaching against the iniquities of many of the clergy and the friars, prepared the minds of the nation for the change about to come.
There was one more cause of the Reformation, and by no means the least important one. That was the movement known as the Revival of Learning. Before the Reformation the ignorance of the people was astounding. Even priests who had the cure of souls were so lazy and indolent that many of them could not translate the Latin services which they so improperly rendered. Some time before the Reformation men began to travel to inquire into the customs of distant countries. Thus the mind was aroused and the understanding quickened. Men flocked to Italy to find out all they could about the old classic writers. There was a mania for discovering old manuscripts of the Greek and Latin authors. Florence became the home of this intellectual revival. Such men as Grocyn, Linacre and Colet, came to England in large numbers. They went to the Universities and lectured to the students there. Thus they aroused the nation's intelligence. Colet became a master in the study of Greek, and made the desire to know the Greek New Testament the aim of his scholarship. He lectured at Oxford on St. Paul's Epistles with such earnestness that as someone said of him at that time he seemed [2]"Like one inspired, raised in voice, eye, his whole countenance, and mien, out of himself."
Erasmus was another of these reformers. The greater part of his labours he devoted to the publication of various editions of the Greek New Testament. He wrote a paraphrase of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. This great movement infected the growing generation with desires to interest itself in this work, and helped to make the people dissatisfied with the tone of life, moral and religious, before Henry's time, and led them ardently to desire a change.
You must not think that the Reformation was brought about by a single stroke. That is how people sometimes speak of it. A struggle to bring it on had been made for centuries, and all the events alluded to now had a share in completing it. King Henry was not the inventor of the Reformation. It was rather forced upon him. As we have already seen, during the whole of the mediæval period the kings of England had striven to effect a reformation. The struggle now brought to a head continually went on, and as Dr. Beard in his Hibbert Lecture says: [3]"On both sides claims were always renewed," that is on the side of England and the Pope. "Popes of arbitrary temper and high spirit knew how to avail themselves of the political necessities of kings. … The formal assumption of supremacy by Henry VIII. was but the last stage of a process which had been going on for almost 500 years."
Clearly understand, then, that the Reformation was not the work of a moment, but of a long period of strong struggles between the Popes of Rome and the upholders of the common law of England.
We have seen what the primary causes of the Reformation were. Now I must speak of its more immediate cause. That cause was a private quarrel which King Henry had with the Pope over his second marriage.
It is due to this fact that you have sometimes heard the taunt which Dissenters hurl at us that the Reformation came into existence through the licentiousness of the king. This, however, as we have seen, is most certainly not true. It was the question of Henry's divorce from his first wife which led him to throw off the authority of the Pope of Rome. Henry by his first wife had no children, and as he had married her within the prohibited degrees he considered, so he said, that her childlessness was God's judgment on his sin. For the sake of having lawful children he sought a divorce from her. He appealed to the Pope to sanction it. But the Pope was not eager to grant his request, for he feared the result of his acquiescence in Henry's wish upon the other Courts of Europe. The king was enraged at the Pope's delay, and so—it is a long story and the result had better be briefly stated—Henry took the law into his own hands. He said that the Pope should no longer have authority in his kingdom. He succeeded in having a special Act of Parliament, in the year 1533, sanctioning his divorce from Catherine, and in that year he married the object of his affection, viz., Anne Boleyn. It is not my object to speak of the king's inner character respecting this event, since more important subjects await our consideration. But it was this act of divorce which finally brought all the woes of England to a head. It was this fact which urged Henry to bring about that good object which the English nation had so long desired. The Pope himself, of course, resented Henry's bold act, and he pronounced the second marriage null and void. But Henry cared little for his threats, for he had good support behind him, especially in his chief minister, Cranmer.
This event led Parliament to set to work in good earnest to help on the Reformation.
Before considering the events which make up that great movement, I should like to say something about Henry's real position as a reformer. He certainly was not a Protestant, and in no way can you say that he made the Church of England Protestant, or changed a Roman Catholic Church into a Protestant Church. The Church of England, in fact, as a Church, never was Protestant. You nowhere find it so described in the Book of Common Prayer or in the Articles. If Henry was anything in religion he was a Roman Catholic. In fact, before the Reformation in England, he wrote a book against the teaching of the reformer Luther, and this was so much approved of by the Pope that the Pope signified his pleasure of the work by sending back to Henry a beautiful and costly sword, and bestowed upon Henry the title Defensor Fidei—the Defender of the Faith. After Henry broke from Rome he punished and condemned not only Roman Catholics but Protestants as well, and passed some severe laws against the latter. Seeing that the Protestant spirit of the Continent was affecting England, Henry put in force his six articles, or as the persecuted called it, the whip with six strings. These Articles forced on the people all the special Romanist doctrines. They asserted the doctrine of transubstantiation, that after consecration the bread and wine were no longer bread and wine, the celibacy of the clergy, auricular confession to a priest, and private masses for the dead. We see the king's religious opinions from the wish expressed in his will as Mr. Southey reminds us. Henry requested [4]"That a convenient altar be set up, honourably furnished with all things requisite, for daily masses to be said perpetually for his soul while the world should endure."
Facts such as these show that the king was not a Protestant. No; the king was not particularly scrupulous over any shade of religious opinion. What he rigidly insisted on was his own supremacy in place of the Pope's—supremacy over both things spiritual and things temporal in his kingdom, and as long as he was obeyed on this particular point, as long as he was looked upon as the Supreme Head, he cared but little for anything else.
Now I must pass on to speak of the chief events of the Reformation. I shall have to give a hasty survey of facts extending to the death of Queen Elizabeth, for the Reformation certainly was not completed in England before that time.
It was in the year 1527 that Henry first began to look for the divorce, and although the clergy opposed this as a whole, yet they were, most of them, anxious to destroy the Pope's assumption over England. The first thing done to show the nation's determination in this object was the passing of an Act of Parliament, 1530, to abolish payment of money to Rome. Henry married Anne Boleyn 1533. In answer to the Pope's command that the king should return to his lawful wife or else be excommunicated, Henry caused a sermon every Sunday to be preached in S. Paul's by one of the Bishops, to teach the people that the Pope should no longer be supreme in England. The same year, 1534, an Act was passed to compel the clergy to submit to Henry's decision and to hinder them from appealing to Rome in their difficulties. The same year it was decided, by Convocation of the clergy, that [5]"the Pope has no greater jurisdiction conferred upon him by God in Holy Scripture in the kingdom of England than any other foreign Bishop." This was passed before Parliament expressed the same sentiment in a law. So we see that the Church itself, and not the State, took the primary matter first in hand. Parliament next decided that no Bishop nor clergyman should be accepted to serve in our English cures who had been nominated by the Pope of Rome. Notwithstanding these important changes, the king made it known through a statute that he had no intention [6]"to vary from the Catholic faith of Christendom or in anything declared in Holy Scripture and the Word of God to be necessary to salvation." The great Act of this new movement was passed in November, 1534—The Act of Supremacy. This made the king the supreme Governor of the Church, and it embodied in its declaration the decision arrived at in Convocation, to which I have already referred. This Act declares that the king [7]"justly and rightly is and ought to be supreme head of the Church of England, and is so recognized by the clergy of the realm in their Convocation. . . . Be it enacted by the authority of this present Parliament that the king, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted and reputed, the only supreme head on earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia." A little later in the Lecture we shall notice what this title "Supreme Head of the Church of England" meant, as understood by the clergy.
After this great Act of the Reformation, then, the Pope's authority was no longer to be recognized in our land. The king was, in a sense, to take his place. This explains why the fortunes of religion in England in the next few generations depended largely upon the religious character of the reigning Sovereign.
In continuing to relate the changes in the Church in Henry's time, we might in the next place refer to the wholesale destruction of the Monasteries. Cromwell, Henry's minister, was chiefly concerned in this.
It is perfectly true that many of the Monasteries of this time had sunk into a terrible state of vice and corruption. But they were not all given over to licentiousness. Some of them were doing excellent work in educating the poor and administering to the corporal wants of the sick and needy. But Henry grew rapacious. He saw behind the walls of the Monasteries an immense store of wealth. The Monasteries, we must remember, were staunch supporters of the Pope, and therefore they defied Henry's supremacy. Accordingly a Commission was appointed to visit them and to report upon their state and work. Two eagle-eyed men, Legh and Leyton, were appointed to the business. The result of their labours was put before Parliament in what was called the "Black Book." It was clearly to be seen that the smaller Monasteries were given over to revel and debauchery. Their condition no doubt, was much exaggerated. It was allowed, as Professor Green says, [8]"that one-third of the religious houses were fairly and decently conducted. The rest were charged with drunkenness and simony, and with the foulest and most revolting crimes." So the cry was raised, "Down with them," and the decision was that all those whose incomes were under ₤200 per year should be destroyed, and their revenues be granted to the Crown. How did the nation meet this measure? With perfect silence. But it was a silence produced by terror. As many as 376 houses were suppressed, and thus 10,000 men were thrown upon the world to swell the ranks of beggars. The destruction of these houses was followed by several formidable rebellions in various parts of England, as the nation gradually took in what it meant. In 1536 one was suppressed in Lincolnshire, and soon after that another, called the Pilgrimage of Grace, in Yorkshire. The king and his party, however, took no warning from these events.
In the year 1539 he allowed the larger Monasteries to be suppressed, although in these it was acknowledged good work, honest Christian work, was carried on. The tomb of Thomas à Becket, at Canterbury, was also spoiled and its treasures plundered. As many as twenty-six loads of valuables were taken away. Many of the ancient Abbeys were also destroyed, and in some cases the Abbots were executed. The wealth was enormous which fell to Henry from these ravages. With this he enriched himself and his courtiers, and erected some new bishoprics and endowed them. He promised that twenty-one bishoprics should be erected from the spoils, as Wolsey had suggested to him. But is seems that only six new Sees were provided, Oxford, Gloucester, Bristol, Peterborough, and Chester, and Westminster Abbey was joined to the See of London.
It was a shameful piece of business, the wholesale destruction of the Monasteries. It so increased the ranks of beggars that it gave birth to our poor laws under Elizabeth. It helped to create the evil of lay rectors in the Church, and this in time gave birth to the evil of pluralities. This destruction filled England with discontent, and helped to sow seeds of dissent, and prepared the troubles which came to a head under Charles I. Besides this, the loss of books to England was most lamentable. Valuable documents which gave the history of past ages, and rich editions of ancient learning, were ruthlessly thrown away. The Monasteries, please remember, were especially rich in books, and they were in the olden times the homes of learning. In the Monasteries were kept [9]"the records of our convocations, the Acts of Parliament, as well as the hereditary documents of private families." Hore says: [10]"If these things were not destroyed they were sold as waste paper. Some books were used to scour candlesticks, some to rub boots, some sold to grocers or soap boilers, and some sent over sea to bookbinders, not in small quantities, but at times in whole ships full, to the wondering of foreign nations. A single merchant purchased at forty shillings apiece two noble libraries, to be used as Grey papers." Many writers of that time also lamented the loss. Bale, in speaking to King Edward on this subject, said: [11]"I judge this to be true, and utter it with heaviness, that neither the Britons under the Romans and Saxons, nor yet the English people under the Danes and Normans, had ever such damage of their learned monuments as we have seen in our times. Our posterity may well curse this wicked fact of our age, this unreasonable spoil of England's noble antiquities." And Bale, we should call to mind, really hated the Monasteries. Fuller also speaks upon this subject. [12]"As brokers in Long Lane," he says, do when they buy an old suit, buy the linings together with the outside, so it was conceived meet that such as purchased the buildings of Monasteries should in the same grant have the libraries (the stuffing thereof) conveyed unto them; and these ignorant owners, so long as they might keep a Liegerbook or Terrier, by direction thereof to find such straggling acres as belonged to them, they cared not to preserve any other monuments." Southey, in his history of the Church, likewise laments this wholesale destruction. The books, he said [13]"were sold to grocers and chandlers. Whole shiploads were sent abroad to the bookbinders, that the vellum or parchment might be cut up in their trade. Covers were torn off for their brass bosses and clasps, and their contents served the ignorant and careless for waste paper. In this manner English history suffered irreparable losses, and it is more than probable that some of the works of the ancients perished in this indiscriminate and extensive destruction."
We must pass away from this phase of the Reformation with only this remark, that such violent vengeance was not needed.
To continue the history of Henry's time, we find that in 1534 efforts were made to reform corrupt doctrines. The spirit of the Continent had affected England, and the desire was expressed that the Bible should be placed in the people's hands. Convocation requested that the king should authorize a translation. Tyndale, before this time, had turned the Bible into English, but through the means of Tunstall as many copies of this as could be found were burnt. Ten Articles were drawn up in 1536 to unite the clergy, but their tone was Roman Catholic. Injunctions were given at the same time to the clergy to assert the king's supremacy and, by preaching, to condemn the Pope's usurpation in England. The Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments were ordered to be said in our mother tongue, instead of in the Latin as before. About this time a deputation came to England from the Protestant Princes of the Continent, to request the English Church to ally itself with the Lutheran Church. But this failed. In answer to this request for the Bible, the clergy, in 1538, were ordered to chain a copy of that precious book in their Churches, that the people might gather there to read it. This same year orders were given for the removal from the Churches of all relics and superstitious ornaments.
In the next place, attention was given to the liturgy, that the Pope's name might be expunged from the services of the Church, and that the name of Thomas à Becket might be removed from the Calendar of Saints. A new edition of the Sarum use was, therefore, issued and commanded to be used in the province of Canterbury. Books of devotion were drawn up to take the place of those books used by the Pope's men.
As a consequence of these reforms, more interest was taken in the subject of religion than ever before, and especial interest was taken in the reading of the Bible. This last fact ultimately led to many wrangles, and so bitter were they that Henry was fearful of the results. Already he had requested that the Holy Scriptures should not be made a subject of discussion. But now [14]"the king complained," says Mr. Hore, "that the Bible was made the cause of wrangles and disputes in every tavern and ale-house." To give a check to these displays of temper then, Henry passed and put into force the six Articles, the whip with six strings, to which I have already referred.
I must now turn to the state of affairs in the time of Edward VI. In his reign further changes were made, but they were of a more revolutionary character. Edward was really a Protestant, but he was a mere boy, and was guided by such men as the Protector Somerset, who practically steered the ship of State. [15]"The Reformation now," says Mr. Hore, "became deformation and spoliation." The people severely rebelled against such sudden changes as were made. Once more the hand of the spoiler was placed upon the Church's property. Chantries were destroyed. At one time it was the Protector's intention to pull down our beautiful Westminster Abbey, that the site might be used to build a palace for himself. He was only turned from his purpose by gifts of money. He did destroy the town houses several of the Bishops to make room for his own servants. Five or six more Abbeys were appropriated, and amongst these was the magnificent Abbey of Glastonbury, now a perfect ruin. This place, in which God had been worshipped for ages, was given over to the French and Walloon refugees, that they might use it as a woollen manufactory.
Such robbery of the Church's wealth and places of worship urged the nation to take sides on the question of religion. From this time Protestant and Catholic became parties in the State, and the English Catholic preferred to side with the Roman Catholic rather than with the Protestant. The Protestant party in England grew up and increased from the party men who came to England from the Continent. Hooper came across the channel, bringing with him all the love he could for Calvinism. He and many others spread the precepts of Calvin and Luther in the Church, and were successful in influencing the State in their favour. Through this reforming party the Book of Homilies was published for the clergy to read in Church. These men brought to England the mania for destroying images in Churches, as being superstitious objects of worship. It was during Edward's reign that Erasmus' paraphrase upon the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles was ordered to be read in Churches. The six Articles which Henry had enforced were repealed, as well as several other persecuting Acts which disgraced the Statute Book, as De Hæretico Comburendo—the Act for burning heretics.
One of the chief events of Edward's reign was the compilation of our liturgy. Up to his time there was not one uniform service used in England, as there is now. There were several what were called Uses in existence. There was the Use of Sarum, York, Hereford, Bangor, and Lincoln. These were all used in different parts of England. But in 1548, there was a vigorous demand for only one Use for the whole country. So in 1549 the First Prayer Book of Edward appeared, compiled from all the other Uses, and it was enforced by Act of Parliament. This book was again revised with many alterations in 1552. This was entirely due to the growth of the Protestant feeling in England. Men came over to us within these few years with more advanced views on doctrine and ritual, and they did not rest until they imposed their principles upon the heads of the Church. This book was also enforced by Act of Parliament; but there is no evidence to show that it was ever used, for the death of Edward was drawing near, and that was the sign of another great change in ecclesiastical matters.
One more act of reform was made in Edward's reign. The Articles of religion were drawn up, forty-two in number, to which the clergy should subscribe. They were published "to root up discord and to establish the agreement of true religion."
During this reign there was plenty of controversy going on to keep the people in touch with the general upheaval of the times. The subject of great importance was "The use of Vestments." Those who came from the Continent wished to abolish vestments and overturn the country's old customs. Another controversy was on the use of the altar. This was removed by Ridley from its accustomed place, and stationed like a table in the middle of the Church. "Oyster boards" they were nicknamed by the Papists. The Church was in danger not only of becoming very Protestant, but of being ruined by so much freedom, strife, and change. The people were heartily weary of such changes. They mourned for the loss of their old reverent customs, and many of them preferred the religion of the Pope to the barrenness and coldness of Protestant worship, brought over from the Continent. They hailed with great enthusiasm the accession of Queen Mary. The whole nation, almost to a man, looked upon her with affection. But they had yet to learn what she would do for England.
On her accession there was a great reaction against the work of the Reformers. The people, to a large extent, were with the queen. They expressed their discontent in Edward's life. Then even discontent reigned everywhere, especially in the east, west and midland counties, but all revolts were stamped out in blood. Cornwall, Devon and Norwich were foremost in opposing the Reformers. These facts enable us to understand why the people so heartily welcomed Mary.
But what was Mary's work?
Now she was a Roman Catholic. Most of her time had been spent in France, where she had received a splendid education. On account of her training she hated the Protestants. But still, if it had not been for her advisers, she might have steered England through her religious difficulties. She became allied with Spain, the very centre of Roman Catholicism, the home of the barbarous inquisition. She married Philip, a match never popular with the English, and this was the first step to lead to her unpopularity. Her work then, with the help of such a husband, was to make England Roman Catholic. We have now to relate that there was a deliberate attempt to put England under the Pope, and for the next few years he really had considerable power in England. Mary put our country in submission to Rome. All the acts favouring Protestants in the previous reign were repealed. A Romanist and a Cardinal, Reginald Pole, was placed in the See of Canterbury. The old Mass books were restored, and as far as possible the old liturgies. "The whole system," says Professor Green, [16]"which had been pursued during Edward's reign fell with a sudden crash … the married priests were driven from their Churches, the new Prayer Book was set aside, the Mass was restored with a burst of popular enthusiasm. The imprisoned Bishops found themselves again in their Sees, and Latimer and Cranmer, who were charged with a share in the usurpation, took their places in the Tower." Still the people had no sympathy with Mary's leanings towards Rome.
Now the doctrine of transubstantiation was made a test doctrine by Mary's ministers. Without scruple for age or birth they were condemned and burned who denied it. Even the Princess Elizabeth did not escape examination, and it was only due to her wisdom that her life was saved for the future glory of England. When Tonsal, Bonner and Gardiner plied her with questions on the Sacrament, she gave this answer:
[17]"Christ was the Word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it,
And what the Word did make it
That I believe and take it."
The most shameful blot of Mary's reign was her persecutions. Hundreds of the best men in England were burnt at the stake. Many of them bear household names. Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Rogers, Taylor, Hooper. These persecutions were carried on all over England, and no mercy was shown by Gardiner and his allies. Mary was not responsible for all the evil of that time. She was led by other men. She died, however, a most miserable and discontented woman. The people were as glad to hear of her death as they were to see her accession. It was a fortunate thing for England that her reign lasted only five years.
Now we are to notice Elizabeth's work for the Church of England. The final settlement of the Reformation is due to her. Before she ascended the throne no one could tell what her religious position would be, and the public mind was much exercised over this important question. But Elizabeth, as a matter of fact, cared very little for religion at all. She did not take the interest which her father and sister did in theological matters, and she was not a partisan, like Edward. When she came to the throne she continued the services in her private Chapel just as Mary had left it. Elizabeth insisted on one thing, her own supremacy and no reverence for Bishops did she show if they dared to oppose her will. However, she had a very difficult position to fill, and, on the whole, she acted wisely.
Soon after her accession scores of men came back from the Continent who had left our country during the Marian persecutions. They brought over with them increased love for the Reformers' doctrines. Elizabeth saw the prospect of great division and discord in her kingdom. But, apart from her political troubles, she had as much as she could do to settle the religious difficulties of her age. Her one desire in this respect was to establish uniformity. As the Calvinistic clergy flocked into the Church the distinction of Protestant and Catholic was more clearly defined than ever before. The Puritans, now becoming a separate party in the State, gave her no small anxiety over the object she had in view. But she succeeded in keeping them at bay. She had to conciliate them. Both parties were included in her Council. Elizabeth's first act, then, in coming to the throne was to restore the Sovereign's supremacy. The Pope resented this, and charged her with being illegitimate, and as having no right therefore to the Crown. He desired to see Mary, Queen of Scots, upon the throne. Elizabeth, unlike her father, showed her wisdom in not assuming to herself the title of Supreme Head of the Church. She preferred the title of Supreme Governor. The need now arose of restoring much of the work of the Reformation which Mary had destroyed. The Book of Common Prayer was called for in place of the old Roman Missals. The Second Prayer Book of Edward was restored, with alterations. To this Book a rubric was added speaking of the vestments and ornaments to be used in the Church, which was discomforting to the Puritans. These should be the same as were in use in the second year of the reign of Edward VI. This Book was enforced by an Act of Uniformity, and considering that so many Puritans were then in England, it might reasonably have been expected that most of them would have left the ranks of the Church of England. But it appears that only one hundred and eighty-nine of them resigned their livings.
When Elizabeth came to the throne there were very few Bishops left to fill the Sees. Many of them had been burnt by Mary for denying the belief in transubstantiation, and several of them died within a few years of Elizabeth's accession. When only one diocesan Bishop was left it was necessary to find men to fill the vacant posts. But now comes a difficulty. Who were to consecrate them? Well! it was discovered that there were three Bishops still living in England whom Mary had ejected, viz., Coverdale, Scorby and Barlow. There were also several other Bishops living in retirement who had been validly ordained. These Bishops were asked to consecrate Parker for the primacy. Parker was a man to suit Elizabeth's purposes. He was a good Catholic, opposed to Protestant and Romanists alike. It is respecting this man's consecration that the Pope has recently given it as his verdict that he was not canonically ordained, and therefore that our Anglican orders are null and void. He has stated that there was a flaw in Parker's consecration, and that consequently all men ordained in succession to him are no more lawfully ordained than dissenting ministers. The Romanists also asserted that Barlow, who consecrated Parker, was not himself validly consecrated. This opinion on Anglican orders, however, has not been shared by all the leaders of Roman Catholics. Many of the leading Romanists take the opposite view. Dr. Dollinger in recent years is looked up to as an important Roman Catholic authority. But he strongly asserted "that he had no manner of doubt as to the validity of the episcopal succession in the English Church." And again, [18]"The fact that Parker was consecrated by four rightly consecrated Bishops, rite et legitime, with imposition of hands and the necessary words, is so clearly established that if one chooses to doubt the fact one could with the same right doubt one hundred thousand facts. The Orders of the Roman Church could be disputed with more apparent reason."
Surely these are strong words, and there is far more truth in them than the Pope would recognize. But I must pass away from the opinion respecting Anglican Orders with only the remark that we are certain that our ministry is validly ordained. Later on I shall quote opinions to confirm it.
After Parker's consecration then, he set to work to fill up the vacant English Sees, for which he consecrated other Bishops, according to the old forms and ceremonies.
In the year 1562, an important document was drawn up to preserve the doctrine of the Church of England. The Forty-two Articles of Edward were revised. The object of this was to procure greater uniformity in the Church through the clergy subscribing to them. These Articles were finally reduced to Thirty-nine, as we have them now. In the year 1563, the clergy were asked to subscribe to them, and have subscribed to them ever since. These changes mentioned of Elizabeth's time completed the Reformation in England, and Ecclesia Anglicana was, through these measures, freed for ever from the Pope's authority and usurpation.
In Elizabeth's time there were many attempts on the part of the Romanists to give the Pope the upper hand in England. But they all failed. Philip of Spain tried hard by his desire to marry Elizabeth to influence the religious life of our country again. The Jesuits were sent over to England to undermine the Church's constitution, but they were jealously watched in their ardent desires, and several of their leaders were put to death. The Armada came to the Channel crowned with the papal blessing, carrying a whole host of priests and monks on board, and having loads of instruments of torture used by the Spanish Inquisition. [19]"Sed Deus afflavit et dissipati sunt." God breathed on them and they all were scattered.
Elizabeth was a strong woman, and irreligious though perhaps she was, well skilled in equivocation and lying, as she certainly was, yet she did a good work for England. She has made it what it is to-day by her splendid laws, and it was not without reason that she was lovingly styled "The Good Queen Bess."
Now I have completed the general outline of the work of the Reformation in England. Let us speak for a short time of the benefits of this movement to the Church of England.
The Reformation, for one thing, gave us the Holy Scriptures in our language. It ordered that the services of the Church should be said in our own tongue, instead of in a language which none but the learned could understand. In addition to this there were three other things which the Reformation did for us. It, once and for all, effectually excluded the Pope from claiming any authority over the Church of England. It gave us our magnificent Book of Common Prayer. It also gave us a theological document, the Thirty-nine Articles. I will speak briefly on each of these three benefits, and, for the sake of clearness, I must repeat some things which I have said before.
Instead of the Pope the Sovereign was made the Supreme Governor in England. This decision was only taking us back to the old laws of our land, which were recognized by the Conqueror and even by kings before his time. The clergy were willing to acknowledge the Sovereign as the Protector of the Church. But not in the sense that Henry at first requested. He desired to call himself to "Protector and Supreme Head of the Church." But the clergy would not have a royal Pope, even though they wanted to be rid of the Pope of Rome. They therefore insisted in their convocation on inserting a clause in the document, asserting the extent of the king's power. Henry should be supreme over the Church. "Quantum per Christi leges licet," in so far as this be agreeable to the laws of Christ. This attitude of the subject Henry himself took in later years. He wrote to the Bishop of Durham: [20]"We be as God's law suffereth us to be, whereunto we do and must conform ourselves." The clergy did not look upon the Sovereign as having authority over the spiritual affairs of the Church. Henry also shows us that he agreed to this. In his letter to the Convocation of York, he says:—
[21]"As to spiritual things, meaning by them the Sacraments, being by God ordained as instruments of efficacy and strength, whereby grace is of His infinite goodness conferred upon His people, forasmuch as they be no worldly nor temporal things, they have no worldly nor temporal head, but only Christ that did institute them, by Whose ordinance they be ministered here by mortal men elect, chosen and ordered as God hath willed for that purpose, who be the clergy." And again: "In these their ministrations the clergy exercise functions which transcend all human authority, and if these functions are viciously or carelessly performed, but without overt scandal, they are answerable to God alone."
I have quoted at some length these sentiments because some people say that the Sovereign now has a right to alter our doctrines and has control of our spiritual heritage. Nothing is farther from the truth.
The next benefit of the Reformation was the gift of our beautiful Prayer Book. As we have remarked, before this movement many Service Books were used in England. From a comparison of these our present Book was compiled, so that most of its contents are of very ancient date, and much of it comes down from Apostolic times, as, for example, many of the Collects and the greater part of the Office for Holy Communion. We have seen that in Edward's reign two Prayer Books were published. The latter was brought about through the protestantizing influence of the Puritans. The Second Book of Edward was restored in Elizabeth's reign, with additions giving it a more Catholic tone. The Book was slightly changed in the time of James I. The last revision was made in the reign of Charles II., when a few prayers were added and some other small details omitted. This is in brief the history of our Book of Common Prayer, which is now so highly prized.
The other gift of the Reformation was the theological treatise, the Thirty-nine Articles of religion. The object for which they were drawn up was to preserve unity of doctrine in the Church. They were preceded by the Ten Articles of Cranmer. The first draft of our Articles was forty-two in number, drawn up in Edward's reign. When Elizabeth came to the throne these were again remodelled, but still remained in number forty-two. In her reign they were changed again as we now have them. They are thirty-nine. These Articles were drawn up after the model of the Lutheran confession of faith. They have served a good purpose, and I am convinced that they serve a good purpose now if those who subscribe to them honestly understand what the act of subscription means.
The Articles originally were drawn up to include in our Church men who had opposite theological tendencies. They were so constructed by Cranmer that Calvinists as well as Arminians might subscribe them. This is the reason why one of them, at least, is so difficult to understand.
Now I must draw to a close. We have seen that the Reformation in England was an important movement. We have seen what its benefits were to the Church of our land. Now, as I very much want you to see that no new Church was made by the events brought to your consideration to-night, I wish to emphasize this thought a little more. What happened at the Reformation was that the Pope was told, once and for all, to keep out of the Church of England, and those clergy who sided with him were urged to resign or else to change their opinions on this important point. No new doctrine was introduced. There was no schism. The Bishops descended in continuous line from the days of S. Augustine. Henry wrote to Cardinal Pole that it was not his object to break the historical continuity of the Church, nor [22]"to separate himself, or his realm, from the unity of Christ's Church, but inviolably, and at all times, to keep and observe the same, and redeem the Church of England out of captivity of foreign powers heretofore usurped therein."
Hardwick the historian says: [23]"In this country, as the old episcopal organization was preserved inviolable, the succession of ministers was also uninterrupted and the spirituality continued to form a separate estate."
Even an Unitarian, whose sympathies would certainly be the other way, was willing himself to acknowledge—I mean Dr. Beard in his Hibbert Lecture on the Reformation—that [24]"There is no point at which it can be said, here the old Church ends, here the new begins. Are you inclined to take the act of supremacy as such a point? I have already shown that Henry's assumption of headship was but the last decisive act of a struggle which had been going on for almost five centuries. The retention of the Episcopate by the English reformers at once helped to preserve this continuity, and marked it in the distinctest way. … It is an obvious fact that Parker was the successor of Augustine, just as clearly as Lanfranc and Becket, Warham, Cranmer, Pole, Parker - there is no break in the line, though the first and third are claimed as (Roman) Catholic, the second and fourth as Protestants." Only one more quotation from another writer of authority. It rans: [25]"No historic fact is clearer than that the Church of England retained every essential element of her ancient organization, her apostolic doctrines, and her national character all through the years when the Tudors reigned. She never lost her identity. She lost her old Monasteries, it is true, and cast off many errors that the foreign clergy had introduced; but the Bishops and parochial clergy retained their respective positions, performed their duties in the same Churches, to the same congregations, and retained such endowments as the monastic system had allowed them to keep. Corruptions were cut away, sometimes at the expense and loss of much that was good; the usurped power of the Popes was successfully overthrown, but no new Church was founded."
Let no one assert, then, now that the Church of England was born at the Reformation. The very phrase "Church of England" was used in Magna Charta. Let no one assert that the Church of England is only a thing boasting of three centuries' creation, and that its creation came through an immoral king. The movement which we have considered to-night only purged our Church of its mediæval corruptions, gave us a new and valued liturgy, and it told finally and effectually the Pope of Rome to consider this fact, that he was not wanted in our country.
- ↑ Hore, p.228.
- ↑ Green's History, p.299.
- ↑ p.308.
- ↑ Book of the Church, p.294.
- ↑ Hore, p.241.
- ↑ Hore, p.243.
- ↑ Hore, p. 243
- ↑ Short History, p.333.
- ↑ Hore, p.250.
- ↑ Quoted from Spelman, Ibid.
- ↑ Quoted by Southey, p. 308.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ Ibid. p.309.
- ↑ Hore, p.256.
- ↑ Hore, p.263.
- ↑ Short History, p.354.
- ↑ Quote by Lane in Notes on Church History, p.75. Modern period. There is doubt as to whether Elizabeth is the author of this verse.
- ↑ Quoted by Hore, p. 300.
- ↑ Motto on the medals struck to commemorate the victory over the Armada
- ↑ Hore, Vol. II., p.510, The Church in England, from William III. to Victoria.
- ↑ pp.34 and 25, J.S. Brewer's Establishment: Its Origin, History, and Effects (S.P.C.K.).
- ↑ p.506, Vol. II, Hore, History of Church of England from William III. to Victoria
- ↑ p.328, Reformation (1890 edit.)
- ↑ Hibbert Lecture, p.311.
- ↑ pp. 103-4, Lane's Notes on Church History, Vol. II.